Confession of Accused against Co-Accused

« »

Confession is an important form of evidence which can be used for proving a case in the Court of law.
The confession of the co-accused is undoubtedly and admissible in court as provided by Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

Confession is not defined under the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
- Although Justice Stephen in his Digest of the Law of Evidence defines confession as an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.
The expression confession means a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt. It is an admission as to the commission of an offence.
If a person accused of an offence makes a statement against himself, it is called confession or confessional statement.

Co-Accused

Co-accused means any person who is tried jointly with the accused for the same offence.
The concept as provided under Section 30 of IEA is as follows:
- When more than one person is jointly tried for the same offence, then in such cases the confession of one of the accused is found to be admissible as evidence, must be taken as a confession against all other accused persons who are being jointly tried.
- Illustration: A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said. - "A and I murdered C".
Section 30 of IEA provides an exception to the general rule of the confession as a piece of evidence that it can be used against only the person making it and not the others.
It provides that where more persons than one is tried jointly for the same offence, the confession made by one of them is admissible against all of them.

Essential Requirements

A confession by an accused may be taken into consideration provided other co-accused are jointly tried for the same offence.
Example:
- “A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B and that B said - A and I murdered C. This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A as B is not being jointly tried”.
To make a joint trial legal, the accusation must be a real one and not merely an excuse for a joinder of charges which otherwise cannot be joined.
The confession made by a person originally charged with accused but discharged on withdrawal of case against the accused cannot be used against the other accused.
In Ram Swaroop v. Emperor (1937), Calcutta High Court held that where during course of trial one of the co accused died but before his death his confession was recorded, such a confession can be used against other co accused but it will not be a substantive piece of evidence.

It means identical offence and not the offence of the same kind.
Offences are of same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same Section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or of any special or local law.
It does not include offence done by different persons in same transaction.

Section 30 does not mean that that the confession of one accused will be considered as evidence against the co-accused. It only says that the court may take into consideration such confession.
The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of only confessional statement of co-accused as it is not substantive piece of evidence.
A confession of co-accused can be used to corroborate other evidence.
It may assist the court in coming to the conclusion that the other evidence is true and therefore an accused is guilty.
The conviction must be based on the other evidence the confession of co-accused can only be used to help to testify a court that the other evidence is true.

Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011):
- The Supreme Court held that confession of a co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and that it can only be used to confirm the conclusion drawn from other evidence in a criminal trial.
- The court further stated that the trial court cannot begin on the basis of the confession of the co-accused. Rather, the courts must Analyse all the evidence which are being adduced, and on being satisfied with the guilt of accused.
Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (1952):
- The Supreme Court held 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 which is sufficient and if the court believes to support his conviction, then confession of co-accused described under Section 30 of IEA may be used as an additional reason for believing that evidence.
Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949):
- The Bombay High Court in this case held that the confession of the co accused is a weak type of evidence. It is not recorded on oath, nor it is tested by cross examination.
- It is a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver as approver gives the testimony under oath and is subjected to cross examination. Therefore, the confession of co-accused cannot be made the basis of conviction.

Section 30 of IEA says that the Court may consider the confession of co-accused as evidence.
A confession by a co-accused cannot be treated in the same way as the testimony of an accomplice.
Evidence of a co-accused is very weak evidence. The evidence of co-accused can be used only to corroborate other evidence.
A conviction cannot solely be based on the confession of the co-accused.