SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(MP) 246

VIRENDER SINGH
Dharmendra : Vijay And Others : Deepak – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shri Abhay Saraswat, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC.No. 36467/2019; Shri Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC.No. 19835/2018, MCRC.No.20064/2018; Shri Durgesh Sharma, Learned Counsel along with Shri Jamil Sheikh, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC.No.29854/2019; Shri Abhishek Rathore, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC.No.31955/2019; Shri Amit Singh Sisodiya Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC.No.37816/2019; Ms. Priyanka Raj Panwar, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC.No.43345/2019; Shri N.J.Dave, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC.No.41162/2019, MCRC.No.41179/2019; Shri R. K. Pathak, Learned Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent State in MCRC.No.37816/2019; Shri Sandeep Mehta, Learned Public Prosecutor,, for the Respondent State in MCRC.No.36467/2019, MCRC.No.41162/2019 and MCRC.No.45237/2019; Shri R.S.Darbar, Learned Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent State in MCRC.No. 43345/2019; Shri Saaransh Jain, Learned Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/State in MCRC No.19835/2018, MCRC No.20064/2018 & MCRC.No.41179/2019; Shri R.K. Shashtri, Learned Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/State MCRC No. 29854/2019 & MCRC.No. 31955/2019; Shri Nitin Vyas, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant in MCRC. No.45237/2019

JUDGMENT

1. A common question of law, as to whether information given by an accused in his disclosure statement before the police recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1872') which does not lead to discovery of any fact in pursuant thereto, is admissible in law more particularly against any co-accused or as to whether confessional statement of an accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 can be used against him or against co-accused or a person can be convicted only on the basis of such statement, is involve in all these petitions, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. All the petitioners have invoked extraordinary powers of this Court conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. asserting that they are being prosecuted only on the basis of totally inadmissible evidence i.e. the confessional/disclosure statement made by the co-accused to the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is blatant infringement of their fundamental right and cannot be allowed to continue, therefore, their prosecution be quashed.

3. Irrespective of the fact that the cases of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top