ANOOP KUMAR DUGGAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of these five writ petitions which are being disposed of by this com ­mon order, the petitioner has prayed for quashing: the F.I.Rs. dated 4.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 76 of 2009, 52 of 2009, F.I.Rs. dated 5.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 35 of 2009, 17 of 2009, F.I.R. dated 6.2.2009 in Case Crime No. 27 of 2009, under sections 419, 420 and 380 IPC, 420 IPC, 420 IPC, 356 IPC and 419 and 420 IPC, lodged in Police Stations Dhoomanganj, George Town, Khuldabad, Attarsuiya and Shahganj, dis ­trict Allahabad, respectively.

(2.) THE allegations in the F.I.Rs. in the writ petitions are similar that two persons had duped certain ladies in some colonies in Allahabad town, after entering their homes usually in the absence of their spouses, and then by overpowering the women by hypnotism or other means or by practising some deception and fraud and thereafter relieving them of their gold and jewellery. The F.I.Rs were lodged against two unknown persons on 4.2.2009, 5.2.2009 and 6.2.2009 with respect to the incidents which took place in the houses of the vic ­tim women, who were divested of their jewellery.

(3.) IT is argued by the learned Coun ­sel for the petitioner that the statement made by the co -accused to the police is in ­admissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act and thus there is no evidence against the petitioner. In this connection he has drawn our attention to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Jay Prakash v. State of U.P., 2005 (53) ACC 17 that the recoveries, if at all, could only be used against the co -accused Ashwani Kumar Duggai from whom they had been made under section 27 or 8 of the Evidence Act, and could not be used against the petitioner at all. Simi ­larly reliance was placed in the case of Sa ­hib Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 (35) ACC 355 (SC). for the proposition that the confessional statement must be substantially proved and could only be admitted in evidence, if it was not hit by sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evi ­dence Act i.e. if it had not been obtained by inducement or coercion, and a confes ­sion to the police could not be admitted in evidence. Another case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners was Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 (31) ACC 240 (SC) that the statement of an accused, which amounted to his conduct could also be used under section 8 of the Evidence Act, but the said confessional statement could only be used against the particular accused and against no other accused. He has also placed reliance on another decision of the Apex Court in Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) ACC 1061 (SC) for the proposition that extra judicial -confessions are of limited value, and it is for the Court to act cautiously upon them. Another case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was Abdul Rashid v. State of Bihar, 2001 (42) ACC 693 (SC). which again reiterated the position that confessions made before a police officer are inadmissible in evidence in Court.