In this case the Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of the confession of the appellant and the confession statement of the two other co-accused.
Similar situation arose in the case of Ananta Dixit v. The State and the Orissa High Court was considering a similar case under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.
The appellant, in this case, was absconding. The question for consideration was whether a confession of one of the accused persons who was tried earlier, is admissible in evidence against the appellant. The Court held that the confession of the co-accused was not admissible in evidence against the present appellant. The Court held:
“ As recorded by the learned trial Judge, the accused Narendra Bahera, whose confessional statement had been relied upon, had been tried earlier and not jointly with the appellant and the co-accused person Baina Das. A confession of the accused may be admissible and used not only against him but also against a co-accused person tried jointly with him for the same offence. Section 30 applies to a case in which the confession is made by the accused at the same time with the accused person against whom the confession is used. The confession of an accused tried previously would be rendered inadmissible. Therefore, apart from the evidentiary value of the confession of a co-accused person, the confession of Narendra Behera was not to be admitted under Section 30 of the Evidence Act against the present appellant and the co-accused Baina Das.”
The court in complete agreement with the view of the High Court. Held that since the trial of the other two accused persons was separate, their confession statements are not admissible in evidence and the same cannot be taken as evidence against the appellant.
