IMPORTANT POINT
Confessions by co-accused are inadmissible for framing charges without corroborative evidence, as established by the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.) :

1. The instant revision application has been preferred with a prayer for quashing of the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case no. 145(1) 09 arising out of Mirik Police Station case no. 58/09 dated 08.08.2009 under Sections 411/413/414/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) presently pending before the Court of Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurseong, Darjeeling.

Brief facts:-

2. The course of action has been initiated by the Police of Panighata Out Post under Mirik Police Station on the basis of a suo moto written complaint lodged by one Rajen Tamang, ASI of Panighata Police Post. From the said complaint it appears that on 07.08.2009 at about 20:25 hours acting on source information ASI Rajen Tamang of Panighata Out Post under Mirik Police Station raided the home of one Gopi Pradhan and found one Santro Car bearing registration no. WB77/7757. He had an information that the said vehicle was a stolen one which was kept concealed in the house of said Gopi Pradhan under Mirik Police Station for its clandestine disposal. On demand, Gopi Pradhan could produce only a receipt of Motor Vehicle Department, Darjeeling and one driving licence in his name issued by R.T.O. Manipur. During interrogation, Gopi Pradhan broke down and admitted that the car was stolen and it was obtained from one Ebucha Singh of Imphal West Police Station for consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. He further admitted that he was about to dispose of the vehicle with the assistance of his associates of Siliguri and Bhakti Nagar area who dealt in stolen vehicle by preparing fake documents. Gopi Pradhan was arrested and the said vehicle was seized along with other documents relating to the said vehicle by preparing necessary seizure list.

3. On the basis of the said suo moto FIR the then in-charge of Panighata Out Post forwarded the same to the OC of Mirik Police Station, and on receipt of the same Mirik Police Station Case No. 58 of 2009 dated 08.08.2009 under Sections 414/411/468/471 of the IPC was started. But, subsequently the case was assumed by CID West Bengal for investigation and upon completion of the same the I.O. of CID Siliguri submitted the charge sheet against 11 accused persons including the petitioner under Sections 411/413/414/468/471 of the IPC, showing two accused persons including the petitioner as absconder.

Argument advanced:-

4. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued before this court that only on the allegation statement of co-accused prosecution submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and that was not further substantiated by any cogent evidence to support the statement of co-accused.

5. Mr. Mazumdar, in support of his contention, relied on the following cases:-

- Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 547

- Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 337

6. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Sandip Chakrabarty, appearing on behalf of the State relied on the evidence collected during investigation and produced the case diary before this court for consideration.

Cases relied on :-

7. In Dipakbhai (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles:-

“24. Undoubtedly, this Court has in Suresh Budharmal Kalani [Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 7 SCC 337 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1625] , taken the view that confession by a co-accused containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame charge against it. We may incidentally note that the Court has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. [Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., (1952) 1 SCC 275 : 1952 SCR 526 : AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839] We notice that the observations, which have been relied upon, were made in the context of an appeal which arose from the conviction of the appellant ther