https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168922 A co-accused's confession under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not substantive evidence and cannot be the sole foundation of conviction. It may be considered only after independent evidence first establishes a credible case, and then only as limited corroborative assurance. Where the prosecution relies mainly on recovery material such as blood-stain discoveries and other independent evidence remains insufficient, the confession cannot fill the evidentiary gap. In a criminal prosecution, suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt entitles the accused to benefit of doubt. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:31:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168922 A co-accused's confession under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not substantive evidence and cannot be the sole foundation of conviction. It may be considered only after independent evidence first establishes a credible case, and then only as limited corroborative assurance. Where the prosecution relies mainly on recovery material such as blood-stain discoveries and other independent evidence remains insufficient, the confession cannot fill the evidentiary gap. In a criminal prosecution, suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt entitles the accused to benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Feb 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168922