High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Confession by a Co-accused Containing Incriminating Material Against a Person Would Not by Itself Suffice to Frame Charge – Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court at Calcutta has quashed the criminal proceedings against Avishek Singhal, implicated in a case involving the alleged possession and disposal of a stolen vehicle. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De observed that the sole reliance on a co-accused’s confession, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain charges under sections 411, 413, 414, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The crux of the legal argument in this case revolves around the evidentiary value of a co-accused’s statement, which the court determined lacks sufficient corroborative evidence to substantiate charges against Singhal.

The proceedings originated from a suo moto complaint by the police in 2009, following the discovery of a stolen car at Gopi Pradhan’s residence in Mirik, which he claimed to have acquired from one Ebucha Singh. Despite implicating several individuals, including Singhal, the prosecution relied solely on the confession of a co-accused, without presenting concrete evidence linking Singhal to the crime.

Evidentiary Insufficiency: Justice De emphasized that the confession of a co-accused is not alone sufficient for framing charges unless supported by substantial evidence, citing precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra.

Admissibility of Confessions: The court noted that any confession made to a police officer, as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, is inadmissible in court, which disqualifies the statements made by the co-accused against Singhal.

Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The judgment pointed out that there was no recovery of stolen goods from Singhal’s possession and no other substantial evidence was presented that could link him to the alleged crime.

Quashing of Proceedings: Based on the analysis, the court concluded that the criminal proceedings against Singhal should be quashed due to the lack of credible evidence substantiating his involvement in the crime.

Decision: Justice Bibhas Ranjan De allowed the revision application and quashed the proceedings against Avishek Singhal, citing a significant gap in the prosecution’s evidence required to sustain a criminal charge.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

Avishek Singhal Vs. The State of West Bengal

Similar News