Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 246
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT INDORE
Virender Singh, J.
Dharmendra : Vijay And Others : Deepak - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
MCRC.No.19835/2018 with MCRC.No.20064/2018, MCRC.No.29854/2019, MCRC. No. 31955/2019, MCRC. No. 36467/2019, MCRC. No. 37816/2019, CRC. No. 41162/2019, MCRC. No. 41179/2019, MCRC. No. 43345/2019, MCRC No.45237 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2020
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
Information given by the accused to the police, which does not lead to any recovery, is not admissible in evidence against co-accused. Prosecution based solely on such inadmissible evidence amounts to an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Admissibility of disclosure statements and confessional statements - MCRC.No.19835/2018 Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P., MCRC.No. 20064/2018 Vijay and 3 others Vs. State of M.P., MCRC.No.29854/2019 Deepak S/o Kanahaiyalal Maru Vs. State of M.P, MCRC.No.31955/2019 Bhopal Singh & Kamal Singh Vs. State of M.P., MCRC.No.36467/2019 Pappu Singh @ Rajendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., MCRC.No.41162/2019 Prakash Chandra Vs. State of M.P., MCRC.No.41179/2019 Bhima Vs. State of M.P., MCRC.No.43345/2019 Dinesh Joshi Vs. State of M.P., MCRC No.45237/2019 Krishna & Rajendra Vs. State of M.P.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were implicated based on disclosure statements of co-accused leading to recovery of illegal substances. The prosecution relied solely on these statements without any other evidence connecting the petitioners to the alleged crimes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the information given by the co-accused, which did not lead to any recovery, was inadmissible as evidence against the petitioners. The court held that the prosecution based solely on such inadmissible evidence amounted to an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners, acquitting them from the charges.
Issues: Admissibility of disclosure statements and confessional statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the abuse of process of law by prosecuting solely on the basis of inadmissible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that information given by the accused to the police, which does not lead to any recovery, is not admissible in evidence against co-accused. Prosecution based solely on such inadmissible evidence amounts to an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and acquitted them from the charges, emphasizing that the prosecution based solely on inadmissible evidence was an abuse of process of law.
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 petitioners are under the different laws like M.P. Excise Act, 1915 or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short NDPS, Act), but in all these petitions, complicity of the petitioners is based only on the information given by the coaccused to the police, which has been recorded under Section 27 of the Act of 1872, but has not led to discovery of any fact.
4. Brief detail of facts of each petition is as follows:
(1) MCRC.No.19835/2018 Dharmendra Vs. State of M.P.
5. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by petitioner Dharmendra S/o Madan Lal Gayri in crime No.181/2017 registered at Police Station Neemuch Cantt, District Neemuch for the offence under Section 8/18 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 on the ground that he has been impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Takhat Singh @ Mukesh and Ramesh Chandra from whose possession the police have recovered 35 kg of opium from a false chamber specially designed in their S-Cross car bearing registration No.MP09-CS-2964 to carry contraband secretly.
6. As per prosecution case, on 14.4.2017 ASI Kailash Solanki of Police Station Neemuch Cantt. was going to Jodhpur along with accused Rajesh of Crime No. 175/2017 u/s 8/18 NDPS Act for investigation. On the way, when they stopped their vehicle for relieving themselves, Rajesh pointed out a person stating that he is Mukesh Jat, who had supplied him 1 kg of opium. Seeing the police coming towards him, Mukesh along with his companion ran away with his S-Cross car bearing Registration No.MP09-CS-2964 towards Udaipur, Rajsthan. The Police of Police Station Dabok was informed and requested to nab them. The Police Dabok laid picket, caught Mukesh @ Takhat Singh Jat and Ramesh Patidar with their car and handed them over to the Police Neemuch Cantt. When the Police Neemuch cantt was bringing them back, it received information on mobile phone that Mukesh and Ramesh were carrying illegal opium in the car and were going to deliver it in Ahamdabad. Mukesh and Ramesh were brought to the Police Station Neemuch Cantt. On search of the vehicle, 35 Kg of Opium kept concealed in a false Chamber made in the car was recovered. The police arrested and interrogated them (Mukesh @ Takhat Singh Jat and Ramesh Patidar). Mukesh @ Takhat Singh revealed that out of total quantity recovered from the car, 8 kg of opium was procured by him from the petitioner. On the basis of this disclosure recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the police have impleaded the petitioner in the array of the accused.
7. Earlier the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in his absence but letter he appeared before the Court and supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against him.
8. The lea
