1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court emphasizes joint trial requirement for admissible confessions</h1> The High Court overturned the convictions of the appellant and a co-accused for dacoity based solely on the confession of another co-accused who was tried ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction based on the confession of a co-accused.2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of the confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.3. Joint trial requirement for the confession to be considered.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction based on the confession of a co-accused:The appellant and another co-accused were convicted for dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, based solely on the confession of a co-accused, Narendra Behera. The trial court relied on this confession to convict the appellant and the co-accused Baina Das, despite the confession being made by someone who was not tried jointly with them. The High Court found this approach flawed, as the conviction was based solely on the confession of a co-accused who had been tried separately.2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of the confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act:The High Court emphasized that Section 30 of the Evidence Act is the only provision dealing with the admissibility and evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession. The section states that the confession can only be considered if the accused are being tried jointly. The court noted that the confession of Narendra Behera, who was tried separately, could not be admitted against the appellant and Baina Das. The confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and can only lend assurance to other evidence. The court highlighted that a conviction cannot be based solely on such a confession.3. Joint trial requirement for the confession to be considered:The High Court reiterated that for a confession to be admissible against a co-accused, the accused must be tried jointly. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, which clarified that a confession by a co-accused can only be considered if the accused are being tried together. The court also referenced other cases, such as R. v. Chandra and R. v. Lalit, which supported this interpretation. The court concluded that since the appellant and Baina Das were not tried jointly with Narendra Behera, his confession could not be used against them.Conclusion:The High Court found that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant and Baina Das based solely on the confession of a co-accused who was not tried jointly with them. The court emphasized that such a confession is not substantive evidence and can only be used to support other evidence. The court set aside the convictions and sentences of both the appellant and Baina Das, ordering their immediate release.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
