SC expounds: If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co-accused is not at all admissible in evidence. Read Judgment

Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Abdul Nazeer and Justice Deepak Gupta in Raja @ Ayyappan V. State Of Tamil Nadu expounded  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.

Facts of the case are that the confession statement of the co­-accused was recorded by the Superintendent of Police. The appellant was absconding, hence the proclamation order was issued by the trial court and thereafter the case was split against the appellant. A separate trial was conducted against the appellant and the impugned judgment convicting the appellant-­accused had been passed by the Designated Court.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the confession statements of the two co-­accused are not at all admissible in evidence because there was no joint trial of those two co-­accused with the appellant.

Observing the facts of the case Supreme Court cited Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co­-accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co-accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co-­accused.

The Constitution Bench of this Court in   Kartar   Singh  v.  State   of Punjab, while considering the inter­play between Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 15 of the TADA Act held that as per Section 15 of the TADA Act, after the amendment of the year 1993, the confession of the co­accused, is also a substantive piece of evidence provided that there is a joint trial.

In view of the discussion made above, Supreme Court said that in the instant case, no doubt, the appellant was absconding. That is why, joint trial of the appellant with the other two accused persons could not be held. As noticed above, Section 15 of the TADA Act specifically provides that the confession recorded shall be admissible in trial of a co­-accused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the accused who makes the confession. We are of the view, that if for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a co­-accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case. 

Supreme Court further said that the Designated Court was not justified in convicting the appellant and held that the judgement passed by the Presiding Judge, Designated Court No.2, Chennai, is hereby set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted for the offence for which he was tried.

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com: