Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Fifthly, there are two conflicting statements which have been recorded as far as the petitioner is concerned. In the first statement dated May 17, 2022, which is an unsigned statement [Page 47A, of the WP], the petitioner admits his guilt. However, in the second statement dated May 20, 2022 [Page 46A, of the WP], the petitioner denies his involvement in the case.

Sixthly, the prosecution contends that the petitioner was in contact with other co-accused by means of a SIM card which did not belong to him at all, but which he allegedly obtained by coercing a cleaning employee of the railways. Further, the prosecution in the departmental proceeding does not rely on any call detail records involving the said SIM card and the other co-accused.

wp7719-2022-J

19. Moving on to the merits of the rival contentions, we require to answer the questions as formulated by Dr. Chandrachud and noted at the beginning of this judgment in paragraph 5.

20. There is an unsigned statement dated May 17, 2022 of the petitioner on record, where he admitted his guilt. However, in the second statement given by him dated May 20, 2022 [Page 46A of the WP], which bears his signature, he retracted and proceeded to answer questions put to him by the officer holding preliminary inquiry. It would be appropriate to quote below such of those questions which are considered relevant and the petitioner's answers thereto for the present decision: