Charges cannot be framed solely on a co-accused's confession unless it is corroborated by substantive evidence indicating guilt.

ORDER

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

17.03.2021 Learned senior counsel Mr. A.M. Bora, assisted by Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, Ms. S. Jahan as well as Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned counsel for the informant were heard.

2. By these two applications under Section 482 CrPC, the Extra Ordinary Inherent Jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked for setting aside the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Sessions Case No. 29/2018, whereby charges were framed against the petitioners.

3. An FIR was lodged with the Diphu Police Station on 11.07.2014 alleging, inter alia, that on 10.07.2014, when the deceased Sambhu Singh was attending classes in the Basic Training Centre, some people took him out from the classes and shot him to death. After killing the deceased Sambhu Singh, the miscreants had left the place. On the basis of the said FIR, Police registered Diphu P.S. Case No. 167/2014 under Section 302 IPC and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against as many as 10 (ten) accused persons including the present petitioners. Based on the said charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order framed charges against the accused persons including the present petitioner Nandan Das and Suman Kumari Devi under Section 120(B) read with Section 302 IPC. Charges were also framed against some other accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 27(3)/25(1-A) of the Arms Act.

4. Aggrieved by the order of framing charge the petitioners have approached this Court for setting aside the order and/or quashing the proceeding against them.

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. A.M. Bora submitted, that no material could be collected by the Investigating Agency against the present petitioners, inasmuch as, the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC have not implicated the present petitioners. However, learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners on the sole basis of the confession of a co- accused. Mr. Bora further submits that the confession of the co-accused relied by the learned trial Court for framing the charge was, in fact, exculpatory so far the maker of the confession was concerned and therefore it was not a confession in the eye of law and as such inadmissible in evidence as confession. Further contention of Mr. Bora was that even if it is assumed to be a confession of the co-accused, charge could not have been framed against the petitioners solely on the basis of the confession of a co-accused, in absence of any other evidence. Mr. Bora submits that there was absolutely no evidence and materials on record except, the so called confession of the co-accused relied by the learned trial Court for framing charge, and as such the impugned order framing charge against the petitioners warrants interference. To buttress his submission, Mr. Bora placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani , (1998) 7 SCC 337;

(ii) Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujrat, (2019) 16 SCC 547; and (iii) 1971 Criminal Law Journal 1232.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S. Jahan would submit, that