Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MILIND N. JADHAV
Kisan Soma Sathe – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
1. Heard Mr. More, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Shinde, learned APP for Respondent-State. This Revision challenges rejection of Discharge Application of Applicant-Accused No. 4. It was admitted on 11.12.2002 and Trial Courts order was stayed qua the Applicant. Impugned order is dated 02.11.2002.
2. It is seen that there are 13 Accused in the crime which has been registered. The Applicant before me is Accused No. 4 whose name is Kisan Soma Sathe.
3. First Information Report (for short “FIR”) came to be filed by Original Complainant, Mr. Firoz Mohammad Sultan on 12.01.1993 alleging that 15 persons with deadly weapons brandishing swords, iron rods and sticks entered the premises of Blue Steel Company, Road No. 20, M.I.D.C. Mumbai and assaulted the watchmen Mr. Soheb Khan and Mr. Naushad Soheb Khan. Soheb Khan was killed on the spot whereas Naushad Soheb Khan succumbed to his injuries later at about 5:30 p.m. In a further assault one more person namely Mr. Irfan Sadikali Ansari was also assaulted leading to his death.
4. Date of incident i.e. 12.01.1992 incidentally is the time when the entire city of Mumbai was affected and gripped by communal riot
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible without corroborative evidence; mere naming in such confessions does not suffice for indictment.
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that strong suspicion, supported by admissible material, is necessary to frame charges, and the court must examine the admissibility of incriminati....
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
Confessional statements of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges based on sufficient circumstantial evidence and confessions, emphasizing the admissibility of evidence under the Evidence Act.
Provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C must be complied with not only in form, but in essence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
