Crown v Mulei (Confirmation Case 108-1928.)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The court held that a tribal retainer is a police officer for the purposes of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Consequently, an admission of guilt made to a tribal retainer is not admissible evidence, as confessions made to police officers cannot be proved under that section. The sentence was confirmed.
Outcome
Sentence confirmed
Facts
The accused, Kaboo wa Mulei, made an admission of guilt to a tribal retainer. The lower court convicted the accused. The matter came before the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa as a confirmation case. The central issue was whether the admission made to the tribal retainer was admissible evidence under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, which prohibits confessions made to police officers from being proved.
Issues
- Whether an admission of guilt made to a tribal retainer is admissible evidence.
Orders
- Sentence confirmed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Indian Evidence Act 1872 s.25
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.