Co-accused confessions alone cannot sustain a charge without independent evidence linking the accused to the conspiracy.

A charge cannot be sustained at the stage of framing charge solely on the confessional statements of co-accused persons unless there is other reliable evidence connecting the accused with the alleged conspiracy. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act makes such a confession only a piece of material to be taken into consideration; it is not substantive evidence and cannot, by itself, form the basis for proceeding against an accused. As no independent material existed apart from the co-accused confessions, the charge framed by the Magistrate was held unsustainable and the charges were quashed with directions for discharge.

---

---

Issues: Whether a charge could be sustained at the stage of framing charge solely on the basis of the confessional statements of co-accused persons, in the absence of other reliable evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged conspiracy.

Analysis: Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act permits a confession by one accused affecting himself and others to be taken into consideration only where there is other evidence against the accused. Such a confession is not substantive evidence and cannot be the foundation for starting the case against an accused person. The Court found that, on the record, there was no material apart from the co-accused confessions to implicate the petitioners, and therefore the Magistrate had wrongly framed the charge by relying exclusively on those confessions.

Conclusion: The charge could not lawfully be framed against the petitioners on the basis adopted by the Magistrate, and the charges were quashed with directions for their discharge.

---