LexPANCHO versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1173 PANCHO V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No.1050 of 2005) OCTOBER 20, 2011 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B ss.302, 302134 and 392 - Four accused stated to have c caused death of a tractor owner and taken away his tractor - Five months later extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by one of the accused - Three accused arrested and fourth died meanwhile - A country made pistol and some parts stated to have been recovered from the accused - o Conviction by trial court - Life imprisonment to two accused and sentence of death awarded to the accused who was stated to have shot at the deceased - High Court commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment - Appeals by two accused - Held: The extra-judicial confession made by one E of the accused is the main plank of prosecution case - Five months delay in the extra-judicial confession creates a doubt about its credibility - Besides, the said confession was made to a person who resides in a different village 35-40 kms away from accused's village and had no intimacy with the accused F concerned - There is discrepancy as to who shot at the deceased - Further, the accused, in his statement u/s. 313 CrPC denied to have made the said confessional statement - This further makes a dent in the extra-judicial confession - There being no credible evidence to upheld the conviction, the impugned judgments and orders are set aside - Evidence G Act, 1872 - ss. 3 and 30 - Investigation - Recovery of incriminating articles . • 1173 H 1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A EVIDENCE ACT, .1872: ss. 3 and 30 - Extra-judicial confession of a co-accused - Evidentiary value of - Held: In dealing with a case against an accused, the court cannot start with the confession of a co- 8 accused; it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind C is about to reach on the said other evidence - In the instant case, except the evidence of alleged belated recovery of certain articles, which have been found to be doubtful, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused to the offence - Therefore, he cannot be convicted on the basis of 0 the alleged extra-judicial confession of the co-accused - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 392. INVEST/GA TION: Incriminating articles recovered five months after the E incident at the instance of accused - Held: The brother of the deceased has signed the discovery statements of all the accused - Articles which are stated to have been discovered are easily available in the market - Belated discovery of these articles raises a question about their intrinsic evidentiary value F - The recovery of country made pistol is made more than about six months after the date of incident - The prosecution has not led any evidence to show as to in whose custody this pistol was during the period of six months after the incident - Accused, in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. has denied that any such recovery was made from him - The evidence G relating to discovery of these articles must, therefore, be rejected - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 392. Accused A-1, A-2 and A-3 were pro~ecuted for an offence punishable u/s 396 IPC. According to the H prosecution case, as stated in the FIR lodged by PW 1, • PANCHO v. STATE OF HARYANA 1175 on 7.2.1999, his brother 'KS' left the house for the Sugar A Mill on his tractor in order to bring back two trolleys which had been parked outside the Sugar Mill; that on 8.2.1999 at about 7.00 a.m., information was received that the dead body of 'KS' was lying in a pool of blood in the fields 10 feet away from the road; that both the trolleys B were parked on the road side but the tractor was not there; that some unknown persons had shot the said 'KS' dead and taken away the tractor. On 31.7.1999, A-1 was said to have approached PW 4, an ex-member of Panchayat, and told him that he along with A-2, A-3 and c the fourth accused (who died later), went on a truck; A-2 fired a shot from a country made pistol at 'KS'; A-3 stopped the tractor and threw the dead body in a wheat field; they left the trolley and took away the tractor to accused 'B' (absconding) and asked
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.