Back
ANIL VERMA
Sonu Raghuvanshi – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the charge-sheet and all related proceedings arising from an FIR registered under section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (!) .
The facts indicate that police intercepted a vehicle suspected of carrying illicit liquor, which was recovered from co-accused individuals. The applicant was implicated solely based on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, without any direct evidence such as recovery from the applicant or possession of contraband (!) (!) .
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR or secret information, was not present at the scene, and no liquor or property belonged to him. The reliance on a memorandum under section 27 of the Evidence Act was challenged, emphasizing that such a statement is not legally admissible as evidence of an overt act of another accused (!) (!) .
The prosecution contended that there was prima facie evidence against the applicant, but the court found that no concrete evidence linked the applicant to the offence. The only evidence against him was the disclosure statement, which is not admissible as substantive evidence of guilt (!) .
The court emphasized that a confession or disclosure statement by a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused and can only be considered to support other satisfactory evidence. Since no such other evidence was present, the court found that the applicant's involvement was not sufficiently established (!) (!) .
Given the lack of admissible evidence connecting the applicant to the offence, the court held that continuing with the proceedings would be futile. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the FIR, charge-sheet, and all related proceedings against the applicant were quashed, resulting in his discharge from the case (!) (!) .
The order underscores the importance of direct and legally admissible evidence in criminal proceedings and reaffirms that mere disclosure statements without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction.
ORDER
1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is preferred by applicant for quashment of charge-sheet arising out of FIR bearing crime No.910/2021 for the offence under section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 registered at Police Station Banganga, Indore and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.7.2021 police got a discrete information with regard to a vehicle, which was carrying alleged liquor. Acting upon the said information, police party reached on the spot and intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-09-GG-6674 at Super Corridor and during the search, recovered 468 bulk litres illicit liquor from the possession of coaccused Narendra Singh and Indrajeet Singh. On the basis of memorandum given by co-accused, present applicant has been implicated as a accused in this case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this matter. His name neither mentioned in the secret information nor in the FIR. During the investigation, not a single piece of evidence has been produced by the prosecution, which shows the gui
The court emphasized the necessity of tangible evidence in criminal cases, ruling that confessions of co-accused cannot solely support a charge without independent corroboration.
A memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be the sole basis for prosecution; corroborative evidence is necessary to establish a connection to the offense.
A co-accused's confession cannot solely support a conviction without corroborating evidence, as per the principles of admissibility under the Evidence Act.
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, are relevant for guiding initial investigations, and FIRs cannot be quashed solely on this basis.
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.
Statement of co-accused is relevant under Section 10 of Evidence Act for the purpose of carrying out further investigation – At initial stage of registration of FIR and starting of investigation on t....
Statements of co-accused can be used as clues for investigation; FIRs cannot be quashed solely based on such statements at the initial stage.
Statements of co-accused, while inadmissible at trial, can guide initial investigations and do not warrant quashing of FIRs at the preliminary stage.
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
