If an offender gives a confessional statement in court involving himself and others, the court may use this confession against another person. Usually if there is more than one accused in a case then if one accused admits his own guilt then he gives the name of other accused. During the investigation, it came to light who helped the accused to commit this crime. If the accused does not involve himself but gives the confession only mentioning the name of another person, then this confession has no value. Section 30 of the Evidence Act 182 deals with when a confession of a criminal can be used to prove against another criminal. According to this section, when multiple offenders are jointly tried for the same offense , the court may consider using the confessional statement of the co-accused involving himself and others against the other accused. There is a big difference between what the court can use and what it can consider for use. The court will consider this as its inherent power according to the circumstances. According to section 30, this joint trial must be for this crime or for its assistance or attempt to commit the crime. This confession cannot be used against another person if a separate trial is held. The confessional statement of the co-accused involving others is of weak value. If such a statement is not substantiated by circumstantial evidence and other supporting evidence, then no other person can be punished on the basis of it. The example of section 114 (b) of the Evidence Act states that if the statement of the associate is not supported by the required information, it is not credible. Section 133 of the Evidence Act states that the testimony of an accomplice is not only admissible, but the accused can be punished on the basis of it. In this case, the jurists, considering these two clauses together, have come to the conclusion that the testimony of the accomplice of the crime must be supported by other testimonies. There must be supporting evidence about the crime and the activities of each offender. Since the statement of the co-accused is evidence of weak nature, the other accused cannot be punished on this basis alone.