HAROON HAJI ABDULLA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court held that under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, a confession made by a co-accused can be used as corroborative evidence against another accused if it is made in circumstances that inspire confidence and there is no chance for prior consultation. The Court clarified that while an accomplice's testimony is admissible, it requires independent corroboration to connect the accused to the crime. The conviction of the appellant was upheld based on the corroborative evidence provided by the accomplice K and the confession of B, despite B's later retraction.