Question

In joint trial, the evidentiary value of confession of a co-accused affecting himself and others, has been discussed by the Supreme Court in:

• A. Kashmira Singh Vs State of MP
• B. State of UP Vs Deorman Upadhyay
• C. Ram Bharose Vs State of UP
• D. Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Hint:

Confession of co-accused = weak evidence. Needs independent corroboration.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Principle of confession of co-accused.
Under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, the confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration but cannot by itself be the sole basis of conviction. It must be corroborated by independent evidence.

Step 2: Landmark case.
In Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952), the Supreme Court held that a co-accused's confession has limited evidentiary value. It can only be used to lend assurance to other independent evidence.

Step 3: Analysis of options.
- (A) Correct: Kashmira Singh is the leading authority.
- (B) Wrong: State of UP v. Deorman Upadhyay deals with circumstantial evidence, not confession of co-accused.
- (C) Wrong: Ram Bharose case is not about Section 30.
- (D) Wrong: Rameshwar case concerns corroboration of child witness testimony.

Step 4: Conclusion.
Hence, the Supreme Court clarified this principle in Kashmira Singh v. State of MP.