Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 27 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 364A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 26 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Charandas Swami vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 10 April, 2017
- Vinayak took out mobile from the person of the deceased and
thereafter both of them came to their house. It also contains the
statement that, thereafter, they contacted the father of the deceased
from the mobile of the deceased to demand ransom of Rs 10 lakhs. It
further contains the confession of the accused and the statement of the
accused that, they are willing to show the place where the dead body
of the deceased was concealed by them. In the evidence of very same
witness i.e. P.W. 3 - Hitandra Katkar, panchanama of disclosure of the
place where dead body was concealed by the accused and discovery of
the dead body from the said place at the instance of the accused, has
also been proved. The said panchanama is below Exhibit-34-A.
18] The learned APP wants us to believe all the admissions
made by the accused persons. Their Lordships of the Apex Court,
recently, in the case of Charandas Swami vs. State of Gujarat and
Others1 have discussed the entire law on section 27. It could thus be
seen that, only such fact which is deposed to and which leads to
consequential discovery, whether it amounts to confession or not,
1 (2017) 7 SCC 177
19/47
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2018 23:11:24 :::
J-Apeal-684-10 & Apeal 459-10.doc
would be admissible in view of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Though, as per memorandum below Exhibit-34, many confessional
statements of the accused have been recorded, we are of the
considered view that, only such distinct information which has led to
the discovery of the place from where the dead body of the deceased
was recovered, would be admissible under Section 27. We are
therefore of the view that, in view of memorandum and discovery
Panchanama below Exhibit-34 and 34-A which have been proved in
the evidence of P.W. 3 - Hitandra Katkar alongwith the evidence of
P.W. 21 - IO Sunil Nigudkar. It could be seen that, the prosecution has
proved that the dead body of the deceased was discovered from a
place distinctly within the knowledge of the accused on the basis of
the information given by them on a memorandum under Section 27 of
the Indian Evidence Act.