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।
Confessions of co-accused cannot be the substantive piece of evidence; it can only be used to confirm the conclusion drawn from other evidences. This Death reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by learned Judge of Druto Bichar Tribunal, Sylhet for confirmation of death sentences of condemned-prisoners. The High Court Division of the view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence suffers from no legal infirmities and the sentence of imprisonment for life will meet the ends of justice instead of death.
State Vs. Sujon Deb and others (Criminal), 18 MLR (2013)-HCD-81.
The confessional statement of a co-accused is much weaker than that evidence of an approve which fulfills all the three ingredients of evidence.
Alam @ Md. Alam & Ors Vs. The State (Criminal), 33 BLD (2013)-HCD-162.
The confession of an accused recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. being a matter of serious consideration at the trial of a murder case, the Public Prosecutor acted in an irresponsible and negligent manner in not utilisilig the same. The learned Judge was also wrong in hastily rejecting the prosecution's prayer for examining the Magistrate. Mosammat Amena Khatun Vs. The State and others, 14BLD(HCD) 332
To be the basis of conviction a confession must be voluntary and true and it must also be inculpatory in nature. A retracted confession requires independent and reliable corroboration before it is accepted and acted upon. Confession of a co-accused is no evidence against other accused persons. It may, however, lend assurance to other evidence- Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 24.30.Dula Miah alia s Nurul Islam and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)477
Ref: 27 DLR(AD)29; 44DLR(AD) 10, I.L.R. Indian Appeals 147; 12 DLR(SC) 156; 12DLR(SC)217; 36 DLR 185; 16 DLR 147; 45DLR 171; A.LR. 1939 (PC) 47; 25 DLR 399; A.I.R. 1957(SC) 107;6BLD(AD)1-Cited
Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides that the confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration along with other evidence but it does not say that such a confession amounts to proof. In the absence of any substantive evidence on record, either direct or circumstantial, implicating the appellant in the alleged offence, the confessional state- ment of a co-accused can never be treated as a substantive evidence and no conviction can be based on such confessional statement.
Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), Section-30 Ustar Ali Vs. The State, 18BLD (AD) 43 Ref: ILR76 Indian appeals 147; 27DLR 29; 44DLR(AD)10—Cited
Assurance or caution are necessary in case of long detention of the accused in the police custody before the confessional statement is recorded. In the absence of such assurance or caution rendered the confessional statement untrue and involuntary and as such it cannot be used against the accused- appellant nor against his co-accused-Section-164
The State Vs Ali Hossain, 18BLD (HCD) 655
It is an accepted proposition of law that the confession of a co-accused is no evidence against the other accused. Under section 30 of the Evidence Act, the court may take such a confession into consideration only to lend assurance to other evidence which by itself must be sufficient to support a conviction Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 3 and 30
Abdul Awal and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)187 Ref: 1952 S.C.R. (India)526-Cited
Confession of a co-accused is no evidence against other accused persons and the same cannot be made the sole basis of their conviction. The court can however consider the confession of a co-accused to lend assurance to other independent evidence-Evidence Act, 1872, S. 3
The State Vs. Md. Musa, 15BLD (HCD)169
Under section 3 of the Evidence Act the 80 confession of a co-accused is no evidence against other accused persons but under section 30 of the said Act the confession of a co- accused can be taken into consideration against other accused persons only for the limited purpose of lending assurance to other legal evidence on record. Evidence Act, 1872, S. 3 and 30The State Vs. Tajul Islam and others, 15 BLD(HCD) 53
Confession of a co-accused, use of
Even if the confessional statement of one accused is found to be true and voluntary, still his confession cannot be used against those who are co-accused in the case, as the basis for convicting them when there is no other evidence against them.
Dr Ishaq Ali Vs The State (1993) 13BLD (HCD)236
Ref: 5DLR 369; 18 DLR (West Pakistan) 112 Cited
It provides that the confession of a co- accused is not a substantive evidence but it can be used against the co-accused to lend assurance to other evidence on record-Evidence Act, 1872(I of 1872) Section.30.
Moslemuddin and another Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD)3
The evidentiary value of the confession of a co-accused is practically nil against other accused persons in the absence of any inde- pendent corroborative evidence.
Faruk Mahajan and ors. Vs. The State, 17BLD(HCD) 15
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-Evidence Act, 1872, S. 30
Md. Ansar Ali Vs. The State, 19BLD (HCD)224
Ref: Ustar Ali Vs. The State, 18BLD (AD) (1998)43-relied upon
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 the appellant in the alleged dacoity except as to some evidence about the motive of the offence, the trial Court was wrong in treating the confessional statement of the co- accused as substantive evidence.
Mojibar Vs The State, 20BLD (HCD) 273
The confession made by a co-accused cannot be said that it is corroborated by other evidence and, as such, it cannot be the sole basis of conviction of another co-accused. [73 DLR (AD) 264]
Statement of co-accused.
Statement of an accused cannot be used as a substantantive evidence against the co-accused. Though is is admissible but it cannot be made a basis of conviction.
Brahmadeo Nunia v. The State, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 146 (Gau).
Confession of a co-accused, even when corroborated, cannot be the foundation of a conviction.
Confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type, and that, even when corroborated, it does not by itself "amount to proof" and, as such, "cannot be made the foundation of a conviction". State Vs. Badsha Khan (1958) 10 DLR 580.
Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
A confession may be taken into consideration not only against its maker, but also against a co-accused. Thus, though such a confession may not be evidence as strictly defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, it is an element which may be taken into consideration by the criminal court.
Death reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by learned Sessions Judge, Narayangonj, for confirmation of death sentence of condemned-prisoner, convicting him under Sections 302, 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to death by hanging. In the light of preponderant judicial views emerging out of the authorities, the High Court Division is; of the view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence suffer from legal infirmities which calls for no interference by High Court Division. In result the death reference is rejected. The impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narayangonj, is set aside. The condemned prisoner and the appellants are acquired from the charge leveled against them. All appeals preferred by the convict-appellants are allowed and they discharged from their respective bail bond.
State Vs. Kashem (absconding) (Criminal), 18 MLR (2013)-HCD-20.
The law is well-settled that the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence in the sense that conviction on that alone must stand and section 30 has merely given the Court a discretion to call it in aid in appropriate case.
In the instant case the confessing accused did not acknowledge his guilt. He did not admit that he had in any manner of participation in murder. He did not connect him with the offence charged. The confession is out and out exculpatory in terms of the crime of murder. So the same was no confession in the eye of law and as such it is inadmissible and must be left out of consideration.
The State Vs. Apel. (Criminal), 2 LNJ (2013)-HCD-321
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.
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."
