Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1161 - SUPREME COURTAttack on the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar - section 120 of Indian Penal Code - It is the case of the prosecution that the confessional statements of the accused persons were recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Sanjaykumar Gadhvi (PW-78), as provided Under Section 32 of the POTA by following the mandatory procedure - constitutional validity of Section 15 of the TADA Act - validity of confessions. Held that: - adequate time had not been given to any of the accused as they had been in police custody for almost 45 days in each case. We also observe that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the special report envisaged Under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 had been submitted to the Magistrate. The confessions cannot, therefore, be taken into account for any purpose. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the grant of half an hour to the accused to think over before recording their confessional statement cannot be held to be a reasonable period. We do not think that is safe to base conviction on such confessional statements. Further, on the facts of the present case, conviction cannot be maintained on the sole testimony of two police officials - enough time was not given to the accused persons to record their confessional statements, particularly in the present case since they were making confessions after 11 months of the incident. Neither the police officer recording the confessional statements nor the CJM followed the statutory mandates laid down in POTA Under Sections 32 and 52 while recording the confessional statements of the accused persons, and we hold that the confessional statements made by A-2, A3, A-4 and A-6 Under Section 32 of POTA are not admissible in law in the present case. Instead of booking the real culprits responsible for taking so many precious lives, the police caught innocent people and got imposed the grievous charges against them which resulted in their conviction and subsequent sentencing. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|