616 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
(1) A statement made by a witness is “evidence”, according to the definition of that term. A confession by an accused person affecting himself and his co-accused is not “evidence” in that special sense. It is in the sense that it is a matter before the Court which it may consider. The question is while allowing it to be so considered, does it do away with the necessity of other evidence ? There is no direct answer given in the Evidence Act. But all the Courts have held that it does not do away with the necessity of other evidence. The reasons are :
(1) Confession is never a complete guarantee of its truth against the other persons whom it involves. A confession may be true so far as it implicates the maker but may be false and concocted through malice and revenge so far as it affects others.
(2) Confession cannot be placed above the testimony of an accomplice because the latter is subject to Cross Examination while the former is not and if testimony of an accomplice requires corroboration a confession must.
Conclusion. If there is
(a) absolutely no other evidence in the case, or
(b) the other evidence is inadmissible
such a Confession alone will not sustain a Conviction. There must be corroboration.
When persons are accused of an offence of the same definition, arising out of a single transaction, the Confession of one may be used against the other, though it inculcates himself through acts separable from those ascribed, to his accomplice, and capable, therefore of constituting a separate offence from that of the accomplice.
8 Bom. 223 : 7 Mad. 579
Abatement—Same offence
- Importance of the words made and proved. Does the section include statement made by one accused at the trial which incriminates himself and implicates a co-accused ?
The answer is that it does not.