SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 569

2007(3) Supreme 942
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Designated Court, Ahmedabad)
K.G. Balakrishnan,, CJI., G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto — Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 545 & 665 of 2001
Decided on 24-4-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Vinay Arora, Adolf Mathew, Mukesh Kumar, Sanjay Jain, Priyank Adhyaru, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Prakash Kumar B. (for Ashok K. Mahajan) and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Ms. Pinky Behera, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Confession of a co-accused by itself is not sufficient to hold other accused guilty.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120, 365 r/w 120-B — TADA Act — Section 15 — Accused kidnapped victim, kept him in confinement for two days and extorted money — Victim was owner of business company — Conviction of all accused by Designated Court — Appeal — Conviction of appellant was based on confession made by A-11 which was recorded by Deputy Commissioner of Police and had been sent for confirmation before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate — Confession of a co-accused by itself was not sufficient to hold other accused guilty — Prosecution could not adduce any other evidence that appellant was in company of other accused — Conviction could not be sustained.

       Held : The confession of a co-accused by itself is not sufficient to hold the other accused guilty. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that the confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble type of evidence and it could only be used to support the other evidence, if any, adduced by the prosecution. [ See : Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, [1964 (6) SCR 623]. Though in State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini and Others, (1999) 5 SCC 253, it has been held that confession is a substantive piece of evidence, but as a ‘Rule of Prudence’ the court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity. (Para 6)

       The prosecution could not adduce any other supporting evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. Even based on the confession of the co-accused, the only allegation against the appellant is that he was in the company of the other co-accused and had pointed out towards the victim by making a sign whereupon the other accused over-powered the victim and took him forcibly in the Maruti van. To prove that the appellant was in the company of other accused, there is no other independent evidence. Even though the prosecution adduced other evidence to prove that the victim Babulal Misrimal Jain was forcibly taken and kept in unlawful custody, the complicity of the appellant could not be proved. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. (Para 7)

       Therefore, the finding of the Special Judge is erroneous. Criminal Appeal No. 526/2001 is allowed and the appellant herein is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. (Para 8)

       

JUDGMENT

K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI — All these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 19-3-2001 of the Designated Court at Ahmedabad for trial of TADA cases in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Criminal Case No. 24 of 1996. There were seven accused in Terrorist Criminal case No. 33 of 1994 and four accused in Terrorist Criminal case No. 24 of 1996. One accused died during the pendency of the case and six accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120, 365 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 342 read with Section 120-B IPC.

2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 526/2001 was the ninth accused and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 342 and 365 IPC. All the accused were charged for various offences under IPC, TADA Act and Arms Act. The allegation against the appellant was that on 26-9-1993 at about 2.00 P.M, he alongwith other accused kidnapped one Babulal Misrimal Jain and kept him in confinement for two days and extorted money. The said Babulal Misrimal was the owner of Ratnamani Tubewell Limited at Kalol. On 26-9-1993, he went for a community lunch held at Rani Sati Hall in Ahmedabad. After the lunch he was standing outside the hall with his friends when the accused came in a Maruti-van and accused No. 2 Mohammad Salim (now deceased), accused No. 3 Iqbal Hussain and accused No. 10 Mohammad Atik dragged him into that van. Thereafter they took him to an unknown place and kept in confinement. When Babulal Misrimal was being taken away, some of his friends and relatives standing outside made a hue and cry and it was alleged that accused No. 3 Iqbal Hussain and accused No. 10 Mohammad Atik opened fire by using their revolvers. Babulal Misrimal was taken to Amul Process House at Danilimbad owned by accused No. 6. Thereafter, the accused demanded Rs. 60 lacs from the brothers and relatives of Babulal Misrimal. Finally, the deal was struck at Rs. 25 lacs. The amount of ransom was received and it was shared amongst all the accused. The major share of Rs. 4 lacs was paid to accused No. 1 Abdulwahab. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- was received by accused No. 10 Mohammad Atik. Prosecution also alleged that some of the accused purchased properties making use of the money received from Babulal Misrimal. The accused No. 1 is reported to have also applied for a passport under a fictitious name. Another accused namely, Sherjada died during the course of investigation. Accused Abdul Latif though charge-sheeted died before the charge could be framed against him by the court.

3. On 26-9-1993 at about 2.30 P.M. Dinesh Ramanlal Shah gave a complaint to the Shahibaug Police Station. They registered the crime and informed the superior Police Officers about the incident. PW 18 visited the scene of occurrence and recovered two empty cartridges from the place and also the chappals and slippers. Police inspector Jivabhai Ratnabai Prajapati (PW 19) took over further investigation. He visited the scene of occurrence and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses who were available. Later, the investigation was handed over to another officer and on 9-4-1994 accused No. 3 was arrested. Thereafter Police Inspector Udaykumar Tribhavan took over the investigation and arrested accused Nos. 6 and 7 on 27-7-1994. A-4, A-1 and A-2 were also arrested later. On 8-9-1994, the investigation was handed over to ACP, Shri B.R. Patil. He requested for Government sanction for invoking the provisions of TADA Act against the accused. A-8 was arrested on 12-3-1996. Accused Sattar Battery expressed his willingness to give a confession and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner of Police B.R. Patil recorded his confession under Section 15 of the TADA Act. PW 25, B.R. Patil, Assistant Commissioner of Police in Crime Branch at Ahemdabad arrested Babakhan s/o Ismailkhan on 11-1-1995. On 14-1-1995, accused Babakhan (A-11) expressed his desire to make a confession and he w









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top