Back
2007 Supreme(Bom) 1151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Shivdas @ Betu s/o. Narayan Boddewar. .. Applicant.
versus
The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent.
Criminal Application No. 2544 of 2007
Decided On : AUGUST 21, 2007
Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. J.S. Gavane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227-Penal Code, 1860, Sections 107 and 109-Rejection of application of discharge-Not justified.-Even if the facts which emerge from the material and document on record are taken at its face value, it is not sufficient to convict the applicant with the aid of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, find that no purpose will be served if the applicant has to undergo turmoil of the trial. In that view of the matter, I find that the learned Judge of the trial Court erred in rejecting the application of the present applicant for discharge.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 24 - Confession of accused - Conviction - Conviction can not be recorded on the confession of the co-accused - If some other evidence is available to implicate the accused - Confession can be used for the purpose of lending re-assurance.
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
2. For the reasons to be recorded separately, the Criminal Application is allowed.
The applicant is discharged in Sessions Trial No. 13/2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar.
3. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
