In Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and another (2003 SCC (Crl.) 1514), the Apex Court has held : The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. As held in the case of Nishi Kant (Supra) buy this Court if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction.
The question as to whether an accused could be found guilty and convicted solely on the basis of his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the judgment in Sampat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1969) 1 SCC 367. The said judgment was relied upon by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment reported in 1998 SCC Crl.929, wherein in paragraph 10 the Apex Court has held as follows:- "Time and again this Court has pointed out that such answers of the accused can well be taken into consideration in deciding whether the prosecution evidence can be relied on and whether the accused is liable to be convicted of the offences charged against him." However, in the very same judgment, the Apex Court had made it clear that when the statement of the accused contain admission of circumstances put against him are not by themselves delinked from the evidence, such statement can be used for arriving at a finding that the accused had committed the offence. By the said finding, the Apex Court has held that the statement by themselves cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam reported as 2007 SCW 569: 2007 Cri LJ 1145 held that It is well settled that statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot form the sole basis of conviction; but the effect thereof may be considered in the light of other evidences brought on record.