Facts of the Case
‘X’ and ‘Y’ are jointly tried before a competent criminal court for the murder of ‘Z’. During the trial, X makes a statement admitting his involvement and further states that “I myself and Y murdered Z.”
The prosecution seeks to rely upon this statement not only against X, the maker of the statement, but also against Y, the co-accused. The admissibility and evidentiary value of this statement against Y is questioned.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the statement made by X amounts to a confession under the Indian Evidence Act?
- Whether such a confession made by one accused is relevant and admissible against the co-accused Y?
- Whether Y can be convicted solely on the basis of X’s statement?
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
A. Confession by a Co-Accused – Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states:
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other persons also.
Essential conditions:
- There must be a joint trial of two or more accused.
- The confession must be voluntary and proved.
- The confession must incriminate both the maker and the co-accused.
All these conditions are satisfied in the present case.
B. Nature and Evidentiary Value of Co-Accused Confession
- A confession under Section 30 is not substantive evidence against the co-accused.
- It is only a weak piece of corroborative evidence.
- The phrase “may take into consideration” indicates judicial discretion, not mandatory acceptance.
Important Legal Position:
A co-accused’s confession cannot form the sole basis of conviction of another accused.
C. Relevant Case Laws
- Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)
- The Supreme Court held that a confession of a co-accused is only supportive evidence and cannot independently sustain a conviction.
- Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964)
- It was held that confession of a co-accused is not evidence in the strict sense and can only be used to reinforce other evidence.
- State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Arif
- Co-accused confession can be considered only if there is substantial independent evidence against the accused.
D. Application to the Present Case
- X’s statement is a confession implicating both X and Y.
- Since X and Y are jointly tried, Section 30 applies.
- However, the statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence against Y.
- The prosecution must produce independent corroborative evidence against Y.
Possible Judgement
The Court is likely to hold that:
- The statement made by X is fully admissible against X himself.
- Under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the confession is relevant against Y, the co-accused.
- However, the confession has limited probative value against Y and can only be used to corroborate other evidence.
- Y cannot be convicted solely on the basis of X’s confession in the absence of independent evidence.
Final Conclusion
Yes, the statement made by X is relevant against Y under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It may only be used as corroborative material, and independent evidence is essential to sustain a conviction against Y.
About lawgnan
If you found this legal explanation helpful and want to deepen your understanding of Indian Evidence Law, visit Lawgana.in today. Our platform offers clear, concise, and exam-oriented legal content tailored for law students, judiciary aspirants, legal researchers, and professionals. Explore detailed case analyses, section-wise explanations, judgment summaries, and practical insights that simplify even the most complex legal concepts. Stay updated with the latest legal developments and strengthen your knowledge with reliable, well-structured resources. Start your legal learning journey with confidence—follow Lawgana.in for expert guidance and high-quality legal content.
