S.S.KULSHRESTHA, J. - (1.) Heard and also perused the materials on record.
(2.) This petition has been brought for quashing the written report registered at case crime No. 39 of 2005 under Section 302/201 Police Station Utraon, Allahabad. It is said that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and merely on confessional statement of the co-accused his involvement in the aforesaid offence cannot be construed, more so when the complainant Chhotey Lal, his wife Shivkali, Mahendra Kumar alias Naate, the nephew of the deceased have already filed their affidavits denying involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid offence. In order to facilitate the disposal of this petition, a brief resume of the facts may be made Complainant Chhotey Lal lodged a written report at police station Utraon district Allahabad at crime No. 89 of 2005 under Section 302/201, I.P.C. contending that his son Kallu (now deceased) and Sri Suresh Pasi were doing mazdoori and there were some differences in between them on payment of Wages. Suresh Pasi threatened him that either he should settle the accounts otherwise he would be killed On 13-5-2005 at about 6.00 p.m. Suresh Pasi came at the house of the complainant and told his son that one person is waiting for him there at Mori. Suresh Pasi himself fetched the son of the complainant on cycle. Thereafter he did not return. Rigorous search was made by the complainant and came to know that one dead body was lying neat! the brick kiln of Laala. The complainant his wife and nephew Ravi Shankar went at the spot and identified the same as Kallu. and hence this report was lodged on 14-5-2005. Nobody is named in the F.I.R However, in the course of investigation, as would appear from the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, on behalf of the State, Sanjai Chamar was arrested by the police and he made disclosure of the incident. In his statement recorded at parcha No. 7 on 25-5-2005, he narrated that "Sant Lal alias Pattar (petitioner) was having illicit relation with the sister of Kallu later on married with other person despite resistance made by the petitioner. That was the cause bf enmity of the petitioner with Kallu." About 1 1/2 years back, Kallu had beaten Raju, brother of Sanjai Chamar. He was also harbouring ill will with him. Both Sanjai Chamar arid Sant Lal alias Pattar, petitioner decided to finish Kallu. They have brutally chopped off his head, legs and hands. On the pointing out of Sanjai Chamar, recovery of head of the deceased was made. In the statement of Sanjai Chamar the accomplice, name of the petitioner figured.
(3.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of co-accused before the police is not admissible in evidence. In that regard reliance has also been placed in the case of State (N. C. T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, 2005 (7) JT (SC) 1 : (2005 AIR SCW 4148). It is further contended that in view of illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act testimony of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particular and so no reliance can be placed on such statement at this stage. There is basic dispute about the testimony of art accomplice and providing complete immunity to his statement would have far reaching consequences and may present a tarnished version.;