Abstract
Section 30 of the Evidence Act allows the confession of an accused to be admitted against the co-accused. However, since it is a radical and dangerous departure from the rule that hearsay should not be admitted, the Indian and Malaysian Courts have not recognized such confession as falling within the definition of ‘evidence’. It can only be used as a last resort and hence has been strictly construed throughout. But Singaporean Courts have now given it a liberal construction and elevated it to the status of a rule of evidence. The researcher’s view is that this is dangerous and our courts should be wary of following Singaporean Courts’ judicial thinking.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
