S.S.

JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE

Evidentiary Value Of Confession In Case Of Co- Accused

Submission To: Submitted By:

MS. BHAVYA GANGWAL ASHISH SHARMA

ASST. PROF. OF LAW Roll no: - 08

VIII Semester

S.S. Jain Subodh Law College

Page | 1
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
 CERTIFICATE

To whomsoever it may concern, This is to certify that, the dissertation titled “Evidentiary

Value Of Confession In Case Of Co- Accused” submitted by Ashish Sharma in

fulfillment for the award of the degree of B.A.LL.B. at S.S. Jain Subodh Law College is the
project of research carried out under my guidance and supervision.

Ms. Bhavya gangwal

Asst. Prof. of Law
S.S. Jain Subodh Law College

Page | 2
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
 AKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express our humble gratitude and personal regards to Ms. Bhavya
gangwal for inspiring me and guiding me during the course of this project work and also for
her cooperation and guidance from time to time during the course of this project work on the
topic “Evidentiary Value Of Confession In Case Of Co- Accused”.

Date:
Place: Jaipur
Ashish Sharma

Page | 3
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the topic Evidentiary Value Of

Confession In Case Of Co- Accused forming a concrete informative capsule of the

same with an insight into its relevance in the Indian market.

Scope and Limitations:

In this project the researcher has tried to include different aspects pertaining to the concept of
Evidentiary Value Of Confession In Case Of Co- Accused.

Data Collection:
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-
 Websites
 Books

Method of Writing and Mode of Citation:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research project is primarily
analytical. The researcher has followed Uniform method of citation throughout the course of
this research project.

Page | 4
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
Introduction

Under our law a confession affecting the maker thereof and a co-accused in a joint
trial for the same offence, may be considered both against the maker and a co-
accused. This provision is contained in Section 30 of the Evidence Act. It is as
follows: Section 30, Evidence Act, “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 person as well as against the
person who makes such confession. The confession of a co-accused is no doubt
admissible in evidence. The co-accused un-corroborative by any other evidence is
not sufficient to sustain to conviction. The court cannot straightway start with the
confession of co-accused. If there is substantial evidence against the accused and
there remains some doubt lingering them the confession of the co-accused may be
taken into consideration to set that doubt at rest. The S.C. held that is the provisions
of Section 30 of Evidence Act, the confession of co-accused has to be regarded as
amounting to evidence is general way because whatever considered by the court is
evidence. In that sense the circumstances as well as probabilities considered by the
court as amount to evidence. But these are not defined as evidence u/S 3 of the
Evidence Act. Prior to passing of Evidence Act 1872, the statement of an accused
person was not evidence against a tell as prisoner or one who was jointly tried by
with person making it. In English law a prisoner is not liable to be affected by
confession of his accomplices. The general rule is that the confession of an accused
person is not evidence against anyone but himself only. A confession implicated the
names of the other person. It was held that it should be proved in its integrity. But it
was the duty of judge not to consider the evidence against anyone but the confess
nor itself. It two persons were charged with joint commission of an offence, one of
them on his examination before a magistrate, stated in the hearing of the other that
they both that they both committed the offence the other did not deny it. It was held
that this statement of one was not evidence against the other. It is necessary that the
person confessing and other person against whom his confession is to be taken into
consideration should be tried jointly.

Page | 5
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
The High Courts in India have a view that the confession of the co-accused can be
used only in the support of other evidence. Clearly there must be evidence. It cannot
be made the foundation of conviction is correct. A confession of a person jointly tried
with the prisoner can be taken into consideration against him, it must appeal that the
confession implicates the confessing person substantially to the same extent as it
implicates the confessing person against whom it is to be used. A person admits guilt
to the fullest extent and exposes himself to the pains penalties provided for his guilt.
Then there is guarantee for truth of his confession. The legislature provides that the
statement may be considered against his fellow prisoners charged with same crime.
A statement made by an accused person before it can be taken into consideration
against a fellow prisoner. According to section 30 of the Act, must amount to a
confession, on the part of the maker with respect to the offence which all one
charged. His confession may be taken into consideration against such other as well
as against himself because the admission of his guilt operates as a sort of sanction
which is to some extent affords some guarantee of the truth of the whole statement.

Section 30, is a very exceptional indeed, an ordinarily provision by which something

which is not evidence may be used against the person at his trial. So such provision
must be used with greatest caution and care.

Page | 6
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
OBJECTIVES

1. To understand the meaning of confession.

2. To understand the scope of Section 30.

3. To analyse the evidentiary value of confessions.

SCOPE OF SECTION 30

The section enacts that when more than one person being tried jointly for the same
offence, a confession made by one person from them affecting himself and such
other persons is proved the court may take into consideration such confession as
against such other persons as well as against the confessor. The word may, in this
section make it clear that it is the discretion of the court to consider it or not, against
such other person. It is not bound in law to use such confessional against such other
persons. It has also emphasized that such confessional statements being not given
on oath, not in the presence of co-accused. It veracity cannot be tested by cross-
examination. So it should be used against the maker and not against the others. This
section has introduced first time in Indian Evidence Act, in 1872 and makes a
departure from the common law of English. It is an innovation of a very serious
character, which is liable to cause injustice if it is not properly understood and
applied. It can be used against the co-accused only to support the other evidence. It
cannot be made foundation of conviction against him. This section applies to
confessing not to statements which do not admit the guilt of the conferring party. It is
opposed to the principle of jurisprudence to use the statement against a person
without giving him the opportunity of cross-examination, the person making the
statement.

The Privy Council in Bhubani v. King, discussed the exact scope of section 30:

Section 50 applies to confession not to the statements. This section seems to be

based on the view that an admission by an accused person of his own guilt affords
some sort of sanction in support of the truth of his own confession against, other as

Page | 7
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
well as co-accused. It is a weak type of confession, section 30 does not define the
co-accused evidence. It is not based on the oath, not in the presence of the co-
accused, nor can it be cross-examined. It is a supporting evidence not amounting to
proof.

The Supreme Court approved these observations of Privy Council in the case of
Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P.

Where the other evidence against the accused is less satisfactory and the
prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of the co-accused. Then the
presumption of innocence, which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence, assists the
accused person and compels the court to render the verdict that the charge is not
proved against him and so the accused is entitled to benefit of the doubt. It is
obvious that the confession of an accused cannot be used as a substantive piece of
evidence against co-accused. The principle is that where there is evidence against
the co-accused is sufficient if the court believes to support his conviction then this
kind of confession described u/S 30 may throw into scale as an additional reason for
believing that evidence.

The court must insist on independent evidence which implicates the co-accused. The
fact and circumstances must raise not a mere suspicion is not, but proved beyond
doubt the co-accused person complicity in the crime. Mere suspicion is not proof.
The extra judicial confession of an co-accused involving the other co-accused can
not be utilized against them in the absence of the other independent evidence.

In case of Kashmiri Singh v. State of M.P. The accused committed the crime. He
confessed the crime and implicating himself and Kashmiri Singh. The court convicted
the accused and Kashmiri Singh appealed to the S.C. The court acquitted the
appellant and held that a man should not be deprived his life and liberty only on the
basis of uncorroborated confession of his co-accused.

Page | 8
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
Conclusion

Confession is the strongest evidence against the maker of it. Once admitted in
evidence, it leads to conviction of the accused even without any other evidence in
some cases. The court should always be cautious enough before convicting an
accused based only on his confession. The Courts have formulated some rules of
prudence and rules of caution so that an accused is not convicted only on the basis
of his statement to ensure that no innocent be punished. These rules have, by
practice over the years, become as much enforceable as rules of law. The trial court
has to decide depending on the facts and circumstances of each case before it. For
more clarity and uniformity of decisions the accepted rules of prudence may be
recognised by statutes. Besides section 24 of the Evidence Act may be amended to
include the terms ‘torture’, ‘coercion’, ‘cruelty’, ‘inhuman treatment’ along with
‘threat’, ‘inducement’, ‘promise’ to reject all involuntary confessions. Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 may be amended to include all law enforcing and security
agencies with police or alternatively the term ‘police’ and ‘voluntary’ may be defined
for more clarity. Provisions should be made regulating admissibility and evidentiary
value of confession by gesture. Section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1972 may be
amended to clearly state, like section 34 of the said act which states that entries in
books of account are relevant but shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge
any person with liability, that confession of a co-accused shall not sufficient evidence
to convict a non-confessing accused. Similar provision may be made on conviction
on the basis of an extrajudicial oral confession.

Page | 9
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR
Bibliography

Books:

 DR. V NAGESWARA RAO, THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1ST EDITION, LEXIS NEXIS
BUTTERWORTHS
 M.C. SARKAR, S.C. SARKAR, PRABHAS C. SARKAR, SUDIPTO SARKAR, SARKAR'S LAW
OF EVIDENCE, 18TH EDITION, LexisNexis Butterworths

Websites:
 http://www.lawof.in
 http://youngarenalitigators.blogspot.in

Page | 10
S.S. JAIN SUBODH LAW COLLEGE, JAIPUR