‘A’, an accused person admitted that he along with B, the fellow accused committed Robbery. What is the admissible value of confession made by one accused person against the co-accused person?

Facts of the Case

‘A’, an accused in a robbery case, admitted that he, along with ‘B’, the co-accused, committed the robbery. The prosecution seeks to rely on A’s confession to implicate B.

The question arises whether a confession made by one accused can be used as evidence against the co-accused, and what is its admissible value under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether a confession made by one accused is admissible against a co-accused?
2. What is the evidentiary value of such a confession under Indian law?
3. How should courts treat confessions made by co-accused persons?

Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgments

A. Confession by an Accused – Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act

• Section 25: A confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against the person making it.
• Section 26: Confession made while in police custody is generally inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate.

Key Point: Confessions to police are largely inadmissible, but confessions made before a Magistrate or voluntarily are admissible.

B. Confession Affecting Co-accused – Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 30 provides:

When two or more persons are tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by one of them may be proved against the others if it is made in the course of the same transaction.

Essentials:

1. Confession must relate to the same transaction or conspiracy.
2. Must be voluntary and relevant.
3. The co-accused’s presence is not required, but the confession must directly implicate them.

C. Judicial Interpretation

1. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Arif – Confession by one accused is admissible against co-accused if it pertains to the same offence and forms part of the transaction.
2. Raghunath Singh v. State of U.P. – The weight of the confession against co-accused is lesser than against the person who made it; corroboration is often required.

Key Principle:

• A confession by one accused cannot be the sole basis for convicting a co-accused.
• Independent evidence is required to corroborate the confession regarding the co-accused.

D. Admissible Value

• Confession of A is admissible against B, but its probative value is limited.
• Courts treat it as strong but not conclusive evidence.
• Corroboration through recovery of stolen property, eyewitnesses, or other material evidence is required for conviction of co-accused.

Possible Judgment

The Court is likely to hold that:

1. The confession made by A implicating both A and B is admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. The confession can be used against B, but its weight is limited and cannot by itself result in conviction.
3. The court will require corroborative evidence linking B to the robbery before recording conviction.
4. If sufficient corroboration exists, both A and B may be convicted; if not, B may be acquitted despite A’s confession.

Final Decision

A confession by one accused (A) is admissible against a co-accused (B) under Section 30, but cannot solely convict B. Independent corroboration is essential to establish B’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

About lawgnan

If you want to understand how Indian courts treat confessions made by co-accused and how Section 30 of the Evidence Act controls their evidentiary value, explore more expert-written legal explanations on Lawgana.in. Our platform provides clear, accurate, and practical guidance for students, advocates, and anyone preparing for competitive exams. Stay updated with case laws, statutory interpretations, legal notes, and simplified study material. Visit Lawgana.in today and empower yourself with trustworthy legal knowledge designed to support both academic excellence and professional practice.