1. State argued that evidence of recovery and confession proved guilt; accused contended evidence was insufficient and confession involuntary. (Para 43 , 46 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(SC) 663
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & P.P. Naolekar
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA- PETITIONER
Versus
SIRAJ AHMED NISAR AHMED & ORS- RESPONDENT
Appeal (crl.) 166 of 1999
Decided on 07/05/2007
Confessions under TADA Act require strict procedural compliance; mechanical certification is insufficient. For arms seizure, establishing conscious and exclusive possession of a premise is sufficient, and proof of legal ownership or title is not mandatory.
Headnote:(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Sections 5 and 15 - Arms Act, 1959 - Rule 15 of TADA Rules - Appreciation of Evidence - Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the issue or hyper-technical approaches to evidence do not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole, provided the evidence read as a whole has a ring of truth. (Para 33)
(B) Seizure of Firearms - Possession of Premises - To establish the seizure of firearms from a particular premises, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the title or ownership of the premises. It is sufficient to prove that the accused and close relations were occupants of the premises to exclude the possibility of other persons concealing arms therein, thereby establishing conscious and exclusive possession. (Paras 35, 36)
(C) Admissibility of Confessions - Section 15 of TADA Act - Procedural Safeguards - Confessions recorded under special statutes must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure to ensure they are voluntary and not tainted by vice. The certificate provided by the recording officer under Rule 15(3)(b) cannot be a mere mechanical exercise. A certificate that fails to specifically certify that the statement was recorded in the presence and hearing of the officer, was admitted to be correct by the accused, or contains a full and true account, lacks sufficient credibility. (Paras 44, 49, 50, 51)
Facts of the case:
This appeal involves a conspiracy to commit murder using firearms transported from another state. Several individuals were charged under the TADA Act, Arms Act, and IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused members of a criminal gang arranged vehicles and firearms for the execution of the crime. One accused was found in possession of a .38 revolver recovered from a flat, though the prosecution did not prove ownership of the flat. Another accused was alleged to have assisted in purchasing a car for transporting weapons. A confessional statement was recorded for one of the accused under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recovery of the revolver from one accused was valid because conscious and exclusive possession was established, regardless of title to the premise. However, the confessional statement of another accused was rejected because the recording officer's certificate was mechanical and failed to comply with the mandatory structural requirements of the TADA Rules. The evidence linking the purchase of a vehicle to a specific accused was also found insufficient.
Issues: (1) Whether minor discrepancies in witness testimony justify the rejection of seizure evidence. (2) Whether proof of ownership of a residential unit is a prerequisite for validating the seizure of arms from that unit. (3) Whether mechanical compliance with the certification process for confessions under Section 15 of the TADA Act is legally sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that evidence with a general ring of truth should not be discarded for minor errors. For seizure purposes, conscious possession suffices over legal ownership. Under the TADA Act, the strict procedure for recording confessions is a safeguard against testimonial compulsion; hence, a recording officer must explicitly certify the voluntary nature and accuracy of the confession rather than providing a generic, mechanical statement.
Result: Conviction of one accused under Section 5 of the TADA Act confirmed/ordered; acquittals of other respondents confirmed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Minor discrepancies do not warrant rejection of evidence; strict compliance with confession procedure under TADA required. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
3. Confession under Section 15 TADA admissible only if strict safeguards followed; possession under Section 5 requires concious and exclusive possession, not ownership. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
4. Acquittal confirmed for all accused except Gurnamsingh; he was convicted under Section 5 TADA and sentnced to five years imprionment. (Para 54 , 55 )
5. What standard applies to evaluating evidence of recovery in TADA cases?
The court should not reject evidence based on minor disrepancies; it must examine whether the evidence overall has a ring of truth. (Para 33 , 34 )
6. What must the prosecution prove to establish possession under Section 5 TADA?
The prosecution need not prove ownership; it is sufficient to prove concious and exclusive possession of the premises by the accused. (Para 35 , 36 )
7. What are the mandatory requirements for a valid confeesion under Section 15 TADA?
The confeesion must be recorded with strict compliance including a certificate that the accused was warned he is not bound to confees and that it was voluntary. (Para 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
8. Are the guidelines in Kartar Singh mandatory for recording confessions under TADA?
They are not mandatory but, if followed, they add credibility to the prosecution case. (Para 52 )
9. What is the effect of a defective certificate under Rule 15(3)(b)?
A mechanical certificate that does not explicitly certify that the accused was informed he is not bound to confees renders the confeesion unreliable. (Para 51 )
33. The Designated Court has rejected the evidence of both the witnesses on consideration of other aspect that PW- 55 had stated that no search of the flat was made by the police party. While appreciating the evidence, the court must keep in mind that the powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, other may not. An object or thing happened might reflect in the image of a person's mind, whereas it may go unnoticed on the part of another. It has not come out in the evidence or in the cross-examination that PW-55 was also a party to the search of the flat along with PW-50 after the arms were produced by the accused who had made a categorical statement that he had made a search of block no. 402 before the completion of the panchnama. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence, more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence, as a whole, and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matter not touching the core of matter in issue, hyper-technical approach by taking sentence out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
34. On an overall reading of the statements made by PW-50 and PW-55, we do not find that the evidence of recovery of .38 revolver and the live cartridges from the accused Gurnamsingh was in any way shaken by some of the infirmities pointed out by the Designated Court. In fact, in our opinion, those discrepancies in the statements of PW-50 and PW-55 were not infirmities, but those statements are consistent with the general tenor of evidence.
35. When the accused Rizwan was arrested and made disclosure statement that he would point out the house of accused Gurnamsingh to whom he had handed over a revolver, it is natural for the police party to take accused Rizwan for seizure of the arms which, according to them, has a connection with the crime committed. When the prosecution has proved conscious and exclusive possession of block no. 402 by the accused Gurnamsingh, the statements of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the title or ownership of the flat.
36. It is not necessary at all for the prosecution to prove the ownership of block no. 402, Girnar Building from where the firearm and the live cartridges were recovered. It is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused Gurnamsingh and his close relations were occupants of block no. 402 so as to exclude the possibility of other persons concealing and keeping firearms in the premises of the flat. According to us, the prosecution has proved the seizure of the revolver and the live cartridges from the accused Gurnamsingh.
37. Under Section 5 of the TADA Act, any person found in possession of any arms and ammunition specified in Columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category III(a) of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962 in the notified area, then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. As per the Arms Rules, 1962, Schedule I Category III(a), "revolver and pistols" are prohibited arms in the notified area. It is not in dispute that Mumbai is a notified area. The accused Gurnamsingh having been found in possession of .38 revolver, is guilty of offence under Section 5 of th
