Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V.Methrani vs State Of Ap on 21 June, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1227 of 2019
ORDER:-
The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings pertaining to C.C.No.162 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gooty, against the petitioner/accused No.2.
2. It is alleged in the charge sheet that the accused No.1 is writing matka at Chinnavaduguru village by inducing the people to get more money if they paid Rs.1/- and would get Rs.80/- by way of Matka and cheating the public by misappropriating their amount by conspiring with the accused No.2 and the accused is sending the matka amount, which was collected from public to the accused No.2 through the accused No.3.
3. The Pamidi police, after investigating the has filed the charge sheet before jurisdictional Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Gaming Act (Matka).
4. Assailing the said charge sheet, the present Criminal Petition is filed on the ground that no specific overt acts was attributed to the petitioner herein, so as to fasten liability and the police failed to produce proper evidence to that 2 effect and the entire case is based on the extra judicial confession of the accused No.1, therefore, pleaded to quash the proceedings.
5. Similarly, the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Singh [(1999) 7 SCC 714] observed like this about the admissibility of the extra judicial confession.
6. Confession in common acceptation means and implies acknowledgment of guilt - its evidentiary value and its acceptability however shall have to be assessed by the court having due regard to the credibility of the witnesses. In the event however, the court is otherwise in a position having due regard to the attending circumstances believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is otherwise satisfied that the confession is in fact voluntary and without there being any doubt in regard thereto, an order of conviction can be founded on such evidence.
7. There is no denial of the fact that extra judicial confession is admissible in evidence and the court in appropriate cases can rely thereon to the extent of even basing conviction of the accused. In a long catena of decisions of apex court, the settled position is that the extra judicial confession by itself if, otherwise in conformity with the law, can be treated as substantive evidence, and in appropriate cases it can be used to punish an offender.
8. The extra-judicial confession is undoubtedly admissible in evidence. Whether the confession is voluntary or involuntary, true or false or reliable or 3 not, believable or not confessional in nature has to be weighed and assessed by the court at the trial at the appropriate stage of the case. A confessional statement does not automatically result in the conviction of an accused offender. Such statement has to be tendered and proved in accordance with the law.
9. There is specific allegation agaisnt the accused No.2, who is the petitioner herein, that he is conspiring with accused No.1 and cheating the public by misappropriating the amounts. There is no absolute bar relating to the extra judicial confession made by the accused No.1 and the charge sheet specifically reveals that the allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 was conspired with accused No.1 and whether conspiracy is there or not, is a disputed question of fact, which has to be decided during the course of the trial by adducing the evidence. Therefore, this Court has no reason to allow the Criminal Petition.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 21st June, 2024 RKS