Wakilii

Rex v Nusurupia and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 167 and 168 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1941] EACA 89 · 1941 Conviction Quashed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeals from convictions for murder by H.M. High Court of Tanganyika
Decision
Both appellants acquitted and directed to be set at liberty

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

A confession requires an unequivocal admission of having committed an act which in law amounts to a crime. A statement made by a co-accused one month before the alleged offence about receiving money to assist in a future killing is not a confession but merely an admission of an incriminating circumstance. Since the statement was not a confession, it could not be considered against the co-accused under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appeals were allowed and the convictions quashed.

Outcome

Both appellants acquitted and directed to be set at liberty

Facts

The appellants were convicted of murder by a magistrate exercising extended jurisdiction. The prosecution relied on a statement allegedly made by the second appellant to his wife approximately one month before the alleged offence, in which he said the first appellant had given him one shilling to assist in killing the deceased. This statement was treated as a confession by the second appellant and was considered against the first appellant under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court confirmed the convictions and death sentences. The witness who testified to the statement was described as unsatisfactory, having initially claimed to know nothing and being characterized as difficult and contradictory throughout her testimony.

Issues

  1. Whether a statement made by the second appellant to his wife about receiving money to assist in killing the deceased constituted a confession.
  2. Whether such a statement, if not a confession, could be considered against the first appellant under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed.
  • Accused acquitted and directed to be set at liberty.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Definition and Requirements
A confession connotes an unequivocal admission of having committed an act which in law amounts to a crime and must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.
Evidence — Confessions — Distinction from Incriminating Admissions
An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession; a statement about receiving money to assist in a future crime made one month before the alleged offence is an admission of an incriminating circumstance but not a confession of having committed the crime.
Evidence — Joint Trials — Indian Evidence Act Section 30
Under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, only a confession by one co-accused may be taken into consideration against another co-accused in a joint trial; a statement that does not constitute a confession cannot be considered against a co-accused under this provision.
Criminal Law — Trial — Demeanour of Accused
Courts must exercise caution when drawing adverse inferences from the demeanour of an accused person in the dock, as the position of the prisoner facing what he may believe to be false testimony is trying and may produce violent reactions and expressions that do not indicate guilt.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Indian Evidence Act s.30

Cases cited (1)

  • Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor (1939) AIR 47

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Rex v Nusurupia and Another (Criminal Appeals Nos. 167 and 168 of 1941) [1941] EACA 89 (1 January 1941)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.