Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

43. I find force in the contentions of Mr. Kohli that no part of this statement can be used to impute petitioner as an accused as it is neither a confession of co-accused admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, nor does it lead to discovery of any fact qualifying parameters of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to permit its usage against the petitioner. It can‟t be lost sight of the fact that Madhu Singh is the same person, who had earlier disclosed to the investigating agency in her disclosure statement dated 08.06.2011 that she has sold out the property and equity to the petitioner as the accused company was facing acute financial crunch and further even in bail application dated 12.09.2011, when the accused Madhu Singh was in Judicial Custody, she has voluntarily taken specific stand that sale proceeds of the property and equity were used in repayment to different investors of the company who were seeking refund. In this backdrop of the matter, it is astounding that investigating agency is buying this fresh statement of accused Ms. Madhu Singh to justify implication of the petitioner, precisely when none of the averments of this statement have been corroborated by any independent evidence. Attempt of the investigating agency in this regard is contemptible and liable to be castigated. It appears that falling short of legally convertible evidence to sustain implication of the petitioner, investigating agency seems to be bent on implicating the petitioner and has gone to the extent of making feeble attempt to rely upon the changed version of the prime/co-accused of the case.