Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.2. Such persons, being participants/accomplices in the alleged offence, it is stated, cannot have their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, and the only legally-permissible procedure is under Section 306 Cr.P.C by tender of pardon through Court, therefore, the entire statements relied upon by the prosecution are contrary to law. 1.3. Respondent - NIA, under the guise of investigation, summoned innocent individuals repeatedly under Section 160 Cr.P.C, detained them for long hours in the office, interrogated them on irrelevant aspects, and by instilling fear of incarceration, compelled them to give statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C and sponsored statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C to suit the narrative of the Agency. The witnesses were specifically threatened that if they do not cooperate and accept the version of the Respondent, they would also be implicated as accused and would remain in jail for 15 years, and such coercion, repeated summoning and intimidation can be verified from the case diary maintained under Section 172 Cr.P.C and CCTV footage which the agency is bound to preserve. 1.4. It is alleged, Respondent had deliberately bypassed the mandatory procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C, which is intended for the offences triable by Sessions Court and Special Court, to prevent misuse and to ensure that accomplice evidence is recorded only through judicial process after tender of pardon. Instead of following Section 306 Cr.P.C, Respondent adopted an illegal method by summoning persons under Section 160 Cr.P.C and forcing them to give statements under Sections 161 and 164(5) Cr.P.C, thereby subverting the statutory safeguards. Respondent has further concealed the identity of such witnesses by invoking Section 44 of UA(P) Act and Section 17 of NIA Act and treating them as protected witnesses without any judicial order, whereas the law mandates that only the Court can declare a witness as protected upon proper application. According to petitioner, the entire statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C are the result of coercion, fear, intimidation and illegal procedure and therefore are not admissible and are liable to be quashed at the threshold.

1.6. Petitioner states that the central legal question for consideration is whether statements of accomplices can be recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, bypassing the mandatory requirement of Section 306 Cr.P.C. Such procedural illegality in recording statements goes to the root of the matter, cannot be cured at any stage, and requires adjudication at the pre-trial stage, as these statements form the basis of prosecution, affect the petitioner's right to fair investigation and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and also prejudice him in matters of bail and discharge.

referring to use of knife, rod and sickle for targeting and eliminating leaders of RSS and other organizations, and such role is corroborated by witness statements relating to training at Heaven Garden Function Hall, Kurnool, and details are recorded in Para 17.12 of charge sheet dated 16.03.2023. Though Article 21 provides protection against illegal procedure, the facts of the case do not attract such protection as the investigation has been conducted lawfully.

2.7. It is further stated, though witnesses were earlier members of PFI, they are not accomplices but victims who, after attending Beginners Course at Heaven Garden Function Hall, Kurnool, Mubarak Function Hall, Nandyal and PFI Office Chandrayangutta, realized the unlawful agenda and distanced themselves, and voluntarily gave statements after assurance of protection, and their identities were protected under Section 17 of NIA Act, 2008 read with Section 44 of UA(P) Act, 1967, therefore Section 306 Cr.P.C. is not applicable. 2.8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Babu Misra 3 and Waheed-Ur-Rehman (1980) 2 SCC 343 Parra v. Union Territory of JK held that allegations of coercion must be supported by clear evidence and mere assertions are insufficient. It is contended, reliance on the judgment in Laxmipat Choraria's case is misplaced, and even in that case, accomplice evidence was held admissible and prosecution is not bound to prosecute such witness if their evidence is necessary, and Section 306 Cr.P.C does not bar recording of such statements.

4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is to be seen, the primary relief sought by petitioner is to quash statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C at the pre-trial stage by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of 2024 SCC On Line Cal 944 the Constitution. Petitioner's contention rests on the premise that certain witnesses are accomplices, therefore, their statements ought to have been recorded only under Section 306 Cr.P.C. However, such contention necessarily involves determination of factual issues as to whether such witnesses are accomplices, participants or victims, and whether their statements were voluntary or coerced, which are matters requiring appreciation of evidence.