https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311928 A confession recorded after administering oath to an accused is inadmissible because Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires confessions to be recorded as confessions, and the Oaths Act does not permit oath or affirmation to be administered to an accused in that context. The statement could therefore not be relied on, but the conviction was nevertheless sustained because the remaining circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain: the eyewitness account, the appellant's presence near the deceased with a weapon, and blood-stained clothes independently proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The extra-judicial confession to a constable was also excluded, but it did not affect the result. en-us Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:59:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311928 A confession recorded after administering oath to an accused is inadmissible because Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires confessions to be recorded as confessions, and the Oaths Act does not permit oath or affirmation to be administered to an accused in that context. The statement could therefore not be relied on, but the conviction was nevertheless sustained because the remaining circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain: the eyewitness account, the appellant's presence near the deceased with a weapon, and blood-stained clothes independently proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The extra-judicial confession to a constable was also excluded, but it did not affect the result. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311928