VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Evidence Act › Chapter II › Section 33

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts · Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses

Section 33: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.

Now in the BSA section 27 (Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated)

In plain words

Evidence given by a witness in an earlier judicial proceeding is relevant in a later proceeding, or a later stage of the same one, to prove the facts it states, if the witness is dead, cannot be found, cannot give evidence, is kept away by the other side, or cannot be brought without unreasonable delay or expense.

  • The proceedings must have been between the same parties or their representatives, the other side must have had the right and chance to cross-examine, and the issues must be substantially the same.
  • A criminal trial is treated as a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Official text

Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:

Provided –– that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.

Explanation.––A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 33