Nagpur: Building a man who allegedly killed his stepmother to remarry, the Nagpur bench from the Bombay High Court stated that every defendant could not make extra-judicial recognition of his crime before foreigners.
“It is difficult to accept that everyone will make recognition of his actions that are not approved by the community or by law to foreigners wherever.
Human nature in such a way that tends to reveal the only mistake to such people in it he has a resemblance of trust or trust,” benches Division consisting of Judge Vinay Deshpande and Amit Borkar.
Petitioner Dushyan Pushpatode, a resident of Tumsar, was convicted of murder by the Bhandara Session court in 2016, based on the case of prosecution of extra-judicial recognition made by him in front of the witness Pradip Shendre with whom he never met and was not there every family relationship between both of them.
In addition, there are no monetary transactions between them.
“It is unlikely that the defendant will make extra-judicial recognition to someone they have never known.
It also seems impossible impossible that unknown people will come to seek witness assistance unless he is known to be close to police officers.
Witness statements don’t even inspire confidence , “said the judges while quoting a bright case of the Supreme Court of Kapoor versus the Government of Uttarakhand reported in 2006.
According to prosecution, pushpatode killed his mother Fulan with a punch and ax head because of several disputes on April 29, 2016.
He then went to Shendre’s house and verbally Recognize his crime.
The latter, who was the husband of Patil Patil Village, then filed a complaint to the Gobarwahi police in Tumsar.
Based on the testimony of Shendre and other evidence, the defendant was convicted of murder under Section 302.
Through Rajendra Daga’s advisor, he challenged him in HC which argued that there were no eyewitnesses and there was no direct evidence to prove crime.
In addition, all prosecution cases are based on indirect evidence and on the basis of oral recognition before an unknown person.
The judges showed that extra-judicial recognition that was accused of oral, was not recorded in writing by Shendre and was not completely voluntary when we scan evidence.
“Valueness while making such recognition has its own interest.
It is clear that the applicant and witness have no concern among them.
Evidence shows that there is no intimate relationship between them.
There are no reasons / opportunities to be accused of undergoing trust in witnesses,” said they.