Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedly held that confessional or statement evidence of a co-accused is at best corroborative and cannot be used as the primary or sole basis for conviction ["Surendra Kumar Sahu vs State of Odisha (Vig.) - Orissa"], ["Kishore Rajwade S/o Ramkeshwar VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], ["Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil S/o Krishna vs Additional Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Amar Singh S/o Pathari Baiga VS State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gaurela, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Xxx VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["Surendra Kumar Sahu vs State of Odisha (Vig.) - Orissa"]- ["Bherulal VS State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil S/o Krishna vs Additional Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru - Karnataka"]- ["P. Krishna Mohan Reddy VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Supreme Court"]- ["Sandeep Shukla VS State of Bihar - Patna"]- ["02800038345"]- ["Kishore Rajwade S/o Ramkeshwar VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]
In criminal trials, the line between admissible and inadmissible evidence can make or break a case. A common question arises: statement of the co-accused when can not be used against other co-accused? This issue is pivotal in Indian law, where protections against misuse of confessions safeguard fair trials. Generally, a co-accused's statement or confession cannot serve as substantive evidence against another accused, limited instead to narrow corroborative roles under strict conditions.
This blog post breaks down the principles from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 27 and 30), special laws like POTA and TADA, and CrPC provisions. Drawing from key judgments, we'll explore when such statements are inadmissible, exceptions, and practical insights. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
The main legal finding is clear: A statement or confession by a co-accused typically cannot be used as substantive evidence against another co-accused. This holds under Evidence Act Sections 27/30, POTA Section 32, or TADA Section 15 (unless strictly charged and tried together). It's often confined to corroboration, and inadmissible if retracted, not a full confession, made during investigation (barred by CrPC Section 162), or without independent evidence. Nabi Mohamad Chand Husain & others VS State of Maharashtra - 1979 0 Supreme(Bom) 135Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan VS State of Maharashtra & others - 2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 1499Esher Singh VS State Of A. P. , - 2004 4 Supreme 56
Informatory statements leading to discovery under Section 27 are admissible primarily against the maker, not co-accused. As one judgment states: such an informatory statement leading to discovery is primarily evidence of incriminating nature against the informing accused and not against the co-accused. To qualify under Section 30, it must be a confession proper admitting guilt. References to other accused (e.g., I was given two knives by accused No. 1) remain inadmissible against them. Nabi Mohamad Chand Husain & others VS State of Maharashtra - 1979 0 Supreme(Bom) 135
Facts discovered (not the statement itself) may implicate via Section 8, but only if independently connected. Earlier cases like Shivabai are fact-specific, not universal rules. Nabi Mohamad Chand Husain & others VS State of Maharashtra - 1979 0 Supreme(Bom) 135
Under POTA Section 32, confessions explicitly bar substantive use against co-accused: the confessional statement recorded under section 32 of POTA cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence against other co-accused. They're treated like CrPC Sections 161-164 statements—limited utility. This reflects legislative intent, deleting TADA's broader admissibility. Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan VS State of Maharashtra & others - 2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 1499Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 720Aatif Nasir Mulla VS State of Maharastra - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1773Aatif Nasir Mulla VS State of Maharastra - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1768Yakub Abdul Razak Memon VS State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 270
For TADA Section 15 (post-1993 amendment), use is permitted only if co-accused are charged and tried together; otherwise, no evidentiary value. Esher Singh VS State Of A. P. , - 2004 4 Supreme 56
In bail or charge-framing, such statements are disregarded entirely. Aatif Nasir Mulla VS State of Maharastra - 2005 0 Supreme(Bom) 1773
Confessions under CrPC Section 161 are inadmissible as substantive evidence or sole conviction basis: Confession of a co-accused can be brought on record u/s 30, Indian Evidence Act... But can be used only when other material is insufficient without it. Retracted confessions are a weak link against the maker and weaker against co-accused. They can't form the basis if the maker absconds or trials are separate. DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2019 4 Supreme 618Haroom Haji Abdulla VS State Of Maharashtra - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 371
While restrictive, limited exceptions exist:- Corroboration in Joint Trials: Allowed to corroborate accomplice evidence if voluntary and scrutinized, but never sole basis. Requires independent evidence. Haroom Haji Abdulla VS State Of Maharashtra - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 371DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2019 4 Supreme 618- Joint Charge/Trial Condition: Mandatory under TADA/POTA analogs; fails if separate trials or maker escapes. Esher Singh VS State Of A. P. , - 2004 4 Supreme 56Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan VS State of Maharashtra & others - 2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 1499- Discovery Facts via Section 8: Statement inadmissible, but linked recoveries may implicate independently. Nabi Mohamad Chand Husain & others VS State of Maharashtra - 1979 0 Supreme(Bom) 135- Investigation Bar: CrPC Section 162 prohibits use of investigation statements. DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2019 4 Supreme 618
Other sources reinforce this. For instance, statements to police cannot corroborate prosecution witnesses or fill prosecution gaps. KING v. DE SILVA et al. In NDPS cases, co-accused disclosures alone don't sustain charges without tangible proof; courts quash FIRs lacking independent evidence. Jogiram S/o Shoraram Vishnoi vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27232
Judgments emphasize corroboration needs. In one NDPS matter, a petitioner's FIR was quashed as implication rested solely on a co-accused's statement—no contraband recovery or direct links. Ratio: Prosecution must provide tangible evidence beyond co-accused confessions.Jogiram S/o Shoraram Vishnoi vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27232
Retracted or inadmissible statements (e.g., under Evidence Act Section 27) can't frame charges against others. Shahid Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1973 In murder conspiracies, reliance on disclosure statements failed without complete circumstantial chains. Priyavart VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3379Priyavart VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 191
Exceptions appear sparingly: A co-accused statement can corroborate if fully supported by other evidence, as in a child murder case where A-2's confession bolstered against A-1. Selvakumar & Another VS State by Inspector of Police, Karipatti Police Station, Salem District - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 4314 However, defenses by one accused don't bind co-accused, nor fill prosecution gaps. Bhagwan Trimbak Ahirrao VS State of Maharashtra - 2013 Supreme(Bom) 34
Under NDPS Section 67, statements aren't confessional against co-accused due to Evidence Act Section 25 bars, as officers are deemed police officers. TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - 2021 2 Supreme 1
Understanding these rules ensures fair trials and protects against miscarriages. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.
References (Key Documents):1. Nabi Mohamad Chand Husain & others VS State of Maharashtra - 1979 0 Supreme(Bom) 135: Evidence Act Sections 27/30 core.2. Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan VS State of Maharashtra & others - 2004 0 Supreme(Bom) 1499: POTA Section 32 inadmissibility.3. Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 720: POTA limitations.4. Esher Singh VS State Of A. P. , - 2004 4 Supreme 56: TADA joint trial rule.5. DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2019 4 Supreme 618: CrPC corroboration only.6. Haroom Haji Abdulla VS State Of Maharashtra - 1967 0 Supreme(SC) 371: Retracted confessions weak.
#CoAccusedEvidence #EvidenceActIndia #CriminalLawTips
used to convict the accused. ... However, as per the settled preposition of law a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused. ... In her deposition, she has not stated anything that the appellants – original accused nos. 2 to 5 were having the lathis, though she has stated this in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. ... of such statement or re....
, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose. ... The prosecution side opposed the application and accordingly the learned Special Judge dismissed the application holding that a previous statement in another crime could not be used for the purpose of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. ... While challenging the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the finding entered by the Special Court in Paragraph No.7 that previous statement in another crime ....
as evidence; (2) such written records of the statement cannot be used (a) to corroborate the statement of. a witness for the prosecution or (b) to corroborate a statement for the defence '. ... There still remains however the question as to how far it is my duty to apply the words ' shall not be used otherwise' to the The written record of a statement made to a Police officer in the course of an investigation into an offence cannot be used to corro....
Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case solely on the basis of memorandum statement recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act of co-accused Vasudev. ... It follows that the testimony of an accomplice can in law be used to corroborate another though it ought not to be so used save in exceptional circumstances and for reasons disclosed. As the Privy Council obse....
It follows that the testimony of an accomplice can in law be used to corroborate another though it ought not to be so used save in exceptional circumstances and for reasons disclosed. As the Privy Council observe in Bhuboni Sahu v. ... 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 #....
The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. ... Thus, the statement of the accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitut....
Such statements are legally not admissible in evidence and cannot be used as substantive evidence. ... If the statement made by the appellant on 11-4-1996 is inadmissible, then, there will only be the statement of the co-accused available to be considered in deciding whether the charge has to be framed against the appellant or not. ... However, Deepak Kumawat in his statement recorded u/S 27 of the Evidence Act did not substantiate this fact. Thus, ....
Mukesh, mother of the victim and was used by the latter. PW-19 deposed that the phone issued in her name was used by her son though she could not disclose its number. ... He suffered disclosure statement and got recovered a revolver 32 bore and two live cartridges in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Amit Dahiya and Ajit could not be arrested and were declared proclaimed offenders. ... in the crime and, disclosure statement of each #HL_S....
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 evidence of the co-accused cannot be considered under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, where he was not tried jointly with the accused and where he did not make a statement incriminating himself along with the accused. ... Therefore, these two appellant....
Mukesh, mother of the victim and was used by the latter. PW-19 deposed that the phone issued in her name was used by her son though she could not disclose its number. ... He suffered disclosure statement and got recovered a revolver 32 bore and two live cartridges in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Accused Amit Dahiya and Ajit could not be arrested and were declared proclaimed offenders. ... in the crime and, disclosure statement of each #HL_S....
A statement made by the co accused can be used against others. In N. J. Sukhawani vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 522 this Court held that the statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a material piece of evidence collected by customs officials.
6. As regards the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and aforesaid judgments cited on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner in support, it is true that confessional statement of one accused made in the memorandum prepared under Section 27of the Evidence Act would not be admissible in evidence and cannot be considered and used against the co-accused. It is also true that on the basis of statement of the co....
The defence taken by one accused cannot be treated as evidence against the co-accused as the statement made by one accused is of no value against his co-accused nor can it be used to fill in the gap in the case of prosecution. The said defence would not appeal to any prudent man and therefore, it deserves to be discarded.
But in a given case like this, the Court can act on the confessional statement of the co-accused against other accused if there are other corroborative piece of evidence to accept the same. In the instant case, the confessional statement given by A-2 stood fully corroborated in all material particulars by all other circumstances, which are proved by other evidence and hence, no impediment could be felt in accepting and using the same against A-1. There cannot be any dispute on the contention that ordinarily a statement given by the co-accused cannot be used against other accused.#H....
That apart, it is further contended that said statement can be used only against its maker and not against other co- accused persons. No attempt was made to keep him away from police influence and, in such circumstances, the statement cannot be deemed to be voluntarily made.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
