Insofar as the submission advanced by Shri
Sharma, learned AAG appearing for the State of
Assam, that the co-accused, Salim Uddin @ Salim,
has implicated the accused-respondent in his
testimony/confession is concerned, we are least
persuaded by the said submission, having regard to
the limited evidentiary value of such a statement in
law. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to
constitution bench judgment in Haricharan Kurmi
v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184, wherein the Court
observed as follows:-
“15. The statements contained in the
confessions of the co-accused persons
stand on a different footing. In cases where
such confessions are relied upon by the
prosecution against and accused person,
the court cannot begin with the
examination of the said statements. The
stage to consider the said confessional
statements arrives only after the other
evidence is considered and found to be
satisfactory. The difference in the approach
which the court has to adopt in dealing with
these two types of evidence is thus clear,
well understood and well-established. It,
however, appears that in Ram Prakash case
some observations have been made which
do not seem to recognise the distinction
between the evidence of an accomplice and
the statements contained in the confession
made by an accused person. “An
examination of the reported decisions of the
various High Courts in India,” said Imam,
J., who spoke for the Court in that case,
“indicates that the preponderance of
opinion is in favour of the view that the
retracted confession of an accused person
may be taken into consideration against a
co-accused by virtue of the provisions of
Section 30 of the Act, its value was
extremely weak and there could be no
conviction without the fullest and strongest
corroboration on material particulars”. The
last portion of this observation has been
interpreted by the High Court in the present
case as supporting the view that like the
evidence of an accomplice, a confessional
statement of a co-accused person can be
acted upon if it is corroborated in material
particulars. In our opinion, the context in
which the said observation was made by
this Court shows that this Court did not
intend to lay down any such proposition. In
fact, the other evidence against the
appellant Ram Prakash was of such a
strong character that this Court agreed
with the conclusion of the High Court and
held that the said evidence was satisfactory
and in that connection, the confessional
statement of the co-accused person was
considered. We are, therefore, satisfied that
the High Court was in error in this case in
taking the view that the decision in Ram
Prakash was intended to strike a discordent
note from the well-established principles in
regard to the admissibility and the effect of
confessional statements made by coaccused
persons.” {Para 33}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 8846 of 2025)
THE STATE OF ASSAM Vs MOINUL HAQUE @ MONU
Author: Mehta, J.
Dated: APRIL 16, 2026.
Print Page
