1. Appeals against conviction for kidnapping and extortion under IPC Sections 120B, 342, 365 — prosecution relied on co-accused's confession. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2007 Supreme(SC) 560
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., G.P. Mathur, J.
Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto- Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001
With
Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Shaikh & Ors.- Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2001
And
Musa Khan @ Baba Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2001
Decided on : 24.04.2007
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sushil Kumar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vinay Arora, Mr. Adolf Mathew, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr Priyank Adhyaru, Mr. Sudarsahn Singh Rawat, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Mr. Pradash Kumar B. (for Ashok K. Mahajan) and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Yashank Adhyru, Senior Advocate, Ms. Vibha Datta Makkhija, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu Ms. Pinky Behera, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
A confession by a co-accused is considered fragile and feeble evidence; it cannot be the sole basis for conviction and requires corroboration from independent evidence to establish the guilt of another accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 342 and 365 read with Section 120-B - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Evidentiary value of co-accused confession - Confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble type of evidence and can only be used to support other evidence adduced by the prosecution (Para 6) - As a rule of prudence, the court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for kidnapping and wrongful confinement of an individual. It was alleged that the victim was abducted from a public lunch by several accused persons, held in confinement, and subsequently released after a ransom payment was made. The conviction of the appellant was primarily based on the confession of a co-accused, who alleged that the appellant had identified the victim to the other accomplices.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to adduce any independent evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant or establish that the appellant was in the company of the other co-accused during the commission of the crime.
Issues: Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a confession made by a co-accused without any other supporting independent evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble form of evidence. It is insufficient by itself to hold another accused guilty and can only be used as corroborative evidence to support other evidence produced by the prosecution. (Paras 6 and 7)
Result: Appeals allowed and appellants acquitted of all charges.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether uncorroborated confession of co-accused can sustain conviction. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Confession of co-accused is fragile evidence; must be corroborated. Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Confession of a co-accused alone is insufficient to convict; it requires corroboration from independent evidence. (Para 6 )
5. Appeals allowed; appellants acquitted of all charges; discharged from bail bonds. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of a confession made by a co-accused?
It is fragile and feeble evidence; by itself insufficient to convict; can only be used to support other evidence. (Para 6 )
7. Can a conviction be based solely on a co-accused's confession without independent corroboration?
No, the court must seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity; otherwise the prosecution fails to prove guilt. (Para 6 , 7 )
JUDGMENT
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.
1. 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 3651PC. 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.1 0 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.1 0 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.1 0 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 was produ
