Confession of co-accused cannot constitute sole substantive proof; acquittal upheld where prior testimony was inadmissible.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Admissibility of confessions under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the evidentiary value of prior testimony under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C. were central. The court applied the principle that a co-accused's confession is only corroborative and cannot be treated as substantive proof, and therefore set that aside to examine other evidence. Prior testimony was inadmissible under the Evidence Act because the complainant failed to establish the witness's unavailability or incapacity, and the complainant did not invoke the alternative business-records route. On that basis, the trial court's rejection of the testimony and acquittal of the remaining accused was upheld.....