1927 (12) TMI 13 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction based on the confession of a co-accused.
2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of the confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.
3. Joint trial requirement for the confession to be considered.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction based on the confession of a co-accused:
The appellant and another co-accused were convicted for dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, based solely on the confession of a co-accused, Narendra Behera. The trial court relied on this confession to convict the appellant and the co-accused Baina Das, despite the confession being made by someone who was not tried jointly with them. The High Court found this approach flawed, as the conviction was based solely on the confession of a co-accused who had been tried separately.

2. Admissibility and evidentiary value of the confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act:
The High Court emphasized that Section 30 of the Evidence Act is the only provision dealing with the admissibility and evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession. The section states that the confession can only be considered if the accused are being tried jointly. The court noted that the confession of Narendra Behera, who was tried separately, could not be admitted against the appellant and Baina Das. The confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and can only lend assurance to other evidence. The court highlighted that a conviction cannot be based solely on such a confession.

3. Joint trial requirement for the confession to be considered:
The High Court reiterated that for a confession to be admissible against a co-accused, the accused must be tried jointly. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, which clarified that a confession by a co-accused can only be considered if the accused are being tried together. The court also referenced other cases, such as R. v. Chandra and R. v. Lalit, which supported this interpretation. The court concluded that since the appellant and Baina Das were not tried jointly with Narendra Behera, his confession could not be used against them.

Conclusion:
The High Court found that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant and Baina Das based solely on the confession of a co-accused who was not tried jointly with them. The court emphasized that such a confession is not substantive evidence and can only be used to support other evidence. The court set aside the convictions and sentences of both the appellant and Baina Das, ordering their immediate release.