Daniel s/o Stephen v. R., Crim. App. 567-M-66; 15/5/67; Platt, J.
Accused were convicted of shop-breaking and stealing. (P.C. s. 296(1), 265.) The theft took place in a bar. The primary evidence against accused was the confession of a third accused which implicated them. There was also evidence that the goods were found buried on premises which accused shared with three others.
Held: (1) The confession of the accomplice ought to have been corroborated before it was accepted; this was not a case where the accomplice evidence was such that it could be relied on alone. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a confession of one accused “may be taken into account against a co-accused, but there is settled authority that there must be other evidence as well. (2) Because accused shared the premises with other, It could not be said that finding the goods on the premises proved their possession of the goods. Since there was no significant evidence corroborating the confession, the convictions were quashed.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.