Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Queen-Empress vs Jagrup And Anr. on 21 March, 1885
It is only under Section 30 of the Act that the confession of one of two or more accused persons, jointly tried for the same offence, can be taken into consideration as against the rest. It must be a confession to be so admissible, that is, it must affect both the person confessing and the other accused. Here the statements of Yes hwada taken by themselves do not fall within that category. As held by the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Jagrup 7 A. 646 the word "confession" as used in the sections of the Evidence Act relating to confessions must not be construed as including a mere inculpatory admission which falls short of being an admission of guilt. Section 30 must be strictly construed. The learned Sessions Judge has construed the statement into a confession by a process of inferential reasoning which is not what the terms of Section 30 countenance. In the statement Yeshwada has tried to exculpate herself and to inculpate the appellant. It may be that by not giving information of the intention to murder, ascribed by her to the appellant and standing as a passive spectator of the murder she has furnished evidence of conduct against herself. But that does not make it a confession, because it is one thing to make statements giving rise to an inference of guilt and another thing to confess a crime.
Section 107 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1