Co-accused confession and voluntariness of confession determine whether conviction can stand under criminal evidence rules

A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence against another accused and can only provide corroboration to existing proof; on that basis, the conviction of one accused was set aside where it rested solely on such a confession. The Court also held that a confession must be voluntary before it can be relied on; a confession appearing unnatural and tainted by police influence was excluded, and the remaining evidence was found insufficient to sustain another conviction. One conviction was maintained where the evidence remained adequate, but convictions dependent on inadmissible or unreliable confession evidence were overturned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confession of a co-accused could be used as substantive evidence against Lal Chand Pathak; (ii) whether the confession of Jagannath Kholey was voluntary and could be relied upon to sustain the conviction of Brij Kishore Kuar.

Issue (i): Whether the confession of a co-accused could be used as substantive evidence against Lal Chand Pathak.

Analysis: The conviction of Lal Chand Pathak rested solely on the confession of Julai Singh. Although the confession was recorded while both were on trial, the confession of one accused is not substantive evidence against another. At most, such a confession can be used to lend corroboration to other evidence already on record. The finding below treated the confession as substantive proof, which was not permissible.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence of Lal Chand Pathak could not be sustained and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the confession of Jagannath Kholey was voluntary and could be relied upon to sustain the conviction of Brij Kishore Kuar.

Analysis: The confession attributed to Jagannath Kholey contained detailed matters which appeared unnatural in a voluntary confession and suggested prior police influence. On assessment of the surrounding circumstances, the confession was not found to be voluntary and therefore could not be used against the accused. Once that confession was excluded, the remaining evidence was insufficient to uphold the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence of Brij Kishore Kuar could not be sustained and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The Court maintained the conviction of Ram Sarup Singh, but set aside the convictions of the appellants whose cases depended on inadmissible or unreliable confession evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration, and a conviction cannot be sustained on a confession that is not found to be voluntary.

---