Bhulia Devi Vs. State of Bihar

Bhulia Devi vs State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Aug 01, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/121987

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/121987
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: S.N. Pathak, J.
Decided On: Aug 01, 2001
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 664 of 1999
Subject: ;Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhulia Devi

Respondent

State of Bihar

Court's Analysis

Prior History: S.N. Pathak, J.
1. This revision is directed against the judgment passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Cr. Appeal No. 71/97 whereby the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court passed by the Railway Magistrate, Katihar, in Case No. CII 13/91, TR No. 143/97.
2. The revisionist was convicted under Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the RP (UP) Act,
3. It was submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was based on confessional statement of co-accused Jitu Chaudhary, a rick

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

(a) railway property (unlawful possession) act, 1966 - sections 3 (a) and 3 (b)--theft of coal--conviction and sentence--legality of--confessional statement of co-accused was only basis--no evidence against petitioner for selling alleged coal--hence conviction of petitioner illegal--because conviction cannot be based on the exculpatory statement of co-accused unless same corroborate by cogent evidence. (b) evidence act, 1872 - section 24--confessional statement of co-accused--conviction--held, no conviction could be passed on exculpatory statement of co-accused, same must be supported by other evidence also. - - so prosecution and the conviction of the petitioner were both bad in law......by the railway magistrate, katihar, in case no. cii 13/91, tr no. 143/97.2. the revisionist was convicted under section 3(a) and 3(b) of the rp (up) act,3. it was submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was based on confessional statement of co-accused jitu chaudhary, a rickshaw puller who was carrying 40 kgs of alleged railway coal. there is no evidence against the petitioner for selling alleged coal to jitu chaudhary. so prosecution and the conviction of the petitioner were both bad in law.4. on perusal of the judgment of the appellate court and the same of the trial court, it transpires that six witnesses have been examined and out of whom many of the witnesses are seizure list witnesses including personnel of rpf. one independent witness of the seizure list has been declared hostile and none of the witnesses said that in his presence revisionist was seen selling alleged coal to jitu chaudhary. all the witnesses rather had witnesses that the alleged coal was seized from the rickshaw puller namely, jitu chaudhary, and on the basis of the seizure a complaint was filed by one of the witnesses examined the trial court. on the confessional statement of jitu chaudhary.....

Full Judgment

S.N. Pathak, J.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Cr. Appeal No. 71/97 whereby the appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court passed by the Railway Magistrate, Katihar, in Case No. CII 13/91, TR No. 143/97.

2. The revisionist was convicted under Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the RP (UP) Act,

3. It was submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner was based on confessional statement of co-accused Jitu Chaudhary, a rickshaw puller who was carrying 40 kgs of alleged Railway coal. There is no evidence against the petitioner for selling alleged coal to Jitu Chaudhary. So prosecution and the conviction of the petitioner were both bad in law.

4. On perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court and the same of the trial Court, it transpires that six witnesses have been examined and out of whom many of the witnesses are seizure list witnesses including personnel of RPF. One independent witness of the seizure list has been declared hostile and none of the witnesses said that in his presence revisionist was seen selling alleged coal to Jitu Chaudhary. All the witnesses rather had witnesses that the alleged coal was seized from the rickshaw puller namely, Jitu Chaudhary, and on the basis of the seizure a complaint was filed by one of the witnesses examined the trial Court. On the confessional statement of Jitu Chaudhary (Exhibit-5) revisionist was prosecuted and tried alongwith Jitu Chaudhary. The question is whether on the inculpatory and exculpatory statement of co-accused, anybody can be convicted. I am of the firm opinion that no reliance can be placed on the exculpatory statement of co-accused. Exculpatory statement of co-accused must be supported by corroborative or cogent evidence to base the conviction of another accused.

5. I find that the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner.

6. In the result, the order of conviction cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. Revisionist shall be discharged from the liability of her bail bond.