Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant's confession was voluntary and, if not, whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the confession of a co-accused and the alleged corroborative evidence.
Analysis: The appellant's confession was recorded after prolonged separate custody immediately preceding the statement, and the circumstances of that custody were not explained by the prosecution. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the confession could not be treated as voluntary. The confessions of the co-accused were not substantive evidence and could only lend assurance to other independent evidence. Once the appellant's confession was excluded, there was no reliable independent evidence to support the conviction, and the co-accused confessions could not by themselves sustain it.
Conclusion: The conviction could not be upheld because the appellant's confession was not proved to be voluntary and there was no other reliable evidence to support guilt.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was directed to be released.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession must be affirmatively shown to be voluntary before it can be acted upon, and a co-accused's confession cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of independent substantive evidence.