Inadmissible Confession Of Co-Accused Made To Police Cannot Be Used U/S 30 Of Evidence Act: Kerala High Court

The Court held that Section 30 does not override the statutory bar under Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act, and that only a legally admissible and proved confession can be taken into consideration against a co-accused.

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by one of the accused challenging the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Magistrate Court and affirmed by the Sessions Court.

A Bench of Justice M.B. Snehalatha, while allowing the revision, observed: “The confession of a co-accused which is inadmissible in view of the bar under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is non-existent in the eye of law, and therefore, Section 30 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked in respect of such a confession.”

Background

The prosecution's case was that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed theft of a motorcycle from the residential premises of the de facto complainant.

During night patrolling, police officials intercepted the motorcycle allegedly ridden by Accused No. 1 with another person as a pillion rider, who fled from the spot. Accused No. 1 was arrested, and the motorcycle was seized.

During interrogation, Accused No. 1 allegedly confessed to the police, stating that both Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had committed the theft.

Based on the investigation, a final report was filed against both accused under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court convicted both accused. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against Accused No. 2.

Aggrieved, Accused No. 2 preferred a criminal revision petition before the High Court, contending that there was no admissible evidence connecting him to the offence and that the courts below had relied solely on the inadmissible confession of Accused No. 1.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the scope and effect of Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act governing confessions.

The Court held that Section 25 of the Evidence Act places an absolute bar on proof of any confession made to a police officer, irrespective of whether the confession was voluntary.

The Court further held that Section 26 of the Evidence Act similarly bars proof of confessions made while in police custody, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

The Bench analysed Section 30 of the Evidence Act and held that the provision permits a court to take into consideration the confession of a co-accused only if such confession is proved and legally admissible.

The Court held that the expression “confession proved” in Section 30 necessarily means a confession that is admissible under law and not hit by Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act.

Relying on binding precedents including Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., and Bhuboni Sahu v. King, the Court reiterated that “where a confessional statement is otherwise excluded or inadmissible by virtue of Section(s) 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act, respectively, there can be no question of such confessional statements being made admissible against another co-accused by stretching it with the help of Section 30 of the Evidence Act”.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the only material sought to be relied upon against Accused No. 2 was the alleged confession of Accused No. 1 made to the police while in custody.

The Court held that such a confession was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and was wholly inadmissible, while there was no other independent evidence connecting Accused No. 2 with the alleged theft.

The Court therefore held that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of Accused No. 2 and that the concurrent findings of conviction were legally unsustainable.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on Accused No. 2.

The Court held that in the absence of any admissible evidence connecting Accused No. 2 with the offence, and in view of the absolute bar on reliance on the police confession of the co-accused, the prosecution's case against Accused No. 2 failed.

Accordingly, Accused No. 2 was acquitted, his bail bond was discharged, and the fine amount, if remitted, was directed to be returned.

Cause Title: Shyjal C v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:4463)

Appearances

Petitioner: T.A. Shain, Advocate, R. Harikrishnan, Amicus Curiae

Respondent: Maya M.N., Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Judgment