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

Popular posts from this blog

Legal interpretations from Ayodhya Verdict Part 8

Forfeiture of Citizenship in USA

Legal Interpretation from Ayodhya Verdict Part 9