STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notwithstanding the delay of 94 days in filing of the appeal, we have heard the learned State counsel on the issue whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Ambala.

(2.) The respondent-accused was prosecuted under Sections 302 and 377 IPC for committing carnal intercourse against the course of nature with one Dinesh and then committing his murder. As there was no direct evidence, the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The only reliance of the prosecution was upon the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused before PW-3 Surinder Singh and the alleged disclosure statement made by him before the police leading to the identification of the crime scene.

(3.) The disclosure statement was also considered unworthy of any credence by the Sessions Judge, Ambala as the same did not lead to the disclosure of any new fact, which already was not known to the Investigating Agency. In view of the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the disclosure statement was thus held to be not admissible.