The confession made to the police and the statement of a co-accused must be substantiated by other evidence, and the court may consider the applicability of similar cases in reaching its decision.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"it is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this criminal misc petition may very kindly be allowed and the fir no 40/2020 registered at P.S Mandar District Jalore under section 17, 54, 14, 57 of excise act 1950 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr.Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.Jagdish Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that an F.I.R. bearing no. 0040/2020 lodged at P.S. Mandar, District Sirohi was registered for the offences under Sections 19, 54, 14, 57 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, who is presently appointed as Circle Inspector Mandar Sirohi. It was averred therein that on 06.04.2020 at about 07:25 p.m., he received intelligence that in Jalampura Village, illicit Haryana-made liquor was being stored at one ’Natwar Singh Farm’, and on the basis of such information, a raid was conducted in accordance with Section 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and that at about 08:00 p.m.; when the raid was conducted, the police party saw three persons, who upon seeing them, attempted to flee the scene, of whom two were apprehended by the police authorities. And that, the apprehended persons revealed themselves to be Kurupal Singh S/o Natwar Singh, Mehraram S/o Dhana Ji and stated that the third person, who escaped, was one Janak Singh s/o Natwar Singh. Upon further information proferred by the apprehended persons, a total of 40 sacks of illicit liquor, in which 480 bottles of ’Old Monk XXX Rum, 750 ml. for Sale in Delhi Only’ was found, and subsequently, was seized by the police authorities. The apprehended persons further stated that Janak Singh purchased the said illicit liquor from one Papu Singh S/o Ran Singh (present petitioner), who had a blue colored tractor.

3. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the present petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of such confessional statement made by the co-accused persons, which is in clear violation of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

4. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that there is no other evidence against the present petitioner, nor was he present at the scene, when the seizure of the sacks of illicit liquor bottles was made by the concerned police authorities.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in similar circumstances, this Hon’ble Court in the case of Chirag Dave v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4032/2018, decided on 20.02.2019) quashed the F.I.R. against the petitioner therein, on finding that he was implicated solely on the basis of confessional statements made by the co-accused, unsubstantiated by any other evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor along with the Investigating Officer accept that:

a) The sole evidence against the present petitioner is the statement of the co-accused;

b) There is no direct evidence against the present petitioner;

c) The petitioner was not apprehended on the spot;

d) No illicit liquor was recovered from the present petitioner;

e) The tractor in question, ownership of which was attributed to the present petitioner, was not seized on the spot; comes in picture only on the statement of the co-accused;

f) There was also no direct evidence that the tractor in question was carrying the illicit liquor in question.

g) There is absolutely no corroborative evidence to the statement of the co-accused.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, as well as perused the record of the case and the judgment cited at the Bar.

8. This Court, on a perusal of the impugned F.I.R., finds that the present petitioner-Papu Singh has been implicated in the present criminal proceedings on the sole basis of the statements made by the co-accused in the presence of the concerned police authorities; the same is not substantiated