SAHOO vs STATE OF U.P.

The Supreme Court held that mutterings made by an accused, even if self-incriminating, can constitute a confession under Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, despite the argument that a confession must be communicated to another. The Court clarified that the probative value of a confession does not depend on its communication, and a soliloquy can be admissible as evidence, although it should not be the sole basis for conviction. In this case, the Court upheld the conviction based on the confession and corroborative evidence, affirming the High Court's decision.