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) 559

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., G.P. Mathur, J.
Abdulvahab Abdul Majid Shaikh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2004
With
State of Gujarat- Appellant
Versus
Abdulvahab Abdulmajid Shaikh & Ors.- Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1316-17 of 2004
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Salim Noormahanimad Haveliwala & Anr.- Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2004
Decided on : 24.04.2007
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sushi I Kumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vinay Arora, Mr. Adolf Mathew, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Priyank Adhyaru, Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. Prakash Kumar B. (for Ashok K. Mahajan) and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu Ms. Pinky Behera, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Advocates with him for the Respondent.

Confessions under Section 15 of the TADA Act are substantive evidence if corroborated; retraction alone does not prove involuntariness. Additionally, kidnapping for ransom does not automatically establish an intent to overawe the government or strike terror under Section 3 of the TADA Act.

Headnote:(A) TADA Act, 1985 - Section 15 - Confessional statement - Confession recorded under this section is substantive evidence, though as a rule of prudence, corroboration is sought to test its veracity - Mere retraction of such a confession is not a valid ground to reject it unless evidence of coercion, threat, or undue influence is provided (Paras 9, 14).

(B) TADA Act, 1985 - Section 3 - Kidnapping for ransom does not inherently constitute an act committed with intent to overawe the Government or strike terror in the locality unless specific evidence of such intent or support for communal elements is established (Para 21).

(C) Indian Evidence Act - Section 30 - While a confession of a co-accused is generally considered fragile evidence used for corroboration, the statutory provisions of the TADA Act provide a specific framework for its admissibility as substantive evidence (Paras 8, 9).

Facts of the case:
A builder was abducted by several persons in a vehicle, forcibly taken to a building, and held in confinement. A ransom was demanded from the victim's business partners, and a sum was delivered via a courier using a specific code. Police subsequently recovered funds from two accused persons. One accused provided a confessional statement under the TADA Act detailing the conspiracy and the roles of other co-accused in the abduction and extortion.

Findings of Court:
The court accepted the confessional statement as truthful and voluntary, noting it was corroborated by the victim's testimony regarding the mode of abduction and evidence of ransom payment. The recovery of money from two other accused was not linked to the crime. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that the kidnapping was intended to overawe the government or create communal disharmony.

Issues: Whether a retracted confession under Section 15 of the TADA Act is admissible and whether the act of kidnapping for ransom satisfies the ingredients of an offense under Section 3 of the TADA Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession under Section 15 TADA is substantive evidence provided it is corroborated by other material particulars; retraction does not imply involuntariness if no coercion is shown. For a conviction under Section 3 TADA, the "intent to overawe the Government" must be specifically proved and cannot be inferred merely from the gravity of a kidnapping for ransom.

Result: The conviction of three appellants for offences under Sections 120-B, 342, 365, 384 IPC confirmed; appeals by the State against the acquittal of other accused dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • crime and sentencing
    • offences against the person
      • kidnapping (Para 3, 4, 11, 15, 16)
      • wrongful confinement (Para 10, 11)
    • offences involving property
      • extortion (Para 3, 4, 16, 17)
    • terrorist and disruptive activities
      • offences under tada
        • section 3 - terrorist act (Para 20, 21)
        • section 5 - possession of arms (Para 20)
  • practice and procedure

Table of Contents

1. Kidnapping and extortion — Conviction under IPC based on confession under TADA Act — Appeals against conviction and acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. Appellants contended confession was involuntary and not substantive evidence; State argued acquittal under TADA was erroneous. (Para 8 , 9 , 20 )

3. Confession held voluntary and corroborated; kidnapping for ransom not TADA offence without intent to overawe government. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 )

4. Confession under Section 15 TADA is substantive evidence but must be corroborated; TADA offences require specific intent to overawe government. (Para 9 , 14 , 21 )

5. Conviction of three appellants confirmed; state appeals against acquittal dismissed. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 )

6. Is a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act treated as substantive evidence against a co-accused?

Yes, it is substantive evidence, but as a rule of prudence, the court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity. (Para 9 , 14 )

7. Does retraction of a confession automatically make it involuntary?

No, retraction alone is not a valid ground to reject the confession; the key question is whether there was coercion, threat, or undue influence at the time of recording. (Para 9 , 14 )

8. Does an act of kidnapping for ransom constitute an offence under Section 3 of the TADA Act?

No, unless it is committed with intent to overawe the government or to strike terror in the locality; mere extortion is insufficient. (Para 21 )

9. Is recovery of money from an accused sufficient to prove involvement in a ransom demand without linking the money to the ransom payment?

No, the prosecution must prove that the recovered money is the same as the ransom amount paid; mere recovery without such link is insufficient. (Para 19 )

JUDGMENT

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.

1. All these appeals arise out of a Common Judgment in TADA Crime Case No. 4/1995 and TADA Crime Case No. 27/1996 delivered by the Additional Designated Judge at Ahmedabad.

2. There were 11 accused persons before the Designated Court charged for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), TADA Act, Indian Passport Act, Motor Vehicle Act and Bombay Police Act. By the impugned judgment. A-1 to A- 4 and A-9 were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC and under Sections 342, 365 and 384 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC, but all the accused were acquitted of various other charges framed against them. Out of the 5 accused convicted by the designated court, 3 of them have filed Criminal Appeal No. 525/ 2004 and the two other appeals before us have been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the acquittal of the other accused.

3. The case of the prosecution was that PW 3 Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was a builder having a construction company of his own. He was also working as a teacher during the relevant period and staying in Kundan Apartment in Vasna area in Ahmedabad. The office of the construction company was in Deep Apartment at Vasna. He used to go to his office in the evening. On 19.1 .1994, he left his house at 4.00 p.m. on way to the office. Walking towards office, when he reached the place near Vasna Bus Stand, a Maruti van came and stopped near him. He was shown a visiting card by the occupants of the van to enquire about the address mentioned thereon. While PW 3 Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was reading the visiting card, somebody pushed him from behind and he was forced into the Maruti van. Inside the van, his head and face were covered with a woolen cap. 5-6 persons were sitting in the Maruti van and after the victim was forced into the van, the van moved and travelled for 30-45 minutes and eventually he was taken to the cellar of a building. There, the victim gave the telephone number of his construction company, but as there was no response from that telephone number, he gave the telephone number of his friend K.K. Vaidh. PW 3 Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was kept in a room in that building and according to the prosecution, the accused persons made a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs from the partners of the construction company.

4. The partners of the construction company withdrew Rs. 10 lakhs from the Union Bank of India and a relative of the victim, namely, PW 4 Kirtikumar Tapishanker Tripathi, was asked to come with Rs. 3 lakhs near Anjali Cinema on 19.1.1994 at an evening time by the victim himself who spoke to him on telephone. He was asked to come by a rickshaw and to handover Rs. 3 lakhs to a person who would identify himself by a code (No. 500). He came with Rs. 31akhs near Anjali Cinema Square Road. A person came on a motorcycle, identified himself with the aforesaid code and the bag containing Rs. 3 lakhs was given to that person.

5. PW 2 Harshad Premjibhi Gajjar gave a complaint to the police on the same day, i.e. 19.1.1994. A case was registered by PW 14 Police n~pector and investigation started. During investigation, the house of A-6 Salim Haveliwala was searched on 23.3.1994 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered. Thereafter, the house of his father-in-law A-7 Yakub Ganibhai was also searched and Rs. 1,75,000/- was recovered. Bundles of notes recovered from his house were showing the slips of Union Bank of India, C.G. Road, Relief Road and Rajpur branches, Ahmedabad. During investigation, A-1 Abdulvahab Abdulmajid Shaikh, A-5 Mohammadrafik Abdulrahim Shaikh, A-3, Abdulsattar @ Sattar Ghanti, A-4 Mahammadsalim @ Salim Tolo and A-2 Najirmahammad Alimahammad Vora were arrested. Pursuant to the information furnished by A-4 M~hammadsalim @ Salim Tolo, six cartridges were recovered from a heap of bricks. On 8.9.1994, the investigation was taken over by ACP Shri B.R. Patilo He arrested A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan Ismailkhan Pathan. This accused expressed his desire to




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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