The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the legal principle that custodial statements of co-accused cannot be used as substantive evidence against another accused. In a significant ruling under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court quashed an FIR where the petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of inadmissible custodial statements, emphasizing the need for independent corroborative evidence to sustain criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case originated from a complaint filed by Suresh Chandra Vyas, Executive Engineer of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam, alleging manipulation of the beneficiary list under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. Deepak Kumawat, an employee of CEDMAP Company, was accused of adding 13 ineligible names to the approved list of 320 beneficiaries. The complaint led to the registration of FIR No. 376/2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against Kumawat and the ineligible beneficiaries.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2018: FIR registered against Deepak Kumawat and ineligible beneficiaries
- 2018: Petitioner Shahid Khan arrested based on custodial statements of co-accused
- 2018: Petitioner granted bail
- 2024: Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner, Shahid Khan, was implicated based on statements made by co-accused in police custody, alleging that he facilitated the inclusion of ineligible beneficiaries by providing their documents to Kumawat. No incriminating material was seized at his instance, and key prosecution witnesses did not implicate him.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings can be sustained solely on the basis of custodial statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel argued:
- The petitioner was falsely implicated based on inadmissible custodial statements of co-accused
- No incriminating material was seized at the petitioner's instance
- The continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law, citing State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
For the Respondent/State
The State contended:
- The petitioner's complicity was established through material on record, including his role as a middleman
- The petition lacked merit and deserved dismissal
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a detailed examination of the legal framework governing the admissibility of custodial statements and the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Key observations included:
- Inadmissibility of Custodial Statements: The Court relied on Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. and Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar to hold that confessions made in police custody cannot be used as substantive evidence against a co-accused. Such statements can only lend assurance to other independent evidence.
"The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it."
-
Section 162 CrPC Bar: The Court emphasized that statements made to police officers during investigation are inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC, except for limited purposes such as contradicting a witness. This bar extends to statements of the accused as well, as held in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor.
-
Absence of Corroborative Evidence: The Court noted that no incriminating material, such as call detail records or money trails, connected the petitioner to the alleged offence. Key prosecution witnesses did not implicate him, and Deepak Kumawat's statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act did not substantiate the allegations.
-
Power to Quash Under Section 482 CrPC: The Court invoked the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, which enumerates categories where the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process. The Court held that the present case fell under the first category, where allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence against the accused.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. It held that the continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law, given the absence of admissible evidence implicating the petitioner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Statements Cannot Sustain Prosecution
The judgment reinforces that custodial statements of co-accused, even if they contain admissions, cannot be the sole basis for framing charges or sustaining prosecution. Practitioners must:
- Challenge the admissibility of such statements under Sections 25, 26, and 162 of the CrPC
- Argue for the exclusion of custodial statements unless they are corroborated by independent evidence
Independent Evidence Is Mandatory
- Courts will scrutinize whether there is independent evidence, such as documentary proof or witness testimony, to support allegations
- Mere reliance on custodial statements, without corroboration, will not meet the threshold for framing charges
Section 482 CrPC as a Safeguard
- The judgment highlights the role of Section 482 CrPC in preventing abuse of process where allegations are inherently improbable or lack evidentiary support
- Practitioners should consider invoking Section 482 CrPC where accused are implicated solely on the basis of inadmissible statements
