Sec 30 Evidence Act. Confession of co-accused against another not in join trial is not admissible.

SCI: 1.04.2020:Sec 30 Evidence Act: r/w Sec 15 TADA
If for any reason, a joint trial of co-accused  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 -

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Civi: Radical Changes in pleadings not allowed through amendment at advanced stage.

 Civil proceedings p leadings cannot be allowed to be radically altered at advanced stage by way of amendment, introducing new facts inconsistent with the original pleading in contravention of the bar contained in Order 6 Rule 7 Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.8, R.9, O.6, R.7, O. 6 R.17 proviso - Additional written statement The case of the defendant: she  had claimed in her written statement that she was bonafide co-sharer of suit premises - Whereas by way of additional written statement, she claimed that she was tenant under plaintiff - This was not case of fact not having been stated in written statement and that void being sought to be filled up by way of additional written statement -  defendant sought to completely change her original  stand with regard to her status and claim for being in possession - she retracted from  her earlier stand of being co-sharer and introduced a totally inconsistent and contradictory stand stating that she was a tenant , in guise ...
Read more

Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 -

Image
Summary Demolition of Residential Building Is Violative of Article 21 Of Constitution of India - PDA Ordered to Pay Rs. 10 Lakhs Compensation To Each Of the Victims .  The residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice and established procedures - such acts violates Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e citizen's right to shelter -  Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) directed to pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to each of the appellant. On March 1, 2021, a demolition notice was issued and served to the Appellants on March 6, 2021, with the actual demolition taking place the following day, March 7, 2021. This was done without granting them a fair chance to present their case before the appellate authority as stipulated in Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning Act. Among the Appellants, one is a Bar member, and another is a professor whose entire library was destroyed, resulting in their displaceme...
Read more

313 CrPC: False or non-explanation by accused no proof, no link in chain of circumstances.

The Supreme Court observed that false explanation or non-explanation of the accused to the questions posed by the court under Section 313 CrPC(power to examine accused)of the Code cannot be used as link in chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused۔ It can be used as additional circumstances when the prosecution has proved that chain of circumstances has lead to the only hypothesis that accused has commited the crime۔ Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai of SCI observed
Read more