Bombay High Court
Mohd. Nasir Raza Lal MohammadversusThe State Of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A co‑accused's confessional statement cannot be acted upon against another co‑accused, and in its absence the applicant must be discharged.
Summary
The applicant, Mohammad Nisar Raza Lal Mohammad, sought discharge in a murder case where accused No.1 allegedly killed the son of a first informant and the applicant was alleged to have helped dispose of the body. The prosecution's case rested solely on the confessional statement of accused No.1, with no call data records or other evidence linking the applicant to the crime. The applicant's counsel argued that a co‑accused's confession cannot be used against another co‑accused, a principle the trial judge failed to consider. The appellate judge agreed, noting the lack of independent evidence against the applicant and the settled legal rule that a co‑accused's confession is inadmissible against another. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the applicant was discharged, and all pending applications were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused can be used to sustain a charge against another co‑accused.
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicant sufficient to deny discharge.
Subjects
- criminal law
- revision
- discharge
- co‑accused confession
- evidence
- Indian Evidence Act
- principle of law
Judgment
65-REVN-392-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 392 OF 2026
Mohammad Nisar Raza Lal Mohammad ...Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH KILAJE
SATISH
KILAJE
Date:
2026.10.01
18:51:10
+0530
Mr. Abdul Raheem Bukhari, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Malik, PI, Bhiwandi City, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the impugned
order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwandi, Thane, whereby the
learned Judge has rejected the discharge application of the applicant.
2. It is prosecution’s case that the accused No.1 murdered the son
of the first informant and applicant helped him to dispose of the dead
body, which was buried in a shop.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that, except
the confessional statement of accused No.1, no evidence is produced on
record to show the involvement of the applicant in the crime. No CDR is
produced on record to show that, on the day of the incident, the applicant
Page 1 of 3
65-REVN-392-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
was in contact with the accused No.1. However, this fact has not been
considered by the learned Judge, which is erroneous and requested to
allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that minor son of the first
informant was brutally murdered by accused No.1. The applicant helped
him to bury the dead body in a shop. The said dead body was recovered
pursuant to the confessional statement of accused No.1. In investigation, it
revealed that applicant had helped accused No.1 in disposing of the dead
body. There is prima facie case against the applicant. The learned
Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required
in it and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order
and documents produced on record. The allegation against the applicant is
that he helped the accused No.1 to dispose of the dead body of the
deceased. Except the confessional statement of accused No.1, nothing is
produced on record against the applicant to show his involvement in the
crime. It is settled principal of law that the confessional statement of the
co-accused cannot, be acted upon against another co-accused. However,
this fact has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge.
Considering this fact, no case is made out against the applicant and I pass
following order.
Page 2 of 3
65-REVN-392-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
ORDER
(i) The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.
(ii) The applicant is discharged in the Sessions Case No. 377
of 2025 arising out of C.R.No. 385 of 2020 registered
with Bhiwandi Police Station.
(iii) All pending applications, if any, also disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.