Published on: October 11, 2023 at 00:42 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: State V. Nalini (1999)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the testimony of an accomplice can in law be used to corroborate another. It is held that Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a confession may be taken into consideration not only against its maker but also against a co-accused person.
423. In Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar this Court again relied on its earlier decision in Kashmira Singh case and on the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu case. It said that technically construed, definition of evidence as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act will not apply to confession. Even so, Section 30 provides that a confession may be taken into consideration not only against its maker, but also against a co-accused person; that is to say, though such a confession may not be evidence as strictly defined by Section 3 of the Act, it is an element which may be taken into consideration by the criminal court and in that sense, it may be described as evidence in a non-technical way. But it is significant that like other evidence which is produced before the court, it is not obligatory on the court to take the confession into account.
When evidence as defined by the Act is produced before the court, it is the duty of the court to consider that evidence. What weight should be attached to such evidence is a matter in the discretion of the court. But a court cannot say in respect of such evidence that it will just not take that evidence into account. Such an approach can, however, be adopted by the court in dealing with a confession, because Section 30 merely enables the court to take the confession into account.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
