Important Point
A confession, if usable u/s. 15 of TADAA, would not become unusable merely because the case is different or the crime is different.

Headnote:TADA Act, 1987-Prosecution under - Public Prosecutor filing Application for permission to use confessional statement of an accused, alleged to have been made u/s. 15 of TADAA during the investigation of another offence of bomb blasts committed on different date - Whether he permitted?-Designated court answered in negative-Whether correct? (No)-Effect of subsequent development that fourth respondent (Abdul Latif) died and the case against him got abated - Considered - (Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 10, 25 and 32(3)-Cr.P.C. 1973-Section 162) Case Law discussed-Appeal allowed.
       Held : We have, therefore, absolutely no doubt that a confession, if usable under Section 15 of the TADAA, would not become unusable merely because the case is different or the crime is different. If the confession covers that different crime it would be a relevant item of evidence in the case in which that crime is under trial and it would then become admissible in the case. (Para 7)
       Held further : Thus, the principle is no longer res integra that any statement made by an accused after his arrest, whether as a confession or otherwise, cannot fall within the ambit of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. The corollary of it is that the confessional statement of 4th respondent (Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh) who is no more alive now thus vanishes from the ken of evidentiary use. (Para 17)
       Held finally : In the result we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order and permit the prosecution to make use of the confessional statement, recorded under Section 15 of TADAA of the accused who are now facing trial. (Para 18)

Judgment

Thomas, J.-A Public Prosecutor moved in the trial Court for permission to use a confessional statement recorded from an accused during investigation of another crime, but the trial judge disallowed the motion on the premise that unless the confession was recorded during the investigation of the very offence under trial it cannot be used in evidence of that case. The order thus passed by the trial Court (A Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, (TADAA as acronym) is now being challenged by the State of Gujarat by special leave.

2. It is not necessary to set out facts of the case which is now pending before the Designated Court. Nonetheless, some skeletal facts necessary for disposal of these appeals have to be stated: The three respondents in these appeals were accused in some cases registered by different police stations of Gujarat State following certain instances of bomb blasts at different places. Investigation revealed that those instances were the aftermath of conspiracies hatched by different conspirators who operated in different areas. Hence, offences came to be registered at different police stations and different investigating agencies commenced investigation in separate areas. Fourth respondent (Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh) was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1/34 of 1993 of the Maninagar Police Station. During investigation of that case a Superintendent of Police (Shri Ashish Bhati) has recorded a confessional statement from the said Abdul Latif under Section 15 of the TADAA. Second respondent (Musakhan @ Babakhan) was arrested in connection with Crime 1/284 of 1993 of Shahibag Police Station. His confessional statement was also recorded in the same manner.

3. In the meanwhile, police charge-sheeted the cases which were registered at two other police stations (Kalupur and Karang Police Stations) as against fourth respondent Abdul Latif and some others. The Designated Court at Ahmedabad began proceedings to try those cases. While the trial was in progress, the Public Prosecutor in that Court felt that the confessional statements recorded by the police during investigation of the case registered at Maninagar Police Station under Section 15 of the TADAA have to be used as prosecution evidence as those statements related to events which are subject-matter of the cases registered in Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations. It was then that the Public Prosecutor filed application for permission to use such confessional statements. The application was opposed on the main ground that the confession made in another case cannot be used in the crime registered by Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations. Learned Judge of the Designated Court, thereupon, considered the following question:

“The question therefore is whether the prosecution be permitted to introduce and prove the confessional statement of an accused, alleged to have been made during the investigation of another offence committed on a different date, during the trial of that accused in another crime.”

Learned Judge answered the question in the negative by upholding the objection raised by the respondent, as per the impugned order.

4. As these special leave petitions were pending an important development happened - fourth respondent (Abdul Latif) died and the case against him got abated. Nevertheless the question remains alive as the confessional statement attributed to the second respondent Musakhan @ Babakhan is also sought to be used in the cases registered by Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations. For considering the said question we look at Section 15(1) of the TADAA which reads thus:-

“15. Certain confessions made to police officers to be taken into consideration-(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Code or in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), but subject to the provisions of this section, a confession made by a person before a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police and record

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 455

Important PointA confession, if usable u/s. 15 of TADAA, would not become unusable merely because the case is different or the crime is different.

Cases Referred (3)

Important Point
A confession, if usable u/s. 15 of TADAA, would not become unusable merely because the case is different or the crime is different.