Confession of Accused
Criminal Jurisprudence of Bharat
In Kashmira Singh vs State Of
Madhya Pradesh the question discussed was How far and in what way the
confession of an accused person can be used against a co-accused?
Court explained it as follows:
It is evident that confession of
an accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term because, 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 other accused, and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. Such a
confession cannot be made tile foundation of a conviction and can only be used
in "support of other evidence." [1]
Also in the same case Supreme
Court laid down this rule of approach
It was held by the Court that the
proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence
against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and
see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it
is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not
necessary to call the confession in aid. [1]
Criminal Jurisprudence of Bharat
Thank you for reading till the end. Please share this blog with friends and family. Your comments are welcomed so feel free to comment. Bharat Mata Ki Jay!
#NewCriminalLaws, #LawOfEvidence, #Bharat, #CriminalJurisprudence, #BNS, #BNSS, #BSA, #IPC, #CRPC, #IEA,
Support me by scanning this QR Code.
References:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Download pdf
[1] Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
Comments
Post a Comment