Statement of Co-Accused is Inadmissible to Implicate Others Without Independent Corroborative Evidence

On August 15, 2020, police intercepted a Bolero car near Panjrapol cross-roads, Ahmedabad, and seized 161 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(e), 116-B, 98(2), and 81 of the Prohibition Act

The applicant was not named in the FIR but was subsequently arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet solely based on the confessional statement of a co-accused who was caught at the scene

No recovery was made from the applicant, and no call data records were produced to establish a link between the applicant and the co-accused

1. Whether a criminal prosecution can be sustained against an individual when the only evidence connecting them to the crime is the inculpatory statement of a co-accused

2. Whether the continuation of proceedings against the applicant constitutes an abuse of the process of law in the absence of independent corroborative evidence

Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process

Sections 25 and 26 (inadmissibility of confessions to police) and Section 30 (consideration of proved confessions against co-accused) of the Indian Evidence Act

P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025), which established that a confessional statement of an accused is per se inadmissible against a co-accused at the stage of bail or investigation and can only be used as a rule of prudence during trial if specific stringent conditions are met

The court reasoned that the applicant’s implication rested entirely on the "iota of evidence" provided by a co-accused's statement

Applying the P. Krishna Mohan Reddy precedent, the court noted that such inculpatory statements cannot be taken into consideration against a co-accused under Section 17 read with Section 21 of the Evidence Act

The court observed that the investigation failed to produce any corroborative material, such as call detail records (CDR) or recovery of goods, to prove the applicant had "called for" or "aided" the crime

Consequently, the court found that since the primary evidence was legally inadmissible, the chances of conviction were "bleak," rendering the continuation of the trial a futile exercise and an abuse of the judicial process

The High Court allowed the application and quashed FIR C.R. No. 11191014200515 of 2020 and all consequential proceedings qua the applicant, clarifying that the trial against other accused persons shall proceed uninfluenced by this judgment