Statement Of Co-Accused U/S 25 Evidence Act Inadmissible In Court But Significant For Investigation: Gujarat HC
1. Legal Background
Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
“No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
👉 Meaning:
Any confession made by an accused to a police officer is inadmissible in court as evidence against him.
This safeguard exists to protect accused persons from coercion, pressure, or custodial torture.
2. Statement of Co-Accused – How it Works
When multiple persons are accused, one accused may make a statement implicating another.
Such a statement to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, as it amounts to confession before police.
However, it can be used for investigation purposes:
To recover material objects (Section 27, Evidence Act – discovery statements).
To trace leads, corroborate facts, or build the prosecution case.
3. Gujarat High Court’s Stand
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court clarified:
Inadmissibility in Trial:
The statement of a co-accused recorded by a police officer is not admissible as substantive evidence in trial under Section 25 of Evidence Act.
Usefulness for Investigation:
Even though not admissible in court, such statements are significant for investigation.
They may provide clues, links, and leads to police to proceed further.
Admissibility Exception – Section 27:
If a co-accused’s statement leads to discovery of a fact (e.g., recovery of a weapon, stolen goods, dead body), then that portion of the statement is admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act.
Corroboration Required:
A co-accused’s statement cannot by itself convict another accused. It may at best be used for corroboration if supported by independent evidence.
4. Relevant Case Laws
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952 SCR 526)
The confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence.
It can be used only for lending assurance if other independent evidence exists.
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1184)
A confession of a co-accused is not evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act.
It cannot form the basis of conviction.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 – Parliament Attack case
Reiterated that confessional statements before police are inadmissible, except to the extent permitted by Section 27.
Gujarat High Court (2023–24)
Held: “Statement of co-accused before a police officer is inadmissible during trial, but it is a relevant factor in investigation. Only those parts leading to discovery of facts can be relied upon under Section 27.”
5. Conclusion
Rule: Confession made by an accused to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 Evidence Act.
Co-Accused’s Statement: Cannot be used to convict another accused, but may guide the investigation.
Exception: Discovery statements under Section 27 are admissible.
Court’s Caution: Conviction cannot rest solely on co-accused’s confession; independent corroboration is required.
✅ In short: The Gujarat High Court reaffirmed that while a co-accused’s statement to police is inadmissible in trial, it plays a crucial investigative role, and only discovery portions under Section 27 can be admitted as evidence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments