TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (2) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir acquittal has become final. Mahesh Narain Prasad Sharma, the victim, was a Member of the Indian Administrative Service and was posted as Collector and District Magistrate of Gopalganj District in the State of Bihar on the 11th of April, 1983 Mahesh Narain went to his court to work in the morning and after he finished his work, both he and his brother, P.W.62, who was waiting in the chamber of the victim started going down from the first floor of the Collectorate to reach the portico where the Collector's car was parked. Mahesh Prasad was followed by his Orderly-Peon, P.W. 19, and his brother one after the other. When the deceased came on the landing, Yadav who was following them suddenly took out a bomb from the bag which he held and threw it at the Collector. The bomb exploded with a loud noise and as a result of the burst Mahesh Prasad fell rolling on the ground and part of his body was blown off. Yadav jumped off from the stairs through the side railing but was chased by P.W.62 and others and was apprehended near a fruit stall. He readily confessed to his guilt but gave out that he had committed the ghastly murder at the behest of appellant Tripathi. According to Yadav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefrom. Sadanand and many others were taken into custody on 10.7.1982. The deceased, Mahesh Prasad, who was Collector of Gopalganj made an order under the Crime Control Act detaining Sadanand in jail. Eviction proceedings from the encroached land had already been undertaken. On 14.7.1982 the Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the Ashram and on 15th July, 1982, the entire structure of the Ashram was demolished under the direct supervision of the Collector. It is not disputed that from th July, 1982 Sadanand had continuously been detained in jail till the Collector's murder on 11.4.1983. In view of this fact, the prosecution has relied upon the allegation of conspiracy, confession and other features to establish the complicity of Sadanand in the murder of the Collector. There are two confessions--a judicial confession before a Magistrate, being Exhibit 44 and the other is extra judicial confession. Dealing with Exhibit 44, the High Court has observed: "So far as the confession before the Magistrate, Exhibit 44, is concerned, the trial court has itself, hesitatingly, accepted the same. From the confession I find that it was in the nature of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adav made this statement, he appears to have made the statement following assault on him. Even if it is accepted that Yadav has made the statements as alleged, can the same be utilised against Sadanand is the next aspect for consideration. Obviously, when Yadav was beaten up, he must have been anxious to ensure that the assault stopped. His plea in such a situation would neither be voluntary nor natural. It would not be proper to rely upon the same for any purpose. It is well-settled that the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against other co-accused persons in the same trial. As this Court pointed out in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR 526 the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against the other accused persons at the trial but could only be used for lending reassurance if there by any other substantive evidence to be utilised or acted upon. In Hari Charan Kurmi & Anr. v. State of Bihar, [1964] 6 SCR 623 this Court observed: "Thus, the confession may be regarded as evidence in that generic sense because of the provisions of section 30, the fact remains that it is not evidence as defined by section 3 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at after the arrival of Sadanand at the jail, enforcement of rules became slack and there was a regular flow of food from outside. Jail officials were also entertained by Sadanand. This type of evidence, even if accepted, does not establish conspiracy because Yadav, being a follower, was likely in the usual course to meet Sadanand and the fact that they were meeting at regular intervals by itself would not establish conspiracy. Prosecution relied on an event of 11th April, 1983 by examining P.W.4. This witness who was a convict staying in the same jail stated that his wife had an interview with him in the jail by paying bribe of Rs. 2 or Rs. 3 on 11.4.1983. While he was talking to his wife, he saw accused Yadav talking to Sadanand. He over-heard Yadav telling Tripathi that his work would be done within an hour or so. Sadanand appeared to be happy on being told so. P.W.4 has admitted that he has been convicted in three cases of murder and several dacoities. It appears that by then he had some pending cases against him where final reports were later given by the police. His wife who was a material witness has not been examined in the case. Obviously, as the jail records did not sh....