Confessions by third parties in a separate case cannot be proved through police witnesses when direct maker testimony is required.

Confessional statements are ordinarily admissible only against their maker, and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act applies against a co-accused only in a joint trial for the same offence. Statements made by persons not tried in the present case could not be proved as confessions through the police officers who recorded them. They also did not qualify as res gestae under Section 6 because they were recorded long after the blasts and lacked contemporaneity. Although they might have some relevance under Section 11, they still had to be proved by direct evidence from the makers under Section 60. Sections 32, 35, 80 and Section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act did not make them admissible here.

---

---

Issues: Whether confessional statements recorded from persons who were not accused in the present trial could be proved through the police officers who recorded them, or by relying on them as relevant facts to summon those officers as defence witnesses.

Analysis: The Court held that confessions are ordinarily admissible only against the maker, and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits use against others only when the maker and the co-accused are jointly tried for the same offence. The confessions sought to be relied upon were made in a different case by persons who were not accused in the present trial, so they could not be proved as confessions in the present proceeding. The Court further held that the statements did not form part of the same transaction under Section 6, as they were recorded long after the bomb blasts and lacked the spontaneity and contemporaneity required for res gestae. Although the statements could have some relevance under Section 11 in the sense that they might make the prosecution case improbable, they still had to be proved by the makers themselves because oral evidence must be direct under Section 60. The Court also held that Sections 32, 35 and 80 did not assist the respondents, and that Section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 did not make the statements admissible in this case because the makers were not being tried in the same case together with the accused.

Conclusion: The defence could not summon the police officers to prove the confessional statements, and the request to adduce that evidence was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession is admissible only against its maker, or against co-accused in a joint trial where the governing statute so permits, and a later statement by an unavailable third party cannot be proved through hearsay when direct testimony of the maker is available and the statement is not part of the same transaction.

---