2008 (1) TMI 382 - HC - Central Excise

Bail application - Additional Sessions Judge discharging the accused - while deciding the application for bail of the accused the learned Judge of this Court observed that besides the confessional statements of co-accused which cannot be used against the accused as they are hit by Section 30 of the Evidence Act he does not find any evidence circumstantial or otherwise which can connect the accused with the crime retracted confessional statements of co-accused (accused no. 8 and accused no. 9) would not be relevant so as to book the accused held that trial court was perfectly justified in discharging the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and no interference is called for

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the discharge order under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Relevance of confessional statements under Section 10 and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Scope and interpretation of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Admissibility and impact of retracted confessions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Discharge Order under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.:

The petitioner challenged the order dated 30-11-2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, discharging the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court observed that the retracted confessional statements of accused No. 8 and accused No. 9 were inadmissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, there was no material to frame charges against the accused, leading to the discharge. The High Court upheld this view, agreeing that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused based on the available evidence.

2. Relevance of Confessional Statements under Section 10 and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act:

The petitioner argued that the confessional statements of accused No. 8 and accused No. 9 were relevant under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, as they indicated the accused's involvement in the conspiracy to manufacture mandrax tablets. However, it was countered that these statements were made post-arrest and thus did not fall within the ambit of Section 10. The court cited precedents, including State of Gujarat v. Mohammad Atik and State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini, which clarified that post-arrest statements do not qualify under Section 10. Furthermore, the trial court had already deemed these statements inadmissible under Section 30.

3. Scope and Interpretation of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C.:

The court discussed the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, the court does not need to meticulously judge the evidence's truth or veracity. The court must determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. This principle was supported by various Supreme Court rulings, including Smt. Om Wati v. State and State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh. The court noted that strong suspicion could justify framing charges, but in this case, there was no material evidence to support such suspicion against the accused.

4. Admissibility and Impact of Retracted Confessions:

The petitioner contended that retracted confessions could still be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence, as per K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise. However, the court found no corroborative evidence to support the retracted confessions in this case. The trial court had rightly excluded these confessions, and the High Court concurred, noting that the prosecution failed to provide any additional material to substantiate the allegations against the accused.

Conclusion:

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to discharge the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., finding no sufficient ground to proceed with the trial. The revision application was dismissed, affirming that the confessional statements of accused No. 8 and accused No. 9 were inadmissible and that there was no other evidence to implicate the accused.

← Previous Next →