Evidence Without Cross-Examination: Can It Be Used Against a Co-Accused?

admissible as against his co-accused (see section 30 of the Evidence Ordinance), a witness in every sense of the term. ... Where one of several accused persons comes into the witness box on his own behalf, he becomes, save as to the proviso for the limitation of cross-examination to credit, and the probability that evidence given by him may not be admissible as against his co- accused, a witness in every ... Evidence-An accused may cross-exami....

2024 0 Supreme(MP) 340

Gurubachan’s confession has played an important part in implicating the appellant, and the question at once arises, how far and in what way the confession of an accused person can be used against a co-accused? ... The question is, in what way can it be used in support of other evidence? Can it be used to fill in missing gaps? ... “It does not indeed come within the definition of “evidence” contained in section 3 of the Evidence Act., It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the #HL....

He argued that section 27 of the Evidence Ordinance did not make that evidence admissible as- (a) the statement was not made by the accused when he was and accused in this case and in the custody of a Police Officer. ... Evidence-Statement made by accused while in police custody-Statement leading to discovery of a fact-Must relate distinctly to the fact discovered- Confession-Elicited in cross-examination by accused-Admissibility- Evidence Ordinance, ss. 25 and 27. ... In #HL_....

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2689

It was further held that a confession can only be used to “lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused”. ... Such a statement made by one accused can certainly be used to connect the co-accused if the statement of the former clearly inculpates not only himself but also the latter. It can, therefore, be used as substantive evidence for proving the offence. 10. ... If an accused makes a confession in terms of the provisions of Cr.P.C. or otherwise, his confes....

R. case:-"The statement (which was held to be admissible by the Privy Council) though it was in conflict with the defence set up and was used for the purpose of discrediting that defence, was held to be in no sense a confession and admissible against the accused who made it to the police. ... Held, further, that the statement was admissible to test the credibility of the accused under section 145 of the Evidence Ordinance. ... I allowed the Deputy Solicitor-General to #HL_START....

Accused were pitted against a single individual. Several objects were used to inflict injuries on the deceased. The attack had been unmerciful. ... Hands, feet, chairs, broken bottles and a T56 were also used in the attacks on Rayan Akalanka and Khuram. None of the convicted accused persons, including the 2nd accused-appellant had left the unlawful assembly. ... Joseph Aloysius and others2 it was held that; The identity of the accused, as a person who committed the offence, is a....

2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 634

A confession of the accused may be admissible and used not only against him but also against a co-accused person tried jointly with him for the same offence. ... The question for consideration was whether a confession of one of the accused persons who was tried earlier, is admissible in evidence against the appellant. The Court held that the confession of the co-accused was not admissible in evidence against the present appellant. ... As noted above,....

The consequence was that he was not recalled with the other witnesses for cross-examination by the accused. ... The deposition of this witness was, therefore, inadmissible under section 33 of the Evidence Ordinance, which only makes the deposition of a witness admissible if he cannot be found in cases where the accused had the right and opportunity to cross-examine the witness on his deposition. ... The Magistrate issued a warrant, but the accused was not arrested for some months....

2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3276

A confession of the accused may be admissible and used not only against him but also against a co-accused person tried jointly with him for the same offence. ... taken the victim along with him but during cross-examination, he tried to make out a case that the other accused were also accompanying accused Priyavart at that time. ... The disclosure statement suffered by the accused himself was also relevant and admissible piece of evi....

that they are otherwise relevant and admissible, Rex v. ... It was elicited in cross-examination and in the evidence in rebuttal, without objection from the defence, that the accused made a statement to the Police in which he had stated that the knife which was used was not that of the deceased but his own. it was submitted in the Court of Criminal Appeal ... The accused, who was charged with murder, gave evidence that the knife with which he stabbed the deceased was that of the latter and tha....

2020 8 Supreme 454

As recorded by the learned trial Judge, the accused Narendra Bahera, whose confessional statement had been relied upon, had been tried earlier and not jointly with the appellant and the co-accused person Baina Das. A confession of the accused may be admissible and used not only against him but also against a co-accused person tried jointly with him for the same offence. The confession of an accused tried previously would be rendered inadmissible. Section 30 applies to a case in which the confession is made by accused tried at the same time with the accused person against wh....

2020 0 Supreme(Gau) 524

He along with his 3 (three) sons including the deceased, stated to have gone to the pond to stop the accused-appellant and his companion from catching fish in their pond. In the cross-examination, he stated that there was a cross-case, instituted by the accused-appellant, against his sons. He was confronted with his previous statement which was, later on, confirmed through the I.O. (P.W.12) that he in his previous statement, did not state that on the date of occurrence, he with his sons went to the pond near the paddy field and found the accused-appellant catching fish at t....

Current Civil Cases

If there is no dash of interest or if nothing has been said against the other party, there can not be any right of cross-examination. Section 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act do not specifically refer to cross-examination of codefendant’s witnesses. A short but, interesting discussion is found in Sarkar’s Evidence at Page 1342, 13th Edition. But, the courts have to adopt a golden rule that no evidence shall be received against any codefendant or co-accused who had no opportunity of testing it by cross examination; as it would be unjust and unsafe not to allow a co-accused or codefen....

2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 1133

Section 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act do not specifically refer to cross examination of codefendant's witnesses. If there is no dash of interest or if nothing has been said against the other party, there can not be any right of cross examination. A short but, interesting discussion is found in Sarkar's Evidence at Page 1342 13th Edition. But, the courts have to adopt a golden rule that no evidence shall be received against any codefendant or co-accused who had no opportunity of testing it by cross examination; as it would be unjust and unsafe not to allow a co-accused or codefend....

2007 0 Supreme(J&K) 23

As stated above that a co-accused has no chance to cross-examine another co-accused making the statement under aforesaid section, therefore, the aforesaid statement made by Anil Bhat a co- accused since acquitted cannot be used against the appellant. Further more, the statement made under Sec. 343 Cr. P.C. is recorded without oath.