- Case
- KISAN SOMA SATHE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act.
Facts: A crime was registered involving 13 accused. The applicant, Kisan Soma Sathe (Accused No. 4), was implicated based on the confessional statements of five co-accused during the recovery of weapons. The FIR did not name the applicant, nor was he arrested with the original eight accused, and his name was absent from the charge sheet. The applicant's name surfaced for the first time in the recovery panchanama, where the co-accused identified him as an accomplice.
Procedural Posture: The applicant challenged the rejection of his discharge application by the Trial Court in a Criminal Revision Application before the High Court. The High Court had previously stayed the trial against the applicant.
Issue: Can an accused be charged and tried solely on the basis of a voluntary confessional statement of co-accused, without any other corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime?
Holding: No, the accused cannot be charged and tried solely on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused without any corroborative evidence. The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application and discharged the applicant.
Reasoning: The Court relied on Section 26 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cited Supreme Court precedents, including Indra Dalal Vs. The State of Haryana and Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, to emphasize that a confession by a co-accused has minimal evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for framing charges. The Court noted the lack of any independent evidence connecting the applicant to the crime, stating that "merely on the basis of alleged Confessional Statement of the co-accused qua the Applicant and more specifically in the absence of any corroborative evidence it would not be safe to indict and convict the applicant". The Court also observed that the confessional statements were made to police officers in the police station, not before a Magistrate, further weakening their admissibility. The Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the discharge application.
