[1928] EACA 16

[1928] EACA 16

The court held that a tribal retainer falls within the definition of a police officer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, any confession or admission of guilt made to such a person is inadmissible as evidence in criminal proceedings. The sentence was confirmed on the basis that the confession to the tribal retainer could not be used against the accused.

Citation
[1928] EACA 16
Parties
Defendant: Kaboo wa Mulei; Respondent: Crown
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1928
Case Number
Confirmation Case 108/1928.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confirmation / Confirmation
Outcome
sentence_confirmed
Judges
Sheridan, J
Legal Topics
Confession Evidence, Police Officer Definition, Admissibility of Evidence
Source Language
English

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaboo wa Mulei

Defendant

Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Confirmation / Confirmation

  1. 1 Whether a confession made to a tribal retainer is admissible under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  2. 2 Whether a tribal retainer qualifies as a police officer for the purposes of section 25.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a tribal retainer falls within the definition of a police officer under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, any confession or admission of guilt made to such a person is inadmissible as evidence in criminal proceedings. The sentence was confirmed on the basis that the confession to the tribal retainer could not be used against the accused.

Court Disposition

sentence_confirmed

Orders

  • Sentence confirmed. An admission of guilt made to a tribal retainer is not admissible evidence, as he is a policeman.