SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 30-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 r/w Sections 34, l/4 and 120-B. 
Murder-Confession of co-accused-Conviction on the basis of-
C Justification-Deceased along with accused 'R' and two others used to 
attend tuition classes at the residence of a Professor-Accused 'S' told 
accused 'A' that accused 'R' was in love with a girl 'P' but she was not 
responding as she was in love with the deceased and, therefore, he is to be 
killed-Accused 'S' provided accused 'A' with a double barrel country-made 
pistol and loaded two cartridges in the pistol in his presence-Accused 'A ' 
D took deceased away from the gate of the house, caught hold of him and fired 
a shot at him from a close range-Accused 'R' wanted to go to the gate, but 
on hearing the shot, the Professor's wife advised him not to go out-Accused 
'R' pretended to be ignorant and gave FI statement and took the deceased 
to the hospital-Accused 'A' made a detailed confession and extra-judicial 
E confession to PW-8 implicating accused 'S' and 'R'-The confession was 
voluntary in nature and was amply corroborated-Trial court convicted 
accused persons on the basis of confession of accused 'A '-High Court 
affirmed the conviction-Validity-Held: The confession made by accused 'A' 
showed that it was voluntary in nature and not at the instance of the police-
Hence, the confession made by co-accused 'A ' could be made use of against 
F accused 'S' under S. 30 of the Evidence Act-However, apart from the 
suspicious conduct of accused 'R' there was no independent evidence against 
him-Hence, confession of co-accused 'A' could not be used against him-
Therefore, conviction of 'A' and 'S' upheld and conviction of 'R' set aside-
Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. JO and 30. 
G 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Section 172-Diary of proceedings in investigation-Entire case diary 
was made available to the accused-Legality of-Held: The confidentiality 
is always to be kept in the matter of criminal investigation-Hence, it is not 
desirable to make available the entire case diary to the accused. 
II 
800 
SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. v. STATEOFBIHAR 
801 
According to the prosecution, the deceased along with accused 'R' and A 
two others used to attend tuition classes at the residence of a Professor. 
Accused 'S' told accused 'A' that accused 'R' was in love with a girl 'P' but 
she was not responding as she was in love with the deceased and, therefore, 
he is to be killed. Accused 'S' provided accused 'A' with a double barrel 
country-made pistol and loaded two cartridges in the pistol in his presence. 
Accused 'A' took deceased away from the gate of the house, caught hold of B 
him and fired a shot at him from a close range. Accused 'R' wanted to go to 
the gate, but on hearing the shot, the Professor's wife advised him not to go 
out. Accused 'R' pretended to be ignorant and after the incident, to mislead 
the police, he gave FI statement and took the deceased to the hospital. Accused 
'A' made a detailed confession and extra-judicial confession to PW-8 C 
implicating accused 'S' and 'R'. The confession was voluntary in nature and 
was amply corroborated. 
The trial court convicted the appellants on the basis of the confession 
of appellant 'A' under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 114 and 120-B of 
the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the D 
appeal 
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the confession made by appellant 'A' could be made use of 
against the other two appellants as a substantive evidence and what was the 
evidentiary value of that confession in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, E 
1872? 
Allowing the appeal filed by appellant 'R' and dismissing the appeals 
filed by appellants 'A' and 'S', the Court 
HELD: 1. The confession of the accused 'A' was recorded by PW-7. PW-
7 complied with all formalities contemplated under Section 164 of the Code F 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused when produced before PW-7 had 
no complaint that he was tortured by the police. When he was produced before 
the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of remand, then also he had no 
complaint of any torture by the police. PW-7 put a series of questions to 
accused 'A' to find out whether he was making a voluntary confession. The G 
Magistrate had specifically; ascertained from the appellant whether he was 
making a voluntary statement

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.