Facts of the Case
‘A’ and ‘B’ are jointly tried by a competent court for the murder of C. During the course of the trial, A makes a confession before the Court, stating that “B and I murdered C.”
The prosecution seeks to rely on this confession of A not only against A himself but also against B, the co-accused. This raises the question regarding the evidentiary value of a confession made by one accused against another co-accused.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the confession made by A is admissible against B, the co-accused?
- What is the evidentiary value of such a confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
- Can the confession alone form the basis of B’s conviction?
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
A. Confession of Co-Accused – Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 30 provides:
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.
Conditions for applicability:
- The confession must be voluntary and true.
- The accused persons must be jointly tried.
- The confession must affect both the maker and the co-accused.
B. Nature of Evidence Under Section 30
- A confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence.
- It can only be used as corroborative evidence.
- The words “may take into consideration” indicate that the Court has discretion, not compulsion.
Important Rule:
A co-accused’s confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction of another accused.
C. Judicial Interpretation
- Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (1952)
- Held that a confession of a co-accused is weak evidence and can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence.
- Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964)
- The Supreme Court held that co-accused confessions are not substantive evidence and cannot independently justify conviction.
- State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Arif
- Confession under Section 30 can be used only in support of other credible evidence.
D. Application to the Present Case
- A’s confession clearly implicates both A and B.
- Since A and B are jointly tried, Section 30 applies.
- However, the confession cannot be relied upon alone to convict B.
- Independent evidence (eye-witnesses, recoveries, forensic proof, motive) is mandatory.
Possible Judgement
The Court is likely to hold that:
- A’s confession is admissible against himself as substantive evidence.
- Under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court may take the confession into consideration against B.
- The confession has limited evidentiary value against B and can be used only for corroboration.
- B cannot be convicted solely on the basis of A’s confession in the absence of independent evidence.
Final Decision
Yes, the Court can consider A’s confession against B, but only as corroborative evidence under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A confession by a co-accused cannot be the sole ground for conviction of another accused.
About lawgnan
If you want to master criminal law concepts with clarity, accuracy, and exam-ready explanations, visit Lawgana.in today. Explore detailed notes, case laws, legal templates, and expert-crafted summaries that make even the most complex evidence law topics easy to understand. Whether you’re a law student, advocate, or judicial aspirant, Lawgana.in provides structured guidance, real case applications, and high-quality legal content you can rely on. Stay ahead in your preparation—follow Lawgana.in for daily updates, practical insights, and simplified legal learning tailored to your needs. Click now and enhance your legal knowledge.
