Facts of the Case
‘X’ and ‘Y’ were involved in the murder of a person. During investigation and trial, ‘X’ confessed that he along with ‘Y’ committed the murder.
At the time of trial of ‘X’, ‘Y’ was absconding and could not be apprehended. The trial proceeded only against ‘X’, and he was convicted based on evidence including his confession.
After five years, ‘Y’ was caught and tried separately for the same offence. During the trial of ‘Y’, the prosecution sought to produce the confession made by ‘X’ in his earlier trial as evidence against ‘Y’.
The admissibility of this confession against ‘Y’ is in question.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the confession of an accused can be used against a co-accused who was not jointly tried with him?
- Whether Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act allows the confession of X to be used against Y in a separate trial?
- Whether a confession made in a previous trial is admissible as substantive evidence against another accused?
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
A. Confession of Co-accused – Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 30 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 such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession against the other persons as well.
Essential Requirements under Section 30:
- There must be more than one accused.
- They must be jointly tried.
- The confession must affect both the maker and the co-accused.
If any of these conditions are absent, Section 30 does not apply.
B. Nature of Confession of Co-accused
- Confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence.
- It can only be used to lend assurance to other independent evidence.
- It cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
C. Judicial Interpretation
- Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)
- Confession of a co-accused is very weak evidence and can only be used when the accused are jointly tried.
- Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964)
- Confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as evidence unless Section 30 conditions are fulfilled.
- State v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case)
- Confession made in a separate trial is inadmissible against a co-accused.
D. Application to Present Case
- ‘X’ and ‘Y’ were not jointly tried.
- ‘Y’ was absconding at the time of ‘X’s trial.
- The confession of ‘X’ was made in a separate and concluded trial.
- Section 30 cannot be invoked, as the requirement of joint trial is absent.
Possible Judgement
The Court is likely to hold that:
- The confession made by ‘X’ is not admissible against ‘Y’.
- Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act does not apply, as there was no joint trial.
- A confession made in the trial of one accused cannot be used as evidence in the separate trial of another accused.
- The prosecution must prove the guilt of ‘Y’ through independent and admissible evidence.
Final Conclusion
The confession made by ‘X’ cannot be used as evidence against ‘Y’ in a separate trial conducted years later. Under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a co-accused’s confession is admissible only when both accused are jointly tried. Since ‘Y’ was absconding and tried separately, the confession of ‘X’ is inadmissible against ‘Y’.
About lawgnan
If you want deeper clarity on evidence laws, co-accused confessions, or how Section 30 applies to criminal trials, visit Lawgana.in for expert legal insights. Our platform provides simplified explanations, case law analysis, and practical legal guidance to help you understand complex legal issues with ease. Whether you’re a law student, advocate, or someone facing a legal challenge, Lawgana.in offers reliable resources designed to support your learning and legal needs. Explore detailed articles, case studies, and legal updates today and enhance your understanding of Indian evidence law. Visit Lawgana.in now for more.
