Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (0.38 seconds)
Prahlad vs State on 27 May, 2013 cites

Bhuboni Sahu vs The King on 17 February, 1949

The Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu Vs. The King, supra, earlier judgment cited on the subject, has held that confession of a co-accused is a very weak type of evidence and does not amount to proof. It was held that such confession should not be made foundation of conviction. It was held that confession of a co-accused 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 accused and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. In fact it is much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of approver, which is not subject to any infirmities. Section 30 of the Evidence Act however provides that the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. But this Section does not say that confession amounts to proof. What therefore emerges is that confession is only one element in consideration of all the facts proved in the case but there must be other evidence. Confession can be put into the scale and weighed with other evidence. It can be used only in support of other evidence and cannot be solely made the foundation of a conviction.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 205 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next