সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
Since the confessional statement is not required to be taken on oath and taken in presence of a co–accused and not tested by cross–examination it cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the co–accused. Mojibar vs State 51 DLR 507.
Confessional statement cannot be used against a co–accused without independent corroborative evidence. Abu Sayed vs State 53 DLR 559.
Mere placing no reliance upon confessional statement of the accused and non-examination of the Magistrate who held TI Parade are no grounds for acquittal where the order of conviction and sentence is based on other sufficient and reliable legal evidence on record.
Abdul Hashem (Md) @ Bachchu Fakir and others vs State 52 DLR (AD) 117.
Abscondence of an accused cannot be treated to be corroboration of the confessional statement of another accused person so as to base thereon conviction of the absconding accused. Nizam Hazari vs State 53 DLR 475.
No statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to confessional statement if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if proved would negative the offence confessed. State vs Md Bachchu Miah @ Abdul Mannan and 5 others 51 DLR 355.
The confessional statement of an accused can very well be the basis of conviction provided the same is true and voluntary. Hasmat Ali vs State 53 DLR 169.
Prolonged police custody immediately before recording of the confessional statement is sufficient, if not otherwise properly explained, to render it as involuntary. Hasmat Ali vs State 53 DLR 169.
The conviction cannot be based solely on the basis of confessional statement of a co–accused unless it is corroborated by some other independent evidence. State vs Lieutenant Colonel Syed Farook Rahman 53 DLR 287.
The alleged solitary confinement was after the recording of the confessional statement and does not affect the confession as involuntary. State vs Lieutenant Colonel Syed Farook Rahman 53 DLR 287.
The trial Court first has to find the confessional statement to be true and voluntary and then only may place reliance on it. State vs Rajiqul Islam 55 DLR 61.
The confession of co-accused can be considered to lend support to the other evidence, if any, but in this case there is no other evidence so far appellant Idris is concerned other than the confessional statement of the co–accused. Therefore the conviction of Idris is based on no evidence and is liable to be set aside.
State vs Rajiqul Islam 55 DLR 61.
Since the confessional statement is not required to be taken on oath and taken in presence of a co–accused and not tested by cross–examination it cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the co–accused.
Mojibar vs State 51 DLR 507.
Confessional statement cannot be used against a co–accused without independent corroborative evidence.
Abu Sayed vs State 53 DLR 559.
Mere placing no reliance upon confessional statement of the accused and non-examination of the Magistrate who held TI Parade are no grounds for acquittal where the order of conviction and sentence is based on other sufficient and reliable legal evidence on record.
Abdul Hashem (Md) @ Bachchu Fakir and others vs State 52 DLR (AD) 117.
Section 30 of the Act provides that the confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration to lend assurance to other substantive evidence on record, but it never says that such confession amounts to proof. In the instant case there being no substantive evidence, either direct or circumstantial, implicating Ansar Ali, Montaz, Bhola and Hormuz Ali in the alleged commission of dacoity, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was wrong in convicting the appellants on the basis of the confessional statement of their two co-accused. Md. Ansar Ali Vs The State, 19BLD (HCD)224 Ref: 1 8BLD(AD)( 1998)43—relied upon
Confessional statement, whether is evidence itself? Confessional statement is not evidence itself. It can only be taken into consideration against the co-accused if corroborated by some other independent evidence. This section applies to confession made by an accused affecting himself and his co-accused in a joint trial for the same offence and not the statement whereby he does not admit his guilt. Abdul Gafur and others, Vs. The State, 13BLD(HCD)598
Prolonged police custody before recording confessional statement—Prolonged police custody of the confessing accused immediately preceding the making of confession is sufficient, if not properly explained, to make the confession involuntary. A confession to be the basis of conviction must be voluntary and true and it must also be inculpatory in nature. Exculpatory confession is no confession in the eye of law. Dula Mia alias Nurul Islam and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)477
Confessional statement of an accused has to be recorded in accordance with the provisions of section 364 of Cr.P.C. Abscission of an accused from immediately after the occurrence may be a circumstance pointing at the guilt of the accused. Sentence must be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence committed. In order to secure conviction of an accused the prosecution must prove the charge against him by consistent and reliable evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. Evidence of a solitary eye witness can be the basis of conviction. Confessional statement though not binding upon other co-accused may be considered as corroborative evidence against the other co accused and along with other evidence can form the basis of conviction. State Vs. Gaush Mea @ Rana (Md.) and others 11 MLR (2006) (HC) 417. EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 (I OF 1872)
Ascension by itself is not an evidence of guilt of an accused Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 164 – Confessional statement of accused recorded after being produced from prolonged police custody held inadmissible as being not true and voluntary Penal Code, 1860 Section 396 – Offence of dacoity – Ingredients constituting the offence must be present. In the instant case the 8(eight) condemned prisoners were sentenced to death by the trial court. In the FIR 3(three) accused are named. The learned judge of the High Court Division held the confessional statement of accused involuntary and not true by reason of being recorded from prolonged police custody and the recognition of the dacoits in the light of torch improbable and accordingly acquitted all the condemned prisoners. State Vs. Munia alias Monia and 7 others 15 MLR (2010) (HC) 266.
It is not always necessary that the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement should be produced in Court as a witness. Section 80 provides that even without production of the Magistrate such statement may be taken into consideration and presumed to be genuine. Abul Khayer and 3 others vs State 46 DLR 212.
Since the confessional statement is not required to be taken on oath and taken in presence of a co-accused and not tested by cross-examination it cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the co-accused. Mojibar vs State 51 DLR 507.
No statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to confessional statement if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if proved would negative the offence confessed. The statement of accused Bachchu in his confessional statement as quoted are the admission and not confession as confession involved a voluntary acknowledgment of guilt. From the admission of accused Bachchu it cannot be said that he was aware that Khairul would be murdered by the other accused. He, therefore, cannot be said to have abetted that offence of murder. State vs Md Bachchu Miah @ Abdul Mannan and 5 others 51 DLR 355
There being no independent evidence except the confessional statement of appellant Farook Mahajan against the other accused appellants. The trial Court was wrong in finding all the appellants guilty. A retracted confession; like the one which is not retracted, may form the sole basis of conviction of the maker if the court believes it to be voluntary and true. But as against the co-accused, the evidentiary value of a retracted is practically nil and in the absence of strong independent evidence, it is totally useless. Faruque Mahajan and 4 (four) others vs State 49 DLR 47
Since the confessional statement is not required to be taken on oath and taken in presence of a co-accused and not tested by cross-examination it cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the co-accused.. Mojibar vs State 51 DLR 507
The confessional statement Ext.7 of the confessing accused bears the reference of one Haider Ali son of Janab Ali who is neither witness nor accused in this case. The neighbours as well as the persons who allegedly took part in the occurrence as per confessional statement of the accused Akbor Ali are the relevant witness and non examination of any of them as witnesses or brining them on dock as accused creats presumption U/ S 114 (g) of the Evidence Act and raises a question of doubt in the prosecution and benefit of this defect would go to the accused. Md. Akbor Ali & Ors. Vs. The State 7BLT (HCD)-317
Non examination of the Magistrate recorded the confessional statement- the no requirement under the law that Magistrate should be examined the Gf shall presume the document to be gen and that the statement was duly taken. Abdul Khaleque Mir Vs. The State 2 BLT (AD)-172
It is not always necessary that the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement should be produced in Court as a witness. Section 80 provides that even without production of the Magistrate such statement may be taken into consideration and presumed to be genuine. Abul Khayer and 3 others vs State 46 DLR 212.
Abscondence of an accused cannot be treated to be corroboration of the confessional statement of another accused person so as to base thereon conviction of the absconding accused. Nizam Hazari vs State 53 DLR 475.
Confessing accused Abdus Satter implicated himself in the alleged dacoity along with the accused appellant and others wherein he stated that the appellant was the leader of dacoits and his instance the dacoity was committed, but there is no corroborative evidence in support of the said confessional statement. So, it cannot be considered as evidence under section 30 of the Evidence Act. So relying on the said evidence conviction cannot be sustained. Mojibar Vs. The State 7 BLT (HCD)-224
Since the confessional statement is not required to be taken on oath and taken in presence of a co-accused and not tested by cross-examination it cannot be considered as substantive evidence against the co-accused. Mojibar vs State 51 DLR 507.
No statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to confessional statement if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if proved would negative the offence confessed. The statement of accused Bachchu in his confessional statement as quoted are the admission and not confession as confession involved a voluntary acknowledgment of guilt. From the admission of accused Bachchu it cannot be said that he was aware that Khairul would be murdered by the other accused. He, therefore, cannot be said to have abetted that offence of murder. State vs Md Bachchu Miah @ Abdul Mannan and 5 others 51 DLR 355
Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."
