https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182864 A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence and can only corroborate independent proof already establishing the charge. Where the alleged judicial confession was excluded, the extra-judicial confession was found involuntary, and the remaining circumstantial material did not complete an unbroken chain linking the accused to the murder, conviction for conspiracy could not stand; the second appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt. By contrast, where direct evidence and a confession supported the first appellant's case, and no basis existed to disturb the limited sentence challenge, no interference was warranted and his conviction and sentence were maintained. en-us Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 May 2016 13:17:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182864 A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence and can only corroborate independent proof already establishing the charge. Where the alleged judicial confession was excluded, the extra-judicial confession was found involuntary, and the remaining circumstantial material did not complete an unbroken chain linking the accused to the murder, conviction for conspiracy could not stand; the second appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt. By contrast, where direct evidence and a confession supported the first appellant's case, and no basis existed to disturb the limited sentence challenge, no interference was warranted and his conviction and sentence were maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182864