Lugenya s/o Nila v. R., Crim. App. 5-M-67; 10/3/67; Platt, J.

Lugenya s/o Nila v. R., Crim. App. 5-M-67; 10/3/67; Platt, J.

Accused was convicted of shop breaking. One Magonda was caught leaving the shop but his accomplices escaped. After his arrest, Magonda led a constable to the accused ’s house and purportedly stated that he was an accomplice. This statement was introduced into evidence as against accused, but at the trial Magonda denied having made the statement.

            Held: (1) If a statement of a co-accused forms part of a confession, it may be introduced as against the accused. See Indian Evidence Act, section 30. (2) However, Magonda’s denial at the trial that he made the statement vitiates the constable’s testimony that he identified the accused. (3) The court stated, obiter; Even if there had been a confession, it would not alone support the conviction of accused. Corroborative testimony would be required.