Evidence In A Trial Against An Accused Does Not Have Any Bearing Upon A Co-Accused In A Separate Trial For The...
Principle Explanation:
In criminal law, when two or more persons are accused of the same offense, their trials can either be held jointly or separately. However, if trials are held separately, evidence presented against one accused cannot be automatically used or relied upon against a co-accused in a separate trial.
This principle stems from the fundamental right of each accused to have a fair trial based on evidence specifically against them and the prohibition against hearsay or inadmissible evidence. The legal maxim "each accused stands or falls on the evidence against him" applies strictly. Evidence must be directly relevant and admissible against the particular accused in the trial.
Reasons for the Principle:
Right to a Fair Trial:
Every accused has a right to be tried on evidence presented specifically against them. Using evidence from a separate trial could prejudice the court and violate the accused’s right.
No Presumption of Guilt by Association:
One accused’s culpability or evidence against them cannot be used to infer the guilt of another without independent proof.
Different Versions and Defenses:
Co-accused may present different defenses, and evidence admissible against one may not be admissible against another.
Avoidance of Prejudicial Impact:
Evidence that might be admissible in one case may unfairly prejudice the court in the separate trial of the co-accused.
Case Laws Illustrating the Principle:
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622
The Supreme Court held that evidence must be relevant and admissible against the accused in whose trial it is being produced.
Evidence against a co-accused, especially statements made by one accused, are not admissible against the other accused unless certain conditions are met under the law (like under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act where one accused’s statement can be used against another, but only in joint trials or where the statement is admissible).
2. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 4 SCC 329
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial of co-accused separately means the evidence produced against one accused will have no bearing on the other unless the evidence is admissible under specific exceptions.
The court stressed that each accused must be judged on the evidence presented against them and not on evidence from another’s trial.
3. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1966 SC 1260
This case emphasized that a co-accused’s confession or statement is not binding on the other co-accused when tried separately.
The Court held that the confession of one accused is not substantive evidence against the other accused unless the accused chooses to make it part of their own defense or under provisions of law.
4. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam, (2003) 5 SCC 41
The court ruled that evidence from a separate trial is not admissible and cannot be a basis for conviction against a co-accused.
The principle of “no evidence by association” was upheld, emphasizing that each accused must be judged on his own evidence.
Summary:
Evidence produced in one trial against an accused cannot be directly relied upon in the trial of a co-accused held separately.
The courts require independent and admissible evidence against each accused.
Exceptions may exist when evidence like confessions under the Indian Evidence Act are admissible, but usually, this applies to joint trials or under strict legal safeguards.
This principle protects the fairness of the judicial process and prevents wrongful convictions based on mere association.
RELATED Blog
0 comments