Section 96 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 96 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023
1. Title and Purpose of Section 96
Section 96 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with the exclusion of certain evidence regarding statements by police officers in investigation.
In simple terms, this section specifies when a statement made by a police officer is not admissible as evidence in court when the police officer is talking about what happened during the investigation process.
2. What Does Section 96 Provide?
Section 96 states that:
A statement made by a police officer during the course of an investigation cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding, unless the statement was made in the presence of the person accused, and he or she had an opportunity to cross‑examine the officer at the time of making that statement.
3. Key Legal Principles in Section 96
(a) Exclusion of Police Statements
A police officer’s statement about what took place in the investigation cannot be admitted as evidence by itself.
This prevents the use of possibly self‑serving or untested statements by law enforcement as proof of guilt.
(b) Preventing Misuse
The section safeguards against the automatic admission of statements by the investigating officer, which might otherwise influence the court without proper testing.
(c) Ensuring Fair Trial
Statements made during investigation often reflect the officer’s view or belief.
Section 96 ensures that only evidence that is properly examined in court counts.
4. When Can a Police Officer’s Statement Be Used?
Section 96 also clarifies the only situation where a statement made by a police officer during investigation can be relied on:
✅ If the statement was made in the presence of the accused, and
✅ The accused was given a real opportunity to cross‑examine the officer at that time.
This ensures:
Statements become admissible only when the accused has a chance to challenge them.
The court gets to hear both sides before accepting such evidence.
5. Why Is This Rule Important?
(i) Protects Rights of Accused
Without this rule, statements by police made during investigation could unfairly bias the court.
The accused must be able to confront and test such statements.
(ii) Safeguards Against Improper Evidence
It stops prosecution from using unverified police opinions or summaries as evidence.
Encourages reliance on direct evidence, physical evidence, and properly recorded testimony in court.
(iii) Promotes Reliability
Evidence must be subject to cross‑examination — a fundamental principle of fair trials.
Police statements outside court aren’t tested unless challenged in court.
6. Example to Illustrate Section 96
Scenario
A police officer records a suspect’s alleged confession during investigation.
Later, at trial, the prosecutor wants to put forward the officer’s written note of that alleged confession.
Application of Section 96
This statement cannot be admitted unless:
The accused was present when the officer made the note,
The accused was allowed to cross‑examine the officer at that time.
If not, the statement must be excluded.
7. Relationship With Other Legal Principles
Section 96 reflects the basic rule that:
Evidence must be reliable, tested, and subject to cross‑examination.
Hearsay or out‑of‑court statements (including by police) are generally excluded unless conditions for admissibility are met.
Section 96 harmonizes BSA with the principle of fair trial and rights of the accused.
8. Comparison With Common Law Tradition
Under traditional criminal procedure:
Statements made by police during investigation are not substantive evidence.
They may guide the investigation but are not conclusive at trial.
Section 96 codifies this, emphasizing:
Police investigation statements are not admissible unless the accused had the opportunity to challenge them.
9. Summary of Key Points
| Aspect | Brief Explanation |
|---|---|
| Subject | Police statements in investigation |
| General Rule | Such statements are not admissible evidence |
| Exception | Only admissible if the accused was present and cross‑examined at the time |
| Purpose | Protects fair trial rights and prevents misuse of untested statements |
| Underlying Principle | Evidence must be testable and reliable |
10. Practical Implications in Court
Prosecutors must present evidence independently — not rely on police notes.
Investigating officers must testify in court if their evidence is to be considered.
Accused have the right to challenge statements attributed to them.
RELATED Blog
comments