Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2020 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 886 - SC - Indian LawsTerrorist activities - bomb was planted but was subsequently diffused - reliance placed on confession of the Appellant for his conviction - confession is substantive piece of evidence or not - voluntary and truthful confession or not - admissible evidence or not. Whether the Appellant has made the confession (Ex. P-57) voluntarily and truthfully? - HELD THAT:- The law of confession is embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The confession is a form of admission consisting of direct acknowledgment of guilt in a criminal charge. In this connection, it is relevant to notice the observations of Privy Council in PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMI VERSUS EMPEROR [1939 (1) TMI 13 - BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL] where it was held that a confession must either admit in terms of an offence, or at any rate substantially all the fact which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not by itself a confession. It is well-settled that a confession which is not free from doubt about its voluntariness, is not admissible in evidence. A confession caused by inducement, threat or promise cannot be termed as voluntary confession. Whether a confession is voluntary or not is essentially a question of fact. In the instant case, it is evident that from out of the questions put by PW-28 and the answers elicited and the manner in which the Accused has made the statement are all the foundations upon which it is to be found out as to whether the statement was made voluntarily or not. If the certificate is not supported by any of the above inputs, then the certificate needs to be rejected. The police officer cannot record such a certificate out of his own imagination and the entire proceedings should reflect that the certificate was rightly given based on the materials - In the present case, there is nothing on record to prove the voluntariness of the statement. Ex. D-1 and D-2 and other circumstances would go to show that the Appellant could not have made the statement voluntarily. Therefore, the confession statement of the Appellant requires to be rejected. Whether the statement of two other co-Accused is admissible in evidence? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, no doubt, the Appellant was absconding. That is why, joint trial of the Appellant with the other two Accused persons could not be held. As noticed above, Section 15 of the TADA Act specifically provides that the confession recorded shall be admissible in trial of a co-Accused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the Accused who makes the confession - if for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a co-Accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another Accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case. We are of the further opinion that if we are to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the Respondent-State, it is as good as re-writing the scope of Section 15 of the TADA Act as amended in the year 1993. Since the trial of the other two Accused persons was separate, their confession statements are not admissible in evidence and the same cannot be taken as evidence against the Appellant - the Designated Court was not justified in convicting the Appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|