The confession of a co-accused (S. 30) is not treated in the same way as the testimony of an accomplice (S. 133). The two differ mainly in the following ways:
1. The confession of a co-accused stands on a different footing from the testimony of an accomplice; as the latter is taken on oath and tested by cross-examinations; a higher probative value is, therefore, given to accomplice evidence.
Image Source: meggiekornelsen.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
2. The confession of a co-accused can hardly be called substantive evidence, as it is not “evidence” within the definition in S. 3; it must only be taken into consideration along with other evidence in the case, and it cannot alone form the basis of a conviction. But a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. (S. 133)
3. The testimony of an accomplice is ordinarily treated as the foundation of the prosecution story. The confession of a co-accused, on the other hand, cannot be the basis of a prosecution case.