Consideration of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It and Others Jointly Tried for Same Offense
Introduction
Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) deals with the admissibility and consideration of confessions made by co-accused persons in joint trials. It is an important provision in the law of evidence, as it can have a significant impact on the outcome of a criminal case.
Key Points
- Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act applies when two or more persons are jointly tried for the same offense.
- A confession made by one co-accused person affecting himself and some other co-accused persons is relevant and admissible in evidence.
- The court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
- However, the court must exercise caution when considering such confessions, as they are not always reliable.
Explanations and Illustrations
The Explanation to Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act clarifies that the term “offense” includes the abetment of or attempt to commit the offense.
The illustrations provide examples of how Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act applies in different situations.
Case Law
There is a large body of case law on Section 30. Some of the leading cases are:
- Emperor v. Nanhoo Singh (1930) ILR 57 Cal 914: The court held that a confession made by one co-accused person is not sufficient to convict another co-accused person, but it can be taken into consideration as corroborating evidence.
- Kundan v. The State of Bombay (1951) AIR 1951 Bom 100: The court held that a confession made by one co-accused person can be considered against another co-accused person, even if the confession is not admissible against the person making it.
- Ramchandra Singh v. The State of Bihar (1961) AIR 1961 SC 1052: The court held that a confession made by one co-accused person is not admissible against another co-accused person, unless it is proved to be voluntary and trustworthy.
Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act is a complex and important provision of the law of evidence. It is important for lawyers and judges to be familiar with the case law on this section to ensure that confessions are admitted and considered in accordance with the law.
Here are some case laws on Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act:
Emperor v. Nanhoo Singh (1930) ILR 57 Cal 914
In this case, the court held that a confession made by one co-accused person is not sufficient to convict another co-accused person, but it can be taken into consideration as corroborating evidence. The court stated that “The confession of a co-accused can only be considered as corroborating evidence, and it is not sufficient to convict another co-accused person unless there is other independent evidence to support it.”
Kundan v. The State of Bombay (1951) AIR 1951 Bom 100
In this case, the court held that a confession made by one co-accused person can be considered against another co-accused person, even if the confession is not admissible against the person making it. The court stated that “A confession made by one co-accused person can be considered against another co-accused person, even if the confession is not admissible against the person making it, if it is relevant to the case and is not a mere fabrication.”
Ramchandra Singh v. The State of Bihar (1961) AIR 1961 SC 1052
In this case, the court held that a confession made by one co-accused person is not admissible against another co-accused person, unless it is proved to be voluntary and trustworthy. The court stated that “A confession made by one co-accused person is not admissible against another co-accused person, unless it is proved to be voluntary and trustworthy. The court must be satisfied that the confession was made without any coercion or inducement, and that it is a true and accurate account of the events that took place.”
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka (2022) 887 SCC 1
In this case, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the principles laid down in the earlier cases and held that a confession made by one co-accused person can be considered against another co-accused person, but the court must exercise caution and weigh the confession carefully before relying on it. The court stated that “A confession made by one co-accused person can be considered against another co-accused person, but the court must exercise caution and weigh the confession carefully before relying on it. The court must consider the circumstances in which the confession was made, and whether there is any evidence to corroborate it.”