Law Maker

CHAPTER XXV EVIDENCE IN INQUIRIES AND TRIALS · B.—Commissions for the examination of witnesses

Section 335: Record of evidence in absence of accused

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(1) If it is proved that an accused person has absconded, and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court competent to try, or commit for trial, such person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution, and record their depositions and any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the inquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable.

(2) If it appears that an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been committed by some person or persons unknown, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct that any Magistrate of the first class shall hold an inquiry and examine any witnesses who can give evidence concerning the offence and any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person who is subsequently accused of the offence, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or beyond the limits of India.

Corresponding CrPC provision

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

335299. Record of evidence in absence of accused.

Questions on this section

4 questions in 7 of our papers cite Section 335. Try these from the free papers:

  1. 1. In Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (31 July 2026), the deposition of a prosecution witness, recorded at the earlier trial of a co-accused while the appellant was absconding, was used to convict the appellant after his arrest in 2017; the witness had since died. The Supreme Court acquitted him because:

  2. 2. A, accused of an offence, absconds, and it is proved that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. The Court competent to try him examines W, a prosecution witness, in A's absence and records his deposition under Section 335(1) of the BNSS. A is arrested a year later, by which time W has died. At A's trial, W's deposition:

  3. 3. Match the Supreme Court judgments of July 2026 (List I) with the provision chiefly interpreted (List II): List I A. A.K. Ghosh & Company v. Biman Bose B. Mahinder v. Puran Singh C. Mahendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh D. Himanshu Chordia v. State of Rajasthan List II 1. Section 22, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 2. Order VIII Rule 6G, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 3. Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 4. Section 299, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Practise questions on Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita