LexPRAKASH KUMAR @ PRAKASH BHUTTO versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B PRAKASH KUMAR @ PRAKASH BHUTTO v. STATE OF GUJARAT APRIL 24, 2007 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN CJ. AND G.P. MA THUR, J.) Penal Code, 1860-Sections 1208, 342 and 365-Conviction under- On basis of confession made by co-accused-Correctness of-Held: Confession C made was to the effect that the accused in the company of other co-accused and had pointed towards the victim whereupon other accused took the victim forcibly which is not proved by other independent evidence-No other supporting evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-Thus, conviction of accused not correct and is set aside-Evidence. D According to the prosecution case, the appellant-accused in criminal , Appeal No. 526 of2001 along with other accused kidnapped a business man, confined him and extorted money. Complaint was lodged and investigation was carried out. Few of the accused persons were arrested. One of the co-accused expressed his desire to make confession. His confession was recorded which gave detailed statement regarding the commission of crime. On basis of the E confession made by co-accused, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 120-8, 342 & 365 IPC. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. The confession of a co-accused by itself is not sufficient to F hold the other accused guilty. The confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble type of evidence and it could only be used to support the other evidence, if any, adduced by the prosecution. However, confession is a substantive piece of evidence, but as a 'Rule of Prudence' the court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity. [Para 6] [536-D-E] G H Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, [1964] 6 SCR 623 and State through Superintendent of Police, CBJIS!Tv. Na/ini and Ors., [1999] 5 SCC 253, relied on. 2. ln the instant case, the prosecution could not adduce any other 532 J - - PRAKASH KUMAR@PRAKASH BHUTIO •.STATE OF GUJARAT [BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] 533 - '\.... supporting evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant Even based on the A confession of the co-accused, the only allegation against the appellant is that be was in the company of the other co-accused and had pointed out towards the victim by making a sign whereupon the other accused over-powered the victim and took him forcibly in the Maruti van. To prove that the appellant was in the company of other accused, there is no other independent evidence. B Even though the prosecution adduced other evidence to prove that the v.ictim was forcibly taken and kept in unlawful custody, the complicity of the appellant j could not be proved. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the -\ appellant. Therefore, the finding of the Special Judge is erroneous and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The appellants in the other appeals are also acquitted of all the charges framed against them. c The appellants on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. (Paras 7, 8 and 9) [533-F-G, H; 537-A-B) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001. D .t. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2001 of the Designated Court > Nos. 3 at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 2of1997. WITH Crl. A. No. 545 & 665 of2001. E Sushi! Kumar, Vinay Arora, Adolf Mathew, Mukesh Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Priyanka Adhyaru, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Prakash Kumar B. (for Ashok K. Mahajan) and Anu Mohla for the Appellants. ~ Yashank Adhyaru, Vibha Datta Makhija, Sadhana Sandhu, Pinky Behera, F Hemantika Wahi and K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. I .All these appeals arise out of common ,- judgment dated 19-3-2001 of the Designated Court at Ahmedabad for trial of G -· TADA cases in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Criminal Case No. 24 of 1996. There were seven accused in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 33 of 1994 and four accused in Terrorist Criminal case No. 24 of 1996. One accused died during the pendency of the case and six accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120, 365 read with Section 120- H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R. A B of the Indian Penal Code (!PC) and Section 342 read with Section 120-B !PC. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 526/200 I was the ninth accused and was convicted for the offences punishable under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.