PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON KULDEEP SINGH V/S THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHER

PATNA, India, Sept. 22 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 22:

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge- 2, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2022, arising out of Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 259 of 2020, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections 363, 364, 302, 201/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.12.2020 at about 2:00 PM, informant's son Pawan Kumar went with two persons on a motorcycle. When the informant's son did not return home that night, the informant made enquiries with relatives and other known persons, but was unable to obtain any information regarding his whereabouts and the mobile phone of the informant's son was found switched off. Based on these circumstances, the informant strongly suspected that his son has been kidnapped and murdered by the two unknown accused persons.

3. On the basis of written statement of the informant, Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 259 of 2020 was instituted under Sections 363, 304, 302, 201/34 and 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and investigation was carried out by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses i.e. PW1- Raj Kishore Kumar Singh, PW2- Janglee Singh, PW3- Ajeet Kumar, PW4- Shambhu Singh/Shambhu Prasad Singh, PW5- Kuldeep Singh, PW6- Ram Niwas Chaudhary. The prosecution has produced certain documents which are marked as Exhibits, namely Exhibit P1- Endorsement of case and Exhibit P2- Charge Sheet No. 19/21 dated 30.03.2021. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has passed the judgment in a very mechanical manner without due consideration of the facts of the case.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the records of the case. 7. The sole question that requires consideration by this Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal requires any interference by this Court.

8. Upon scrutiny of materials on record, it is evident that the prosecution has relied on the fact that the dead body was recovered on the basis of the statement made by accused Naveen Kumar. Upon perusal of evidence on record, this Court finds that although such recovery is stated to have been made, the statement itself was recorded by the police and not before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made to police cannot be admitted in evidence. Only such part of the information which distinctly relates to discovery of a fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be used, but even such discovery, without independent corroboration, cannot establish the guilt of the accused. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that apart from the alleged recovery, there is any reliable evidence connecting Naveen Kumar with the offences of kidnapping and murder. At best such statement of Naveen Kumar can be used only to prove the recovery of the dead body. Hence, while the prosecution may have shown recovery, it does not carry evidentiary force sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charges.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.