Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Deepak Patil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Crime No. 86 of 2020, under sections 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 at Police Station Hatod, District Indore as also the subsequent proceedings.
3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be the co-accused in the aforesaid case wherein it is alleged that on 7-4-2020, other three co-accused persons namely Jaygiri, Pankaj and Sunit @ Luccky were apprehended on a black Activa scooter and from their possession, 125 bulk litters of unauthorized liquor was seized. In their memos prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, the said accused persons named the present petitioner as the person from whom they had procured the liquor and thus, the present petitioner was also arrested and is being tried in the aforesaid case.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the case only on the basis of a memo prepared under section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and there is no other material available on record to connect him with the offence.
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.
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 co-accused's confession cannot solely support a conviction without corroborating evidence, as per the principles of admissibility under the Evidence Act.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage of investigation if it discloses a cognizable offence, emphasizing the relevance of co-accused statements for further investigation.
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 can be used as clues for investigation; quashing FIR at initial stage is not permissible.
The main legal point established is that the absence of evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence, combined with the lack of recovery from the accused, can justify the quashment of FIR....
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
