upon a co-defendant but

would certain! b'

' Y ind the party making them .
. sourlyar v. Lekahmlkutt A

.I
It was held that an d
party can rely upon and th
'
Y mma (l962 KLT 153)
.
a mission Is th b
OU h not '
e est evidence that an opposing

I
successfully wlthdr g decisive of the matter unless
concluslve, Is
awn or proved erroneous.
s.V.R.RaJu V N J R
· · · aJu (2006) 1 sec 212
It was held that a
'd prior statement In one's own interest may no-t be
ev, enoe, but a prior st t
a ement adverse to one's interest would be evidence.
It wou Id be the best e 'd
v, ence the opposite party can rely upon.

To.p ie -x·v111 .
Relevancy of Confession
Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with relevancy of
confession.

The word 'confession' is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act. The
word confession is defined in Stephan's Dige~t of the Law of Evidence. It is as
follows:

"A confession is an admission made at any_time by a person charged

with a crime stating or s·uggesting_the Inference that he committed that
~~
crime".
(:I ... ~
~~ The Privy Council has not accep'ted the above defenition. Lord Atkin
while decidi"ng the case Pakala Narayana Swamy v. Emperor (Al R 1939
f _:5·
;,-,, P.C 47) oP,served thus:
~~
''A confession must either admit In 't ermsth,·offence or at any rate substantially all
t:.., ii
tacts whfct, qonatltute the offence".

A statement merely suggesting an Inference that the accused .c ommitted

the crime 0085 not amount to confession. Thus an admission that the
. d ... the owner -of the knife which was used to cause the death of a
accuse " 85 .
. t a confession, because It is only a statement which suggest an
person 1s no ·
~ 91

2J
 An adm i ss ion of a grav ely
lntnr onco thot h o h1'fl r. o mml ll Bd th o crlrn o .
lncrl mlnn tlng fnot In not n c o ntonn l o 11 .

In Pnlvlnder Knur v. Stnto of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 354) the Supreme

In Paka la Nara yana
Court nppr ovad tho do flnltlon glvon by the Privy Council
Swa my 's C,tso .

Thus the following ara tho oaaentlals of a confession.

There should be an admission by an accused. It may

be oral or
(I)
written.
any rate
(II) The accused must either admit In terms the offence or at
• substantlally all facts which constitute the offence.
Con fess ion
Rele vanc y of Judl clal Confession and Extra Judicial

(I) Judicial Confession

or Judg e it is
When :an accused makes a confession to a Magistrate
Criminal Procedure
called Judicial Confession. Section 164 of the Code of
te while reco rding a
pres cribe s the rules to be followed by the Magistra
g investigation of a
confession made by the accused to the Magistrate durin
recorded properly, it
crime. If a confession Is made to the Magistrate and is
wilt be a subs tanti ve evld en·c e against the accused.

(II) ~tra - Judlclol Con fess ion

a Magistrate or
When an accused admits his guilt to a person other than
an accused makes
Judge, it is called Extra- Judicial Confession. Thus when
co-prisoner, a police
a confession to ,his friend, wife , any other relative , a
Confession. An extra
officer, a doctor or any other per$on It Is Extra Judicial
Judicial confession Is also relevant.
e of section 24
In order to act upon the evJdence of confession, by virtu
of the Act, the following conditions are to be satisfied.
ent, threat or
( 1) The confession must not be made due to "inducem
promise" from person In authority.
ly.
(2) The accused should have made the confession voluntari
92
 (3) If the cont .
due to th e in d ess,on 1
.
co nf es si on Will uc ernent th s made bY
. b . ' reat or Pr the accu
e irrelev sad In a criminal procee
( ) . om ise from ding
4 ant. a person In authority th
8 Y vi e
rtue of
would be retev . section 28 of th A
in du ce m en t than t 1f th e 8
confession ls m dct, a confe 1
• reat or ss on made by the accuse
Promise has b a e after the 1 d
In Plata Singh m presslon caused by the
een fully removed.
Court he ld th
v. State
at When th e Ex tra J of Pu I b
en t w itn es swh n a (1977 J 4 sec 45
9 the Supreme
o has no enem 't~ Udlcial Conf 1
that ev id e . ess on is proved by an
ne e. Th e evid . I Y towards the

I
lndepend-
b . ac
e co ro bo ra te d. ence of an ext . . e.used the court can reley upon
. .
ra Judicial confession
need not always
In Pr ak as ha n v. St
ob se rv ed th at th ate
. of Kerala (1.S89 (2) KL
co nf es s:- n • e co ur t ca nn ot st ar T SN 30 P.25), it was
t 'th
.
10 1s
a .w ea k ty pe of . "d . w, . pr_ esumption that extra
judicial
de pe nd up on th e na · ev 1 . .
ence. Accept.ance of
. t such evidence would
ur e o f the c1• fcu.msta .
w as m ad e and th e nc es, the ti.me when the co·nf
cr ed ib ili ty of the witn ession
ess who $peeks to su
La w do es no t re qu ch confession.
ire th at th e evidence
of an ex:tra. fudicial conf
in al l c~ se s be co ession should
rro bo_rated. There ca
nnot be any doubt that
co nf es si on ca n be e-xtra judicial
ta ke n i~to ·ace.c un t by
·the ·cOUrt.for convicting
prov_ided th e co ur t an accused
is satisfied -with its vo
luntari'ness and truth.
if th e ey id en ce wi th In other words,
regard tQ extra judicia
l :confession is reliable
re pr oa ch ,_th e co ur and beyond
t can certain)~ accept
..U as aoy other admiss
ible evidence.
In sa nt ho_sh v. State -~f K~rala
(1990 (2) K~J ·383), it wa
ex tr a ju di ci al conf s held that the
essi<?n to fu nc tio n
as a -reUable eviden
re pr od uc tlo n of ~x ce must be a
act words stated by
th~ .accused.
In Gura SI ngh V· State of RaJasthan (2001) 2 sec 20
·· · · 5, it was held
as follows:
. . ... .
''Extra 1ud1c1a1con·fession if true and voluntary, it can be relied up
I

· . .,. ' . on by
sed
the cn..me alle
t convict the aCOU fo r the commission of .
th e co ur t . o . . ged.
. . h ent weakness f extra-judicial confes_sion as an ,tem
. . .
oesp1te an er o , .
of evidence,
th .
at such c·onf&ss1on wa . --•.
e ignored when show s made before a
·t cannot b n , .
I
93
 pe rso n wh o ha s n 0 rea so n to sta te fal se ly an d to wh om it is ma de in the
. the
cir cu ms tan ce s wh ·,ch ten d to su pp ort the sta tem en t. Th at the ev ide nc e in
be
f orm of ex tra 1·ud· · ac cu se d to wit ne ss es ca nn ot .
,c,al co nfe ss ion made by the .
. . ch ev ide nc e 1s
arw ay s ter me d t 0 b 8 tam ed ev ide nc e. Co rro bo rat ion of su .
. w itne ss
req urr ed on ly b on . If the court be lie ve s the
Y wa y of ab un da nt ca uti
ion was
be for e wh om th e co nfe ss ion is ma de and is sa tis fie d tha t the co nfe ss
nce
ma de , the n the co nv ict ion can be fou nd ed on su ch evide
tru e a.nci vo fun tar tly .
h a
is no t cri mi na l ca se to sta rt wit
alo ne . It op en to the co urt try ing the
e of ev ide nc e.
tio n th at ex tra -ju dic ial co nfe ssi on is alw ay s a we ak typ
pre su mp
(20 02 ) 7 se c 33 4, the Su
pre me
In Mo hd . Kh ali d v. Sta te of w. e.
of the Ev ide nc e Ac t int erd ict s a co nfe ss ion if it ap pe ars
Co urt he ld : "S ec tio n 24
pro mi se in certain
th e co ur t to be the res ult of an y induceme~t, thr ea t or
to
st be vo lun tar y. It mu st
00 nd itio ns . Th e pri nc ipl e the rei n is tha t co nfe ssi on mu
ns cie nc e
Qf his ow ~ fre e wil l ins pir ed by the so un d of his ow n co
be the ou tco me ·
to sp ea k no thi ng bu t·tr uth .
C 53 6, the
State of Or iss a (20 02 } 6 SC
In Ka lpa na - Ma zu md ar v.
ial co nfe ss ion
Co urt he ld tha t a co nv ict ion ~ be based on ex tra -ju dic
Su pre me
on g ciruc~msta,:,c::es.
if the sa me is su pp ort ed by str
he ld
A. P v. Ka nd a Go pa lud u (AIR 20 05 SC 36 16 ), it wa s
In St ate of e an d
ial co nfe ss ion is · ad mi ss ibl e if it ins pir ed co nfi de nc
tha t an ex tra -ju dic
ma de vo lun tar ily .
wa s held
ku ma r_ v. Sta te of .Ta mi l Nadu ( 20 06 (1) SC C 71 4), it
In Sl va a
co nfe ss ion rec ord ed by Viffage Ad mi ns tra tiv e Of fic er,
tha t an ex tra -ju dic ial
rel ied up on .
e He ad ma n, w~ s no t ina dm iss ibl e an d t~us co uld be
Vil lag
to the Polfce
Re lev an cy of Co nfe ss ~o n
, 27 of the Ind ian Ev ide nc e Ac t de al wit h rel ev an cy of
Se cti on s 25, 26
Confession to the Police.
ex tra - jud ici al
ac cu se d to the po l.ic e is an
A Co nfe ssion made by the
be ad mi tte d as
on . As a ge ne ral rul e an ex tra jud icia l co nfe ss ion ca n
confessi to the
Bu t by vir ute of se cti on 25 of the Act, a co nfe ss ion ma de
evidence.
ve d as against a sed of an y off en ce .
pe rso n accu_
po lice offtcer shall no t be pro
94
 i such confessi on cannot
, even be used
i In Bh to corroborate any other evidence .
f eru Singh v. State of A
: court held that when th •J••t•n ( 1994) 2 sec 467. the Supreme
i
1 and Is e accused hi I
recorded by the mse f gives first Information to the police
POIIce the no
Report can be used • n..oonfesalonal part of the First Information
8
s evidence agal 9 t
subsequ ent conduct Whl · n the Informant accused to prove his
, ch Is relevant under seotlon 8 of the Act.
The word " 11
Po ce offIce r'' u
court to mean P sad In seotlon 25 was Interpreted by Supreme
8
o IIca officer who h
conduct investiga ti . . ss power to register a crime case and
give evidenc e in th
on. A police offl h
cer w O has no power of investigation can
8
court as to 8 confession ma. de by the accused to htm.
i .
Balakrls hnan v St
• 8t9
of Mahara_ahtra ( 1980 Crl. L. J. 1424)
In this case the s
, . . upreme Court held that a member of the Railway
I Protection Force is not a police offtcer and a confession made to an officer of
J Railway Protectio n. Force can be proved.
I

\ Surjit Singh Chabra v. Union of India (1997) 1 sec soa

In this case the Supreme Court held that a confession to a 'customs
officer' can be proved since they are not police officers.

Seetham aniyan v~ State o_f Kerala (1996 (1) KLT 313)

In this case the accused we~t to the house of an I.P.S officer who was
working as an Assistan t Inspector General (AIG)ln the public grievances cell
attached to the police headquarters at Trivandrum. The accused told to the
officer that he stabbfid the deceased Raveendran. The question before the
court was whether the ·police officer oan give evidence In the court against the
.accused to prove the confession made by him. The court held that a police
officer who has no power of Investigation ~nd power to prosecute the offender
_by filing a charge sheet can give evidence .In the court to prove a confession
made to him.
v. State of Mysore (AIR 1996 SC 1764)
s. J.Savant
In this case the Supreme Court he_ld that officers of the departm ent of
 n,

an off ice r In charge

nu e Int ell ige nc e wh o are Invested with the po we rs of
Re ve
d Ps ych otr op ic
lic e sta tio n un de r se cti on 53 of the Na rco tic Dr ug s an
of po
t pollca officers wit hin the meaning of se cti on 25
Sub stances Act , 1985 are no
of the Ev ide nc e Act.

ar (2001) 9 SCC578
Ab du l Rashid v. State of Blh
1n this ca se the Supreme Court held
that superintendent of Excise
915 is a
wers un der B_lha r an d Or iss a Excise Act, 1
Department exercising po
ing of se ctio n 25 of the Ev idence Act ao d as
"police officer" within the mean
tem en t ma de by ac cu se d be for e su ch off ice r is
su ch co nfe ss ion al sta
inadmissible in evidence.

ss ion by Ac cu se d Wh ile in the Cu sto dy of Po lic e

Re lev an cy of Co nfe

on 26 of the Ac t, a co nfe ss lof' made by an accused

By virtue of secti
cu stody ca nn ot be pro ve d ·~gainst him. However, if
while he is in the police
in the cu stody of po lice ma ke s a confession to any person
the accused who is e
off ice r an d in the im me dia te presence of Magistrate, th_
oth er than a police
t him.
confession can be proved again
en if it is exercised in house,
in
dy " me an s po lice co ntr ol ev
"Police custo
the co urs e of a )ou rne y. If· the accused is in effective
an open place, or in n
is in polic e cu sto dy an d tem porary absence of the policeme
police control he
. If the re is cu .sto ~y in fac t the confe·ssion would be
makes no difference
tion was illegal.
irrelevant eventhough the deten

nfe ss es wh ile in po lic e custo dy but in the immediate ,

If the accused co
co nfe ss ion wi ll be valid . l~med_ iate presence at
presence of a Magis trate, the
pre se nc e in the sa me roo m . wh ere the confession is
Magistrate means his
s pre se nc e in the ad joinin g roo m cannot afford the same
being recorded. Hi
ain st tortur e an d thu s a co nfe ssion made in one r.oom
degree of protection ag
 ~ 1 ~~
( ~

c.~~ of what he stated to the police offl

~ --- car.
i... ~ 1 In Aghnoo Nage
8 18
t,,,;... ~. v. State of Blhar ( AIR 1966 SC 119) it was held
~ f
thst
s.
26
prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him In
1 ~ custody of a police office
~ ... I - . r, unless It Is made In the Immediate presence of a
l 1'8 MagiSlrat:. The Partial ban Imposed by s.26 relates to a confeHlon made to 8
I '/'8
person
1 th
°
er an a police officer. Section 26 does not qualify the absolute
~~ ban imposed by s 2s 0
c ·
n a confession made to a police officer.
, 1 In Raghavan state of
' v. Kerala (1962 KLT 476), the accused In the
......, present case was t 1
, ~ . . sen n the company of police constables for medical
~~ examination. The accused confessed to the doctor when the police constables
~ I,__ were actually present outside the room where treatment was given. Such a
---:r
~ Act.
confession was held to be not admlsslble as it Is hit bys. 26 of the Evidence

~ In c ·ommlsslo ner of Police v. Narender Singh (2006) 4 sec 265), it

~
was observed by the Supreme Court that sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence
Act although seek to achieve ·the same purpose but they operate in somewhat

:--r two different fields. Section 25 raises an embargo as ·r egards proof of

confession before a police officer. The same need not be in police custody.

~
Section 2-6 r~ises a bar as regards admissibility of sue~ confessiqn If made by
an accused in the custody of, a police officer although such a confession might
~- ~ hav~ been .m ade before a per$on .who was not a police officer. The policy

:~
underlying . sections ~5 and 26 is to make it a substantive rule of law that
confession s whenever and wherever made tq the ·police, or while in the custody
of the police .to any person wh~msoever, unless made In the Immediate presence

~_,G of a M~gistrate, shall be presumed to have been obtained under the

circumstan ces mentioned in section 24 and, .therefore inadmissible except so
t 1..I
t ["1tar as is provided by section. 27' of the Act. A confession would mean

!°'I incriminat ing statement made to the police $uggestlng inference of the
t
t
t_
r1~:, commissio n of the crime and It,, therefore, Is confined to the. evidence to be
adduced in a ·court of law.

l l'ti
~ ~'. 97
 ---- -- - --

Re lev an cy of Inf hll e in Po Ii c e Cu st~

~ ~ ~~_Q!__!Q1.Q onrmn_g_attllQ.Il_fuce Ive ~f t.Qill_A_cc u Q..eg__W
.
By virtue of sec t1on 27 of the Act, If the accused has given information
t th ,
covery
e PO iice Whlle h I , custody and that res ulted In the dis
O
f e s in the police
of
o a fac t con nec t ed With the crime ( such as weapon used for commission
.
crim e, or stolen property, or dead body, or dress of the accused, or dress of
th tion
e dec eas ed ' Whl ch was hidden by the accused) , that much of the informa
.
Whtch dis tinc tly re Iated to the fact discovered can be proved . The discovery of
f act , in con seq . that the information supplied
uence of the Information, guarantee
• ce of
by the acc use d ·ts true. The discovery should be effected in the presen
.
wit ne sse s.

the accused to the police while he is

By sec tion 27, a statement made by
·· · isfied:
in the cus tod y 0 f po1·ice is relevant, if the followi.ng conditions are sat
statement to the police.
( 1) He sho uld have voluntarily made a

e sta tem ent sho ul~ dis clo se a fac t which is relevant to the crime.
(2) Th

A fac t sho uld be disco~ered in con

s,equ.ence of information received
(3)
fro m the accused .. ·
deposed to by the witness.
4. Th e fac t so discovered $hould be
ed that muc~ of the information which
If all the ab ove conditions ·are satisfi
be
the dis cov ery of a fac t is ·rel eva nt and the information given can
led to
pro ved .
ber of accused
In Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67), a num
tenced
and murder. Some of them were sen
pe rso ns we re pro sec ute d for rioting
Council.
dea th and som e to tra nsp ort atio n for life. THey. appealed to the Privy 1

to
ns
er Co urt con vic ted the ~ ma inly on the evidnce of recovery of weapo
Th e low
e of the
of the accused .to the police. On
in con seq uen ce of the statements
it for
d said 'to the pol fce : "I, Ko ttay a, and people of my party lay In wa
acc use
ya who
lvaya and Subaya to death. Rama
Sh iva ya and others. We all bea t Sh
my
wa s in our party had a spe ar In his
hands. He gave It to me. I hid It and
rick of my vlll age . I will sho w If you oome. We did all this at the
stic k in the
which
d that, that part of the sta tem ent
instance of Kottaya". The Court hel

98
 ~as not resulted in cont
esslon c an b
recovery. Thus "we all b · 0 admitt ed in evid ence to prove the
eat Shivay 8
statemen t and it cannot be 0nd Subaya to death"
is a confe ss ory
admitted In evidence
Another accused ..
. Said "I stabed
a yard m my village Shlvaya with a spe ar. I hid the spear in
· 1 w1II show
statemen t to Police th you the place ." As a conseque nce of this
' e spear was
Is not totally relevant recovered . The court held that the statemen t
111
. stabed Shi
and thus not releva t vaya with a spear" Is a confesso ry statemen t
· n · But 11 1 hid th
show you the plac ,. e spear In a yard In my village", '' I will
e are stateme t
n relevant to prove the recovery.
In Mohan Lal V
arrested with· . f • AJl\h Singh (AIR 1978 SC 1183), the accused was
m our days of d
mur er and robbery. He informed the police as to
I
t he pace where heh d h'
. a idden the robbed articles. A gold ring and currency
notes were recovere d f. . .
rom the place as indicated by the accused . The
stateme nt of the a
ccuse d tp the police was held to be relevant and admissib le
in evidence .

In State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Faklra Dhlwar ( 2002) 1 sec 622,

a minor girl was raped and murdered by · intlictin_
g head injury. The accused
was arrested in that connectio n. A grinding stone,. which had blood stains on
it, wa~ recover-a d at the instance o.f the accus_e d from a field of grass close to
► his ho.u se.
Full pants and an underpa nt belongin g to the accused , an
~ underwe ar belongin g to the little child were recovered at the instance of the
a respond ent from the sugarcan e · field ·Where they had been buried by hlm. It
• was submitte d that since those ·articles were from an open place .no reliance
• could ~e
placed .on such recoverl~ s. The Supref!le. Co.urt rejected that
contenti on and held:
l
" ·I n the present case the .grinding stone wa.$ found in tall grass. The
ants and underwe ar were burled. They were out of visibility of othe.rs in
r ~ormal circumstarices. Until they were dlslntered at the Instance of the accused,
r· their
. h'dden state had remained unhampe red. The accused alone knew where

r they· were
1 · ~
unti'l he disclose d It. Thus reliance could be placed an such

. "
'It recoveries.
In pandura ng Kalu Patll v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2
99
sec 4 90 ,
 it Was held th t th
th a e essence of section 27 Is that it was enacted as a proviso to
e two precedi •
ng sections ( ss. 25 and 26) which imposed a complete ban on
th e admissib 1Tty
1 .
of any confession made by an accused either to the police or
to any one wh'I1 h .
e t e accused is in police custody. The object of making a
provision in se t·
c ion 27 was to permit a certain portion of the statement made
by an accused to a police officer admissible in evidence whether or not such
st
atement is confessional or no- confessional. The statement which is
admissible under section 27 the one which is the information leading to
discovery of some fact. The information is to be proved. The information
given should be recorded by the police. Basic idea embedded in section 27 is
. the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.

In Nisar Khan v. State of Utta~anchal (2006) 9 sec 386, offending

arms were recovered from the bank of a river, as pointed by the accused,
which ·were concealed under sarid and covered by stones. The accused had
put his signature on th.e recovery memo. The High Court disbelieved the
recovery memo on the ground that the place from where the offending arms
were recovered was a common place frequented by the public. The Supreme
Court held that the High Court committed an error in disbelieving the recovery
m'e mo_.

Relevancy of Cc,nfe~sfon made under Promise of Sec,r ecy

By virtue of section 29 a confession will be relevant even if it was made-

(i) under a promise of secracy,or

(ii) in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused,or

(iii) when he was drunk.

flQlevance of Confession by Co-accused

Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the evidentiary value of

:confession of a co-accused. When .two::Or more persons are jointly tried for an
affen~e th~y are caUed c·o -accused. If, any one of them makes a confession
admitting his .guiJt and the guilt of other accused p.e rsons the quesUon of
evJdentary value of that -c onfession would arise. By virtue of section 30 when

100
~ 8 confession 18 mad e by

,I
~
court may uae that cont co .. accused 8 dmItt1n
persons. _
88 810 n again g his guilt and guilt of others the
st the mak
er and the other co-accused
l
I1
In
a series of d lslon .
8C 8 the Supra
t 0oroborat lve ev lde me Court h held that unless there Is
nee the as
i
1 ,nd co nv ict the Oth
court should d
er accused Per not rely upon confession of co-accuse
In K sons
aahmlra Sin - .
Sta mfra
Singh an d G u rub ac haOh n Sin
V.
h te of M.P (AIR 1952 SC 159),Kash
-
were tried for murde r of a young boy.
Gurubachan Singh confessedgand
. t. I
co nv ict ed bo th th Incriminated Kashmira Singh . The na
-court e accused a d -
ab le be fo n sen ten ced to death. The only reliable
evidence av ail .
-- re the trial court was confessio n of Gurubachan Singh.
The Hig h Co urt corm rmed .
the death - - ce. -
pre me C sen t~n Kashmira singh prefered an
appe al to the Su
ourt. The Supreme C- ourt held that the conviction of
Kashmira Sin gh _ .
evi dence of f .
on the con ess ,on of Gurubachan Singh was
me·gal an d thu s he was -- . rubachan singh was hanged to dea
th
-- -- acq uitted . Gu ·
C rt he ld tha t am h _ deprived of his life or liberty only on
Th e . -ou _ an s ould not be
of -h· --d.
the ba sis of the uncorob . -orated confess-,·o·n - 1s co-accuse
nce .
Re lev an cy of Accom:pllce Evide
the
o has consciously taken part in
An ac co mp lic e is ' a person wh '

ion of a cri me . ~h en an offe nce ,is committed by more than one

co mm iss
~a f1ic ipa ti~g in its ·com rnissJo n is an accompl_ice. In several
pe rso n ev ery o~ e mitted
s the re wil l be no ev, ide nce to prove ·the commission of a crime com
. ca se
rso ns . Un ~e r suc h a circ um sta nce the magistrate may tender
•by s~ ve ral pe that
n to e of the :acc 1Js ed per son s (accomplice) subje~t to _a condition
pardo on
e the -ev ide nc e ag ain st the . oth er accused persons. If he accepts
he sh ou ld giv ns,
ten do r of pardor:i and .gives the evidence against the. othef accused pelSo
the the
•
· ;.pptove r'. The •ap pro ver' appears as a witness for
he wf'JJ be ca lle d
giv es evi de nce ag ain st ·the accused person$ with whom he
on and
proseoutf . ._ _ . .
sio n of the crime.
actod together torthlil commis
t an accomplice shall be
- f 1-tha Indian Evidence Act says tha
.30 -
_
section 13 ·is
It - ag
'Ii!'
ainst the othe'r accused persons. and J conviction
· 85
a .competent w. ne
101
 nor llleg," tt vonthnuyh II In httaod upon th " rmcorroborated t,; --,. t'•m r; n I ?f ~.,.,
" 0 0 01lipfloo . Out tt,, lllu1trnt1on (b) to 11toctlon 114 of the Indian Ev.de:,~ 'v_1
8
"Y• that ,rn Rooomplloo lo unworthy of cr4'dll unles& hq is corroborated ir,
'llRtortal PfHlloul1r1 . There la clear contradi c tion between th ese t Yt r.,
doot,u1t1on1 of tnw.

The Supromo Court In Dagdu v. State of Maharastra ( 1 'J77) 3 SCc

7 held that though lln aooomplloo Is a competent witness a.nd though a eon..
vlctlon la n·ot llltgal, tha evidence of accomplice is to be corroborated in
materlaf partloular1. Thu1 some Independent evidence showing the guitt rA '
the acou11d should be there In addition to the accomplice evidence. Since
aocompllce la a crlmtnal, his testimony should not carry the same respect as
that of a law abiding citizen. He Is 'faithless to his companions and may ~
f olthlesa to the court. Thes-e reasons show the necessity of corroboration.

In CBI v. A1hok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 15 sec 222, it was held that in
practice conviction of a person on testimony of accomplice should not take place
except under very rare and exceptlonal circumstances. Substantial corroboration
Is required fn the case of testimony of accomplice.

In Chandra Prakash v. State of RaJaathan (2014) 8 sec 340, it was hefd

that the corroboration of accomplice · evidence must be in material particulars
connecting each of the accused with the offence. There must be some additional
evidence rendering It probable that the story of the accomplice is true. The
corroboration could be both by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Comp1rl1on between Accomplice Evidence

and

Confea1lon of Co-accused

Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy of confession

of a co•aocu•ed. Section 183 deals with the evtdentary value of the testimony
of an accompllce. In the oaae of confession of a co-accused he will be
punished and on the bail.a of his confession the other accused ·persons are
also wtu be punished,. An aocomplloe· Qets pardon from the court and he will
not be pvnlshed. He will give evidence In the court against his co-accused,
J02
 ccu sed
In the court the oth er a
When an acc omp lice gives evidence as witness
i, 1 persons will get opp ortu nity to cross examine
him and his vera city can bB

,
i, \ tested. In the cas e of confession of ·co-accused
d exa min e
there is no opp ortu nity to the
the acc use d who m
ade the
,I othe r acc use per son s to cros s-
I confession.
, I

/
I

Retracted Con fess ion s

' I
mad e a con fess ion w h .,ch is
When an acc use d person who has once
' ! it) the con fess ion is kno wn as
' tI
rele van t goe s bac k up o.n it (retracts from
e of such retr acte d con fess ion
Retracted Con fess ion. As to the evidentary valu
, l
,I State of Mah ara sht ra (19 85)
2
I the Sup rem e Cou rt in S.S.Nagesh ·Para v.
form the basis of a con vict ion,
SCC 341 held that a retracted confession may
other independent evid enc e. If
if it receives som e general coroboration from
ly recorded was volu ntar y, it
the cou rt find s that the co·nfession ~s original
fession the cou rt will hav e to
should be acte d upon. In case of Retracted Con
was voluntary.
make sure that the confession originally made

it was held fhat as aga inst

In Ham za v. State of Kerala (1978 KLT 963 ),
basis of a con vict ion if beie ved
the maker, a retr acte d conf~ssion may form the
point of view is: tha:t a retr acte d
to be true and voluntarily made. But the bette.r
confession mus t be regarded with suspicion and
as rule of practice-and pru den ce
confession ~ith out in.d epe nde nt
it is uns afe to base a _conviction on retracted
h a retracted con fess ion ma y
corroboraUon. As again~t co-.accused! althoug
ffrmly esta blis hed ·t hat its valu e
be taken into consideration, tne rule is now.
it can not form the bas is of a
aga inst a co-a ccu sed is pr~ctlcally nil, and that
con vict ion with out substantial and independen
t coroboration as to th
. . - e cnm e
.

and crimfnal. ·

103