Confession Made by Co-accused & its relevance

Read Time:10 Minute, 45 Second

Shamyana Parveen from Bikash Bharti Law College, Calcutta University

ABSTRACT

A confession is a statement, made by a person or by a group of persons, acknowledging some personal fact that the person would ostensibly prefer to keep hidden. The term presumes that the speaker is providing information that he believes the other party is not already aware of and is frequently associated with an admission of a moral or legal wrong. Not all confessions reveal wrongdoing, however. For example, a confession of love is often considered positive both by the confessor and by the recipient of the confession and is a common theme in literature. Concerning confessions of wrongdoing, there are several specific kinds of confessions that have significance beyond the social. A legal confession involves an admission of some wrongdoing that has a legal consequence, while the concept of confession in religion varies widely across various belief systems, and is usually more akin to a ritual by which the person acknowledges thoughts or actions considered sinful or morally wrong within the confines of the confessor’s religion. In some religions, confession takes the form of oral communication with another person. Socially, however, the term may refer to admissions that are neither legally nor religiously significant” Keywords: Confession, Co-accused, Statement, Judicial examination.

INTRODUCTION

The term Confession is defined in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It says that no person has to confess his offence in front of the police. A confession is an important form of evidence and it is used to prove a case in a court of law. Based on documents of things we collect during the evidence is not helpful to prove the case with. It is not always feasible or adequate to base a case only on documentary evidence collected. This is where confession comes as a vital form of evidence. A confession when proved and declared relevant it is called an evidentiary value of confession. Evident must be proven in court in front of judges during court hearings. “Evident must be proof in written as well as oral. The confession of the victim and accused is the most valuable in court”. It is the duty and responsibility of the judge to determine the confession of the accused and victim and even confession of the family members as well as friends and the other persons who are involved in the case. “It is easy to determine the evidentiary value of a confession. When confession of the accused is taken forcefully or taken in a wrong, it creates a problem with the exculpatory portions”. “Statement some exculpatory portions that can be relied upon by the court along with other evidence.

CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED

“When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession” – Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872” Explanation – “Offence “as used in this section includes the abetment of or attempt to commit, the offence”. Sec 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides an exception to the general rule of the confession as a piece of evidence that it can be used against only the person making it not the others. It provides that that where more persons than one are tried jointly for the same offence, the confession made by one of them is admissible against all of them. Sec 30 will apply when”

The person confessing and the others are tried jointly.
1. They are tried for the same offence.
The confession must be affecting all.

Illustrations:

(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said – “B and I murdered C”. The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.

(b) “A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B and that B said – A and I murdered C. This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A as B is not being jointly tried”.

(c) “E and F are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that E said – F and I murdered C. the court may consider the effect of this confession as against F.

(d) E is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by Email and F and that F said, E and I murdered C. The statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against E and F is not being jointly tried.”

Use of confession by one accused against others.-As seen before, a confession may be used as evidence against the person making it, and it is a strong piece of evidence against him. Section 30 lays down that when two or more persons are tried jointly for the same offence, and the confession made by one of them is proved at the trial the Court may take into consideration that confession against the other accused as well as the accused confessing the guilt”.

A joint trial can be understood, where A, B and c commit a Murder of D. Only A was arrested, B and C absconded. A makes a confession, tried and convicted. Afterwards, B and C was arrested and tried. At their trial confession is not admissible, because they are not tried jointly. Same Offence means ‘identical offence’ not the ‘offence of the same kind’. It means an offence having the same definition and arising out of the same transaction. For example, where the trial is 11 not for the same offence such as one is charged for the theft and other is for receiving stolen property, the confession is not admissible against other”.

Confession of the co-accused must implicate himself as well as some others. The confession of the maker implicates him substantially to the same extent as others.

IMPORTANCE OF CONFESSION

Confession is an important form of evidence and it is used to prove a case in a court of law. Based on documents of things we collect during the evidence is not helpful to prove the case with. It is not always feasible or adequate to base a case only on documentary evidence collected. This is where confession comes as a vital form of evidence. The importance of confession is defined in the case of Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab.

WHAT IS ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE?

No hard and fast rule can be laid down.

It is the duty and responsibility of the judge to determine the confession of the accused and victim and even confession of the family members as well as friends and the other persons who are involved in the case. It is easy to determine the evidentiary value of a confession. When confession of the accused is taken forcefully or taken in a wrong, it creates a problem with the exculpatory portions. Statement some inculpatory portions that can be relied upon by the court along with other evidence.

ADMISSIBILITY

Section 136 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Admissibility is also the form of evidence which is accepted in a court of law. The evidence must be relevant for the acceptance in a court of law. It must have some relevance to prove the case in court. The fact must be certain but at least it must tend to increase and decrease the fact. The person who finds the facts must determine the weight to give a particular piece of evidence. A given piece of evidence is considered material if it is offered to prove the fact that is in dispute in a case. Evidence is considered competent if it complies with certain traditional notions of reliability. Courts are gradually diminishing the competency rules of evidence by making them issues related to the weight of evidence.

RELEVANCY OF FACTS – SECTION 5-16 OF EVIDENCE ACT

The evidence which holds the value in a court of law or proves the case in the court that holds relevancy. The fact which is legal that is only accepted in a court of law. Confession is the most relevant form of evidence in a court of law.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION OF CO ACCUSED

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clarifies that the confession of one accused is not considered substantive evidence against a co-accused. Instead, it allows the court to consider such a confession along with other evidence in the case. This means that a co-accused cannot be convicted solely based on the confession of another accused.

The confession of a co-accused can, however, be used to corroborate other evidence presented in the case. It can assist the court in determining the truthfulness of other evidence and in reaching a conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. However, the conviction must ultimately be based on the strength of the other evidence presented and the confession of a co-accused can only be used to support that conclusion

.In the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011), the Supreme Court of India emphasised that the confession of a co-accused is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate other evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The court must carefully analyse all the evidence presented in the case to determine the guilt of the accused.

Similarly, in Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (1952), the Supreme Court held that the confession of an accused cannot be used as substantive evidence against a co-accused. The confession can only be used as an additional reason for believing the evidence against the co-accused.

The case of Bhuboni Sahu v. The King (1949) further emphasised that the confession of a co-accused is a weak form of evidence. It is not given under oath and is not subject to cross-examination, unlike the testimony of an approver. Therefore, the confession of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction and must be supported by other evidence.

While the confession of a co-accused can be considered as evidence in a criminal trial, it is not sufficient on its own to convict a co-accused. The court must rely on other evidence presented in the case to determine guilt and the confession can only be used to corroborate that evidence.

CONCLUSION

This change in the Evidence Act is necessary so as to invigorate the trust and faith of the people of India in the Judiciary that they will be provided imparted speedy justice to the wrongs done to them by any person. The draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 in its statement of objects and reasons mentions that the disposal of criminal trials in the courts takes considerable time and that in many cases trial do not commence for as long as 3 to 5 years after the accused was remitted to judicial custody. In lieu of this, it is pertinent that provisions of Criminal Law be changed so as to reduce the time needed for a common person to get justice”. After all “Justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. A confession is an important form of evidence that is used for proving the case in a court of law. Based on documents of things we collect during the evidence is not helpful to prove the case with. It is not always feasible or adequate to base a case only on documentary evidence collected. This is where confession comes as a vital form of evidence. There are other forms of evidence which are used to prove the case but confession is the most valuable form of evidence which cannot be rejected in the court of law. Overall, Section 30 has introduced an innovation of a serious nature and is capable of causing a miscarriage of justice, unless it is properly understood and applied. The Apex Court has in various cases held that this provision must be very strictly construed so as to avoid doing injustice. Justice Reilly once said, that the discretion which the courts have been empowered with by this provision must be exercised very cautiously and with the greatest caution and with care, so as to make sure that it’s real intent is observed, and the probability of doing injustice can be removed.

REFERENCES