AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We think a new trial must be ordered in this case on the ground of misperception of evidence and misdirection. The Sessions Judge allowed the
17th prosecution witness to give hearsay evidence as to the guilt of the 4th accused and also recorded alleged confessions by accused Nos. 4 and
12 made when they were in the custody of the police. The Sessions Judge also misdirected the jury, in our opinion, in telling them that confessions
to the Police if followed by the production of stolen property were admissible, whereas he should have pointed out that such confessions are only
admissible in so far as they relate distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
Evidence of such confessions should not be allowed to be given or recorded to any greater extent, nor when such evidence as is properly
admissible has been recorded, should the jury afterwards be told generally that the prisoners had confessed, as has been done in this case.
Further the Sessions Judge did not warn the jury to take the case of each accused separately and that a confession by one accused involving
himself alone, could not be used against the other accused.
We set aside the conviction and direct the prisoners to be retried.