https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190457 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. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:31:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190457 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190457