The confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service when the court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from the said evidence.

In criminal cases where the other evidence adduced against an accused person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecution seek to rely on the confession of a coaccused person, the presumption of innocence which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence assists the accused persons and compels the court to render the  verdict that the charge is not proved against him, and so, charge is not proved against him, and so, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Neither (a) nor (b)