Search
  • LLC

Third Lecture CRPC : Position as to section 164

Section 164 : Power of a Judicial magistrate to record confession and statements , read with section 281 and 463 in Cr.PC , substantive law of this section is in evidence act , namely from section 24-29 . Definition of confession:

Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor, 66 Ind App 66 at p. 81: (AIR 1939 PC 47 at p. 52). Lord Atkin observed: ".......no statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession, e.g., an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused a death with no explanation of any other man's possession." These observations received the approval of Supreme Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1), 1953 SCR 94 at p. 104; (AIR 1952 SC 354 at p. 357). In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, 1961 (1) SCR 14 at p. 21: (AIR 1960 SC 1125 at pp. 1128-1129).

Confession must be made with animus confitendi (intention to confess) or if it does not amount to an admission of facts from which guilt is directly deducible.

Acid test which distinguishes a confession from an admission is that where a conviction can be based on the statement of confession alone , the statement under 163 (5) can only be used for corroboration and contradiction.

Confession / statements recorded under 164 may be either in course of an investigation or at anytime afterwards before inquiry or trial.

Supreme Court of India

Hem Raj vs The State Of Ajmer(And Connected ... on 17 March, 1954

Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 462, 1954 SCR 380 A confession can be made -even during a trial and the evidence already recorded may well be used to corroborate it. It may be made in the court of the committing Magistrate and materials already in possession of the police may well be used for purposes of corroboration. The contention therefore that evidence in possession of the police before the confession was made, cannot be used to corroborate the confession, must be repelled.

Whether a confession recorded without legal aid to the accused will vitiate the trial or confession ?

Supreme Court of India

Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012

Rationale behind the provision of the right to legal aid must be understood in the context of the Indian system of investigation. Unlike certain foreign jurisdictions, Indian procedural and evidence laws do not permit statements made to the police to be admissible, and only judicial confessions made to a magistrate in compliance with the provisions of Section 164 are admissible. The same position does not obtain in certain other jurisdictions, for example, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, where statements made to police officers are fully admissible and used as evidence against the accused. There are, therefore, consequences attached to statements made whilst in custody of the police in such jurisdictions; however, the same consequences do not attach under the Indian scheme of investigation of crimes.

But the failure to provide a lawyer to the accused at the pre-trial stage may not have the same consequence of vitiating the trial. It may have other consequences like making the delinquent magistrate liable to disciplinary proceedings, or giving the accused a right to claim compensation against the State for failing to provide him legal aid. But it would not vitiate the trial unless it is shown that failure to provide legal assistance at the pre-trial stage had resulted in some material prejudice to the accused in the course of the trial. That would have to be judged on the facts of each case. Does a separate statement of satisfaction is needed to be recorded? Supreme Court of India

Ammini And Others vs State Of Kerala on 18 November, 1997

There is no requirement that magistrate must make a separate statement of reasons for believing that the confession was made voluntarily. it was sufficient that his statement was recorded in memorandum Object of section 164 requiring signature of the accused :- Nazir Ahmad vs. King-Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253), held, "that the provision that the Magistrate after recording confession should obtain the signature of the accused thereon is a salutary provision and has been specially provided for, for safeguarding the interest of the accused and, therefore, it is mandatory"

(Keep in mind : Oath cannot be administered in statement of confession.)

Crl. A. No. 17 of 2016

State of Sikkim versus Suren Rai (Sikkim High court)

When a Magistrate takes the chair to record the confession, the mandate of the law prescribes the Magistrate to ensure that the mind of the accused is free from any external pressure. While doing so, if the Magistrate goes on to administer oath upon the accused it cannot be said that the said Magistrate complied with the statutory requirement of the law to ensure the voluntariness of the confession.”

There could be stray cases in which the confessions had been recorded in full and complete compliance of the mandate of Section 164 and 281 CrPC and that the confession was voluntary and truthful and no oath may have been actually administered but inspite of the same the confession was recorded in the prescribed form for recording deposition or statement of witness giving an impression that oath was administered upon the accused. If the Court before which such document is tendered finds that it was so, Section 463 CrPC would be applicable and the Court shall take evidence of non-compliance of Section 164 and 281 CrPC to satisfy itself that in fact it was so and if satisfied about the said fact is also satisfied that the failure to record the otherwise voluntary confession was not in the proper form only and did not injure the accused the confession may be admitted in evidence.”

Twin test for recording confession are whether its voluntary ? whether its true? Bombay High Court

Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936

Equivalent citations: (1936) 38 BOMLR 987

Oral evidence of confession by magistrate with no regard to statutory procedure is will vitiate the confession.

Supreme Court of India

Rabindra Kr. Pal @ Dara Singh vs Republic Of India on 21 January, 2011

The following principles emerge with regard to Section 164 Cr.P.C.:-

(i) The provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. must be complied with not only in form, but in essence.

(ii) Before proceeding to record the confessional statement, a searching enquiry must be made from the accused as to the custody from which he was produced and the treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding from a source interested in the prosecution.

(iii) A Magistrate should ask the accused as to why he wants to make a statement which surely shall go against his interest in the trial.

(iv) The maker should be granted sufficient time for reflection.

(v) He should be assured of protection from any sort of apprehended torture or pressure from the police in case he declines to make a confessional statement.

(vi) A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so, when such a confession is retracted, the conviction cannot be based on such retracted judicial confession.

(vii) Non-compliance of Section 164 Cr.P.C. goes to the root of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to record the confession and renders the confession unworthy of credence.

(viii) During the time of reflection, the accused should be completely out of police influence. The judicial officer, who is entrusted with the duty of recording confession, must apply his judicial mind to ascertain and satisfy his conscience that the statement of the accused is not on account of any extraneous influence on him.

(ix) At the time of recording the statement of the accused, no police or police official shall be present in the open court.

(x) Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence.

(xi) Usually the Court requires some corroboration from the confessional statement before convicting the accused person on such a statement.

(If accused is capable of writing , after giving him a cool off period , he should be allowed to write his confession himself in his own words , he should be asked why is he making a confession against himself which will put his liberty in jeopardy? magistrate is bound to inform the accused of his legal rights under 304 Cr.PC , article 20 , 21 and 22)

Supreme Court of India

Dhanajaya Reddy vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2001

The function of the Magistrate in recording confession under Section 164 of the Code is a very solemn act which he is obliged to perform by taking due care to ensure that all the requirements of Section 164 are fully satisfied. The Magistrate recording such a statement should not adopt a casual approach as appears to have been shown by Shambulingappa (PW50) in this case. Besides ensuring that the confessional statement being made before him is voluntary and without pressure, the Magistrate must record the confession in the manner laid down by the section. Omission to comply the mandatory provisions, one of such being as incorporated in sub-section (4) of Section 164 is likely to render the confessional statement inadmissible. The words "shall be signed by the person making the confession", are mandatory in nature and the Magistrate recording the confession has no option. Mere failure to get the signature of the person making the confession may not be very material if the making of such statement is not disputed by the accused but in cases where the making of the statement itself is in controversy, the omission to get the signature is fatal.

In Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) [AIR 1988 SC 1883] held that the compliance of the sub-section being mandatory and imperative, its non compliance renders the confession inadmissible in evidence. Such a defect cannot be cured under Section 463 of the Cr.P.C. We have no hesitation to hold that compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 164 of the Code is mandatory and its non- compliance renders the confession not admissible or reliable. It is settled position of law that if a part of confession is excluded under any provision of law, the entire confessional statement in all its parts, including the admission of minor incriminating facts must be excluded unless proof of it as permitted by some other section, such as Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Can An accused directly approach the Magistrate to record his confession?

Mahabir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 26 July, 2001

In this case an accused in a murder case barged into a courtroom on his own during the morning hours, exhibiting a knife and wanting the Magistrate to record his confession.

The Court held that an accused person can appear before a Magistrate and it is not necessary that such accused should be produced by the police for recording the confession. But it is necessary that such appearance must be in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code. If the Magistrate does not know that he is concerned in a case for which investigation has been commenced under the provisions of Chapter XII, it is not permissible for him to record the confession. If any person simply barges into the court and demands the Magistrate to record his confession as he has committed a cognizable offence, the course open to the Magistrate is to inform the police about it. The police in turn has to take the steps envisaged in Chapter XII of the Code.It may be possible for the Magistrate to record a confession if he has reason to believe that investigation has commenced and that the person who appeared before him demanding recording of his confession is concerned in such case. Otherwise the court of a Magistrate is not a place into which all and sundry can gatecrash and demand the Magistrate to record whatever he says as self-incriminatory. Supreme Court of India

Jogendra Nahak & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 4 August, 1999



If a magistrate has power to record statement of any person under Section 164 of the Code, even without the investigating officer moving for it, then there is no good reason to limit the power to exceptional cases. We are unable to draw up a dividing line between witnesses whose statements are liable to be recorded by the magistrate on being approached for that purpose and those not to be recorded. The contention that there may be instances when the investigating officer would be disinclined to record statements of willing witnesses and therefore such witnesses must have a remedy to have their version regarding a case put on record, is no answer to the question whether any intending witness can straightaway approach a magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 of the Code. Even for such witnesses provisions are available in law, e.g. the accused can cite them as defence witnesses during trial or the court can be requested to summon them under Section 311 of the Code. When such remedies are available to witnesses (who may be sidelined by the investigating officers) we do not find any special reason why the magistrate should be burdened with the additional task of recording the statements of all and sundry who may knock at the door of the court with a request to record their statements under Section 164 of the Code.


On the other hand, if door is opened to such persons to get in and if the magistrates are put under the obligation to record their statements, then too many persons sponsored by culprits might throng before the portals of the magistrate courts for the purpose of creating record in advance for the purpose of helping the culprits. In the present case, one of the arguments advanced by accused for grant of bail to them was based on the statements of the four appellants recorded by the magistrate under Section 164 of the Code . It is not part of the investigation to open up such a vista nor can such step be deemed necessary for the administration of justice.


Thus, on a consideration of various aspects, we are disinclined to interpret Section 164(1) of the Code as empowering a magistrate to record the statement of a person unsponsored by the investigating agency.

Confession of a co-accused will not be a substantive evidence:-

Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, (1964) 6 SCR 623 held that a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can at best be utilized in order to lend assurance to the Court. In the absence of any substantive evidence, it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of a co-accused. In the present case, the conviction having been based solely on the confession of the co-accused, the Court was of the view that the appellant was entitled to be acquitted. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Bombay High Court

Emperor vs Bhagwandas Bisesar on 13 August, 1940

Equivalent citations: (1940) 42 BOMLR 938

The mere subsequent retraction of a confession, though no doubt it is to be carefully considered by the Court, is not by itself, if duly recorded, sufficient to make it appear not to have been freely and voluntarily made. The rules regarding confessions which are retracted are spread over a large number of decided cases. The rules are (1) that a confession is not to be regarded as involuntary merely because it is retracted; (2) as against the maker of the confession, the retracted confession may form the basis of a conviction if it is believed to be true and voluntarily made (3) as against the co-accused, both prudence and caution require the Court not to rely on a retracted confession without independent and full corroborative evidence. The corroboration should not only confirm the general story of the alleged crime, but must also connect the co-accused with it. The words of Section 30 are that a confession against a co-accused may be taken by the Court into consideration. These words show that even if it be not illegal to convict an accused person on the confession of a co-accused, prudence and caution, more especially in cases tried by a Judge with the help of a jury, require that the confession or statement is fully and strongly corroborated. There is, however, no rule of law requiring a retracted confession to be supported by corroborative evidence in material particulars. The use to be made of such a confession is more a matter of prudence than of law.

(Section 463 permits oral evidence only as regards to prove that procedure laid down in section 164 has been followed when court finds that record produced before it does not show that was so . If oral evidence shows that procedure of 164 is fully followed then only can record be admitted. )

Test will be again , whether the procedural omissions have prejudiced the accused and consequently resulted in failure of justice?

Effect of absence of warning ? (read with section 29 of Indian Evidence act) Mere absence of warning will not vitiate the confession or make it inadmissible but if the magistrate does not in clear terms certify his satisfaction or belief as to voluntary nature of the confession recorded by him the defect would be fatal to admissibility and use of confession against acussed at the trial (Chandran v. State of Tamilnadu (1978) 4 SCC 90)

STATEMENTS UNDER 164

1. They are not substantive evidence, but can be used for corroboration or contradiction .

2- May be administered on oath

3- statement of witness recorded under 164 becomes part of the public record , which does not require any formal proof. 4- Persons making them must , ordinarily , be sponsored by police.

When carbon copy of statement under S 164 of CRPC is admissible in evidence? CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2014

Krishna Sahebrao Patil, VERSUS The State of Maharashtra


relying on the case of Prithi Chand vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 1989

S.C. Page 702, held that carbon copy mechanically

prepared while preparing original, will be

original and has treated carbon copies of

statements available on record, as primary

evidence.Proof of a

document is separate aspect. Even if the documents

are treated as primary evidence, the same have to

be strictly dealt with and treated within the ambit and scope of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Section 62, Explanation (2) of the Evidence Act

read with Judgment in the matter of Prithi Chand

(supra) applies to such matter. When the

statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were found

to be not traceable, the carbon copies of the

statements have been rightly treated as primary

evidence as they were made by one uniform process. Whether Accused should be administered oath before recording his confessional statement?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Criminal Appeal No. 2465 of 2002 Baldeo Vs State of UP Art. 20(3) – Administration of oath to accused in his confessional statement is violative of mandatory provisions of Art. 20(3) of Constitution and S. 281 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has committed gross illegality in administering oath to each accused before recording their confessional statement. Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. specifically provides that no oath shall be administered to an accused while recording his confession. Administration of oath to the accused in his confessional statement is violative of mandatory provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 281 Cr.P.C. Thus, the Magistrate cannot administer oath to the accused before recording his confessional statement and if he does so, the statement is illegal and should be excluded from consideration. State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna MANU/SC/0400/2014 Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the procedure to be followed in the case of rape and recording the statement of the victim which reads as follows:


"On considering the same, we have accepted the suggestion offered by the learned counsel who appeared before us and hence exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we are pleased to issue interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Station in charge in the entire country to follow the direction of this Court which are as follows: (i) Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the Investigating Officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A copy or the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should be handed over to the Investigating Officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is filed. (ii) The Investigating Officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate. (iii) The Investigating Officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid. (iv) If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate. (v) Medical Examination of the victim: Section 164A Cr.P.C. inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in Cr.P.C. imposes an obligation on the part of Investigating Officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C."

(In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Code should be handed over to the Investigating Officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 of the Code should not be disclosed to any person till the charge-sheet/report under Section 173 of the Code is filed. So, it is clear from the dictum that, in the case of rape the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of a prosecutrix has to be kept in secret till the final report is filed. That was intended to protect the interest of the prosecutrix and also taking into account the possibility of threat to her life, if such statement has been disclosed to others at that stage. .)


From the above mentioned decision arises another issue :

Whether Court can give a certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded U/S 164 of CRPC to accused before the filing of chargesheet? Generally , answer is no.



Crl. M.C. No. 2627 of 2014


Shakkeer M.K. Vs. State of Kerala



"(1) The statements recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., would be public documents falling under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act and (2) the accused will be entitled to copies of the same as a person interested; (3) but his right to obtain such copies, before the filing of the charge-sheet has been taken away by implication by the provisions of Section 174(4) of the Criminal PC. And he will be entitled to the copies of the documents only in accordance therewith."



Copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Code should be handed over to the Investigating Officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 of the Code should not be disclosed to any person till the charge-sheet/report under Section 173 of the Code is filed. So, it is clear from the dictum that, in the case of rape the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of a prosecutrix has to be kept in secret till the final report is filed. That was intended to protect the interest of the prosecutrix and also taking into account the possibility of threat to her life, if such statement has been disclosed to others at that stage.


So in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna MANU/SC/0400/2014 , the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer for issuing certified copy of Section 164 statement recorded by the Magistrate of the prosecutrix to the accused as he is not entitled for the same at this stage as of right . General principles for determining when confession of a co-accused in NDPS case is admissible and reliable :-

Supreme Court in Mohd. Fasrin v. State: MANU/SC/1267/2019 : (2019) 8 SCC 811. In that case, the Court found that the only material on the basis of which the accused were convicted was the statement of the co-accused and his own. In that case also, certain other persons had been named but no investigation had been carried out. In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court are relevant and are reproduced below:-


"6. As far as the present appellant is concerned, the only evidence, if it can be called that, is the statement of a co-accused (Accused 2) and his own alleged confession. As far as statement of co-accused (Ext. P-41) is concerned, in that the co-accused states in great detail as to how he came into contact with one other person also called Mohammed in Bombay who had instructed him to go to Manglapuram from Bombay. There he was again asked to come to Hotel Airline at Manglapuram where he met the said Mohammed of Bombay. It was that Mohammed of Bombay, who handed over the vehicle to him and told him that 7.4 kg of heroin is kept hidden in 7 packets in a false compartment beneath the front seat of the car. The only allegation with regard to the appellant is that after taking delivery of the contraband from Mohammed of Bombay, the co-accused was to take the heroin and hand it over to one Nalliappan. The said Nalliappan was to further hand over the heroin to the appellant. Neither the said Mohammed from Bombay nor Nalliappan have been examined in the case nor have they been arrayed as accused. Therefore, the link evidence is totally missing. Furthermore, the allegation is only in the nature of hearsay that Mohammed had told the co-accused that he had to deliver the contraband to the present appellant. Even if we take the confession of the co-accused Hasan Mohamed (A-2) into consideration, it would only prove that Mohammed (from Bombay) had told the co-accused that Nalliappan would hand over the contraband to the present appellant. This evidence of a co-accused is a very weak type of evidence which needed to be corroborated by some other evidence. The confession of a co-accused gives a clue to the investigating authorities as to how to investigate the matter and against whom to investigate the matter. Thereafter, it is for the investigating officers to collect evidence against the said person who has been named by the co-accused. In the present case no such corroborative evidence has been led.


That brings us to the confessional statement of the appellant recorded by PW 1. Admittedly, this confession was recorded after the appellant was arrested. It is true that the issue, whether a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be construed as a confessional statement even if the officer who has recorded such statement was not to be treated as a police officer, has been referred to a larger Bench in Tofan Singh v. State of T.N. [Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., MANU/SC/1031/2013 : (2013) 16 SCC 31 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 196].


We, for the decision of this case, therefore, proceed on the premise that the confession is admissible. Even if it is admissible, the court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also that the accused was apprised of his rights before recording the confession. No such material has been brought on the record of this case. It is also well settled that a confession, especially a confession recorded when the accused is in custody, is a weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence. The confession of the co-accused, which was said to be a corroborative piece of evidence, has been discussed above and is of no material value. Therefore, other than the two confessional statements -- one of the co-accused and the other of the accused, the prosecution has gathered no evidence to link the appellant with the commission of the offence. As such, without going into the legality of the admissibility of the confession, we hold that even if these confessions are admissible then also the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused."

Co accused confession treatment guidelines:- In Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court had held that a confession cannot be made as a foundation for conviction and can only be used in support of other evidence. In that case, the Supreme Court had relied upon the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. R.: (1949) SCC OnLine EC 12, wherein the Court had, in the context of a confession statement of an accused which was sought to be relied against a co-accused, observed as under:-


"It does not indeed come within the definition of evidence contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It is not required to be given in the oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested by a cross-examination........ Obviously, this evidence is of a weak type. It is a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver which is not subject to any of those infirmities."


The Supreme Court also referred to the decision in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan Chuckerbutty: MANU/WB/0030/1911 : ILR (1911) 38 Cal. 559, wherein the Court had held that such a confession can only be used to "lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused".

Translating these observations into concrete terms they come to this. The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept."


The law laid down in Kashmira Singh (supra) was approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar: MANU/SC/0059/1964 : (1964) 6 SCR 623. In that case, the Court after referring to various decisions observed as under:-


"Thus, though confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of Section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by Section 3 of the Act. The result, therefore, is that in dealing with a case against an accused person, the court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. That, briefly stated, is the effect of the provisions contained in Section 30. The same view has been expressed by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh where the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu's case has been cited with approval."

Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: MANU/SC/0796/2018 In absence of any substantive evidence it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused.