RAMSWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this criminal revision petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 5.1.2008, framing charges against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that the charges have been framed based on extra judicial confession of the co-accused. The extra judicial confession can be considered in view of section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act but is considered to be a weak evidence.

(3.) In the instant case, there is no corroborative evidence against the petitioner so as to frame charges based on extra judicial confession. It is a case where offence under sections 395, 396, 397, 302 and 460 IPC has been alleged against all the accused. The petitioner was not involved in the instant case, however, co-accused-Raj Kumar stated that he had given Rs.2 lacs to Guddan dacoit to cause the incident and, out of which, Rs.20,000/- was paid to the accused petitioner Ramswaroop. They organised the occurrence wherein one Satish @ Bhola son of complainant Amar Singh died. The statements of Rajveer Singh and Kishan Singh have been relied before whom extra judicial confession was made by the co-accused Raj Kumar. In absence of corroborative evidence, charges cannot be framed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Pancho versus State of Haryana, 2012 AIR(SC) 523". Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of MP through CBI etc versus Paltan Mallah & ors, 2005 AIR(SC) 733" and even in the case of "Abdul Rashid versus State of Bihar, 2001 AIR(SC) 2422" and, lastly of this court in the case of "Pradeep Kumar Jain versus State of Rajasthan, 1999 CrLJ 3829". The prayer is accordingly made to quash the impugned order qua petitioner.