AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 161 wordsM.L. Singhal, J.
Heard. Case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no ocular evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the murder of Panja Singh. Case is based upon extra judicial confession said to have been made by Maya etc. that they had hatched the conspriracy to eliminate Panja Singh and that in pursuance to that conspiracy, they eliminated Panja Singh. No doubt, conviction is possible even on the encorraborated extrajudicial confession of an accused. At the same time, extrajudicial confesson alone is ordinarily taken as a weak type of evidence. It can, of course, be taken along with other pieces of evidence, if any, for proving the offence against the accused. Further murder took place in or about the year 1987. It was raked up in December 1995. Delay in the lodging of FIR might recoil upon the truth of the prosecution case. Hence, bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ferozepur.