Disclosure Statement Of Co-Accused U/S 27 Evidence Act Alone Not Sufficient To Implicate Another Individual In A Crime: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that an individual cannot be indicted in an FIR and final charge sheet when the prosecution has no concrete evidence connecting him to the crime except the disclosure statements from the purported co-accused, prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.The single-judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings for...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that an individual cannot be indicted in an FIR and final charge sheet when the prosecution has no concrete evidence connecting him to the crime except the disclosure statements from the purported co-accused, prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The single-judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma quashed the FIR and consequent proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 8, 15, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) at the instance of the petitioner.
“….He has been implicated only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in which he deposed that the petitioner and other co-accused had approached him for the purpose of transportation of the contraband…”, the court pointed out in the order.
Firstly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, the court said. Secondly, he was not the owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was being transported nor was he present in the vehicle at the time the other accused person was apprehended. Thirdly, the call details do not indicate that the petitioner had any connection with the other co-accused. Citing this clear lack of evidence barring the confessional statement of the co-accused, the court found it justified to exonerate the petitioner of the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution in the final charge sheet.
“On a perusal of the case diary as well as the charge sheet filed in the matter, this Court is of the opinion that against the present petitioner, there is no tangible evidence collected by the prosecution except the memos prepared under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at the instance of other co-accused person”, the bench sitting at Indore further added.
While doing so, the court also relied upon the directions given by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dilip Kumar v. State of M.P (2022).
“…The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it….”, the high court had noted in the said order after analysing various other decisions including that of the apex court.
According to the prosecution, on 30.06.2023, one of the co-accused travelling in a truck on the Mandsaur Highway was apprehended by the police after receiving secret information. 125 bags of poppy straw that weighs 250 quintals were recovered from the said truck. Later, the statement under Section 27 was recorded where the arrested co-accused said that the petitioner, along with some others, had approached him for the transportation of contraband. Based on the disclosure statement so made, the petitioner was also charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned above.
Case Title: Jogiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 45785 of 2023