Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.24 seconds)Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The State Of Delhi vs Abdul Karim @ Tunda @ Abdul Quddus @ ... on 8 January, 2016
The evidence of the co-accused cannot be considered
under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, where he was not
tried jointly with the accused and where he did not make a
statement incriminating himself along with the accused.
As noted above, the confession of a co-accused does not
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. It is only when a person admits guilt to the
fullest extent, and exposes himself to the pains and penalties
provided for his guilt, there is a guarantee for his truth. The
legislature provides that his statement may be considered
against his fellow accused charged with the same crime. The
test is to see whether it is sufficient by itself to justify the
conviction of the person making it of the offence for which he
is being jointly tried with the other person or persons against
whom it is tendered. 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.
But cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared to act on
the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it
State vs. Abdul Karim & Tunda & Ors.