Kashmira Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952

• The prosecution story is that the appellant left the Gurudwara about 11 A.M. to go to the shop of P.W. 5 Bisan to hire a cycle. He was first seen by P.W. 35 Tilakehand, a wood stall keeper, at point No. 13, just near the Gurudwara. The witness places the time at about 10-30 or 11 A.M. He says he saw him coming from the direction of the railway station and going past his stall.
• Fifteen minutes later, he went past his stall again in the opposite direction, that is to say, towards the railway station which lies on his way to the cycle shop.
• Next comes P.W. 30 Atmaram He keeps a bookstall on the broad gauge platform of the Gondia Railway Station. He says he saw the appellant coming from the bridge and going towards the Railway Police Station of all places in the world. He came near, enough the witness to wish him good day. He places 'the time at about 10-30 or 11. The only comment we make on this witness is that he says he used to see the appellant at the station almost every day and they used to greet each other.
• The possibility that the witness is mixing up this day with one of the other days cannot be excluded. It is certainly a matter for comment that a would be murderer on his way to hire a cycle for the purpose and keep an assignment with his accomplice and victim should go out of his way and either go on to or very near the railway platform to greet a person he knows there and then walk away towards the police station of all places where the danger of recognition would be strong.
• Next there is P.W. 5 Bisan, the man in charge of the cycle shop. He speaks from his register and says the appel- lant hired a cycle from him on that day at 11-20 A.M. and returned it at 12-45 P.M. The Sessions Judge and the High Court lay great stress on this witness.
  

• Whether the confession of co-accused is relevant under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act?
• What is the evidentiary value of co-accused confession?

The Court view “Section 30 of the Indian Evidence:

“If the answer is in affirmative, then there is no mandate to take assistance of the confession made under S.30. In any circumstances, the Judge exercising discretion, enshrined under S.30, may take into consideration the confession of the co-accused irrespective of the immediately preceding observation. Such an aid is called to lend assurance to the evidence already adduced and fortify his judgment of the relevant contention.

The Court proceeded to examine evidence apart from the co-accused's confession on which the prosecution relied to prove their contention. No one evidence was capable of standing firmly as they lacked reasonableness. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and no conviction for the offence of murder was advanced.

• The Court Concluded in this case that the confession of an accused cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence against a co-accused.
• The principle is that where there is evidence against the co-accused which is sufficient and if the court believes to support his conviction, then confession of co-accused described under Section 30 of IEA may be used as an additional reason for believing that evidence.