Co-Accused’s Implication Based On Disclosure Statement Without Corroboration Inadmissible: Bombay HC Discharges Man In 1993 Riots Case
Justice Milind Jadhav, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court while discharging a man in 1993 Communal Riots Case, observed that an implication of co-accused only based on disclosure statement without any corroboration is legally inadmissible.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Revision Application challenging the rejection of Discharge Application of the accused by the Trial Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed, “I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be interfered with in view of the provisions of Sections 26, 27 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as applicable to the facts in the present case. Implication of the co-accused only on the basis of a disclosure statement without any corroboration is not legally admissible. Admittedly, there is no other evidence placed on record.”
The Bench emphasised that there has to be some independent evidence which in some measure implicates or shows nexus of the accused to the crime in question. It further reiterated that the danger of using the testimony of a co-accused against another is in no way lessened when the evidence is not on oath and cannot be tested by cross examination.
Advocate S.R. More appeared on behalf of the Applicant/accused while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) P.P. Shinde appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case -
On January 12, 1993, during communal riots in Mumbai, 15 armed individuals allegedly entered the premises of Blue Steel Company and attacked the watchmen, one of whom was killed on the spot. After the lodging of an FIR, 8 of the individuals were identified. Later, another group of 5 accused persons were arrested and their voluntary confessions led to the recovery of weapons as well. It was contended by the counsel for the accused that the Applicant was not named in the FIR or the charge sheet nor was he arrested alongside the primary accused. It was further submitted that he was implicated based on the confessions of the co-accused and no specific role or action was attributed to him. As the Applicant’s Discharge Application was rejected by the Trial Court, he approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, remarked, “Admittedly, there is no other evidence. Prima facie, save and except the alleged confessional statements of co-accused there is no other material or evidence placed on record by Prosecution to corroborate the role or nexus of Applicant as acceptable evidence to connect the Applicant to the crime in question. Thus in the absence of any acceptable evidence to link the Applicant to the crime in question which the prosecution has failed to place on record despite several years having passed by and there being no other evidence brought on record to implicate the Applicant, in a case like this where conspiracy is primarily alleged between the Accused persons, case of prosecution cannot be held to be adequate for indicting the Accused to the crime of criminal conspiracy.”
The Court further noted that, merely on the basis of alleged Confessional Statement of the co-accused qua the Applicant and more specifically in the absence of any corroborative evidence, it would not be safe to indict and convict the Applicant.
“… it is seen that even Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 comes to the rescue of the applicant as the confessional statement of the 5 accused is made before the police officers in the Police Station and not before the Magistrate. What is intriguing in the present case is the sheer lapse of time and no material brought on record by the prosecution to show the nexus of Applicant”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that it will have to exercise caution and that the prosecution failed to place on record any corroborative evidence.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, set aside the Trial Court's Order, and discharged the accused.
Cause Title: Kisan Soma Sathe v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:1)
