AIR 1937 BOMBAY 31

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Beaumont , C.J. AND Wassoodew , J

Criminal Trial-Confession of co-accused -Difference between confession of co-accused and testimony of accomplice - Confession can be considered but cannot alone form basis of conviction. The confession of a co-accused cannot be dealt with on the same basis as the evidence of an accomplice. The ordinary way of dealing with accomplice's evidence is to treat the evidence of an accomplice as the foundation of the prosecution story, and then to see how far there is any corroboration of matters which affect the accused and tend to show that the evidence is true as against him. But one cannot take the confession of a co-accused as the basis of the prosecution case. The evidence of an accomplice is given on oath, and the witness is subject to cross-examination, and S. 133, Evidence Act, shows that a conviction based on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is not bad in law, although in practice Courts in this country refuse to convict on such evidence. But the confession of a co-accused is not evidence given on oath in the witness box, and there is no right of cross-examination. It is not evidence at all as defined in S. 3, Evidence Act. S. 30 says that the evidence may be taken into consideration but does not say that confession of a co-accused is to be treated as evidence against anyone except the confessing party, and hence the confession is not strictly ....