Evidence Act-Confession of co-accused-Not ''evidence'' within the meaning of s. 3 Evidence Act-Not substantive evidence against co accused-Can be used only to give assurance to conclusion of guilt based on other evidence-Sections 30 and 133 Evidence Act-Distinction between-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). ss. 3, 30, 133.

The appellants along with four others were tried and convicted by the Sessions Judge for the offences of dacoity and murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Pending that appeal it issued a rule for enhancement of the sentence, and finally the rule was made absolute and they were ordered to be hanged. The appellants thereupon filed the present appeals by special leave granted by this Court.

The main point raised before this Court was that the High Court misconceived the ambit and scope of the decision of this Court in Ram Prakash v. State of Puniab [1959] S.C.R. 121 and that the High Court committed an error in law in treating the confession made by the co-accused as substantive evidence against the appellants.