Question

One of the following statements is not true, which one is that:

• A. A confession by one co accused implicating other co accused would be proved.
• B. A confession to a police-officer cannot be proved.
• C. A confession by a person in the custody of a police officer to any person in the presence of magistrate can be proved.
• D. If the confession of a person leads to recovery of a thing it can be proved.

Hint:

A confession of a co-accused is very weak evidence against others. It can only be used to lend support to other independent evidence. It is not 'proof' in itself. The other statements reflect specific rules (and exceptions) about confessions in the Evidence Act.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Let's analyze the statements based on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: \[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{(B) is true under Section 25, which states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused.} \\ \bullet & \text{(C) is true under the proviso to Section 26, which allows a confession made in police custody to be proved if it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.} \\ \bullet & \text{(D) is true under Section 27, which allows so much of a confession (even if made to police) as relates distinctly to a fact thereby discovered to be proved.} \\ \bullet & \text{(A) is not true. Under Section 30, the confession of a co-accused can only be "taken into consideration" by the court against other co-accused. It is not substantive evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. It cannot be "proved" in the same way as other evidence.} \\ \end{array}\]