Apology of Co-Accused Not Evidence: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Additional Evidence in Majithia Defamation Case

Case Name: Bikram Singh Majithia v. Sanjay Singh

Date of Judgment: 27.03.2026

Citation: CRM-M-39744-2023

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The High Court held that apology letters of co-accused are inadmissible as confessional evidence unless they are jointly tried with the accused. Statements made after the incident cannot be treated as “conduct” under Section 8 of the Evidence Act unless they accompany relevant acts.

Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the trial Court rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence in a criminal defamation complaint.

The complaint arose from alleged defamatory statements made by the respondent during a public rally, which were subsequently published in newspapers . During trial, the petitioner sought to introduce additional evidence including newspaper records, video footage, and apology letters issued by co-accused.

The trial Court dismissed the application, and the High Court examined whether such evidence was relevant and admissible.

The petitioner argued that apology letters constituted confessional statements under Section 30 of the Evidence Act and that subsequent statements reflected conduct under Section 8.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that Section 30 applies only when co-accused are being tried jointly. In the present case, the co-accused who issued apology letters were no longer part of the trial, as proceedings against them had been dropped. Therefore, their statements could not be used against the remaining accused.

Further, the Court held that statements made by the accused after the incident do not fall within the scope of “conduct” under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. As clarified by Explanation I to Section 8, mere statements are not admissible unless they accompany and explain relevant acts connected to the occurrence.

The Court also observed that such subsequent statements might give rise to a separate cause of action but are irrelevant to the adjudication of the present complaint.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the trial Court’s order, holding that:

• Apology letters of co-accused are inadmissible in absence of joint trial.
• Subsequent statements do not qualify as relevant conduct under Section 8.
• No interference is warranted in rejection of additional evidence.