AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1184 ::1964 MadLJ(Cri) 535 ::1964 BLJR 510 ::1964 6 SCR 623 ::1964 2 SCJ 454 ::1964 (1) SCWR 399 ::1964 (1) SCWR 446 ::1964 SCD 956

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Patna)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta, J. C. Shah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar , JJJ

Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.30, S.3— Confession of co-accused - Its probative value - Its use how to be made in joint trial. Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.367— Cri. Appeals Nos. 554 and 556 of 1961 (Pat), Reversed. As a result of the provisions contained in S. 30, Evidence Act the confession of a co-accused has to be regarded as amounting to evidence in a general way, because whatever is considered by the Court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the Court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of S. 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by S. 3 of the Act. The result therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person the Court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard tot he quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence.(Para 12) Thus, the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service....