2008 Supreme(SC) 1696

2008(8) Supreme 227
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh & Anr. — Appellants
versus
C.B.I. through its Director — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2007
With
Criminal Appeal Nos.484, 582 and 705 of 2007
Decided on : 18-11-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if a person is acquitted of the charge under the Act, a confession recorded under Section 15 can be used for convicting him for an offence under other enactments including IPC.

Headnote:(a) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 r/w Rule 15 – Guidelines for recording confession reiterated. (Para 9)

        (1994)3 SCC 569 – Relied upon.

        (b) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 r/w Rule 15 – If an accused is acquitted of a charge framed under the Act, his confession in relation thereto recorded u/s 15 cannot be used for convicting him for an offence under other enactments like IPC – However, if the accused is tried simultaneously for offences under the Act and other enactments, his confession under the Act and the Rules can be used for conviction under other enactments despite his acquittal under the Act. (Para 11)

        (1997)7 SCC 431; (1997)7 SCC 744; (2002)10 SCC 201; (1999)5 SCC 253 – Relied upon.

        (c) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Law is settled that even if a person is acquitted of the charge under the Act, a confession recorded under Section 15 can be used for convicting him for an offence under other enactments including IPC – The confession, however, should be voluntary. (Paras 13 and 18)

        AIR 1939 PC 47; AIR (36) 1949 PC 257; (1971)3 SCC 950; AIR 1963 SC 1094; AIR 1956 SC 217; (2005)2 SCC 409 – Relied upon.

        (d) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – A confession made before competent officer is admissible in the trial of the maker as also the co-accused, abettor or conspirator not only for an offence under the Act but also for offence(s) under other enactments – Provided that the co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case along with the accused – Subject to Court’s satisfaction about compliance of requirements of the Act and Rules. (Paras 19 and 27)

        (1999)5 SCC 253; (2000)1 SCC 498; (2000)2 SCC 254; (2001)3 SCC 221; (2001)10 SCC 109; (2002)5 SCC 234; (2003)9 SCC 673; (2007)9 SCC 293; AIR 1956 SC 217; AIR 1957 SC 637 – Relied upon.

        (1978)3 SCC 435; 2006(13) Scale 467; 2007 (12) Scale 451 – Distinguished.

        (e) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 r/w Rule 15 – Before recording confessions it was explained to appellant Nos.A-4 to A-8 and A-10 separately that he is not bound to make confession and that if he does so, the same may be used as evidence against him – The concerned officers also recorded their satisfaction that the appellants were making confessions voluntarily – Each appellant was given time to think on the issue of making confession and having felt convinced that they were doing so out of their volition, their statements were recorded – Each accused admitted that the recording contains full and true account of his statement and then signed it – The statements of the six appellants were immediately sent to the concerned Court – Thus there was total compliance of Section 15 of the Act and Rule 15 of the Rules. (Para 42)

        (f) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – A person’s confession u/s 15 cannot be rejected only on the ground that at the relevant time he was in police custody. (Para 44)

        (2000)1 SCC 498; (2001)3 SCC 221; (2000)2 SCC 254 – Relied upon.

        (g) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Confessional statement cannot be rejected on the ground that it was recorded by the officers supervising the investigation. (Para 48)

        (h) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – For proving a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each and every details of the conspiracy – It is also not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end – If there is unity of object or purpose, all participating at different stages of the crime will be guilty of conspiracy. (Para 55)

        (1977)4 SCC 540; (1999)5 SCC 253 – Relied upon.

        (i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w 120B – Confessions u/s 15, TADA Act being candid and unambiguous no independent corroboration was required for conviction of the accused persons u/s 302 r/w 120B. (Para 56)

        (2002)10 SCC 201; (1999)5 SCC 253; (2000)2 SCC 254; (2001)3 SCC 221; (2002)5 SCC 234; (2003)9 SCC 673 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. On 3.8.1992, Hansraj Trivedi, an alleged supplier of illicit liquor and eight others were gunned down at Radhika Gymkhana Club, Ahmedabad. As effective steps were not taken to arrest Abdul Latif and his gang members, who were perceived as the culprits, there was public outcry against the police inaction. This compelled the concerned officers to intensify their efforts to arrest the accused.

        2. In the wake of this development, Abdul Latif and members of his gang planned surreptitious surrender of some unimportant members of their party so that real culprits could go scot-free. He was supported by a local politician Shri Hassankhan Shamsherkhan Pathan @ Hassanlala whose efforts however were thwarted by Abdul Rauf Mohmed Bhai @ Rauf Valiullah (former member of Rajya Sabha and General Secretary of Gujarat Pradesh Congress (I) Committee).

        3. Abdul Latif and gang therefore decided to eliminate Rauf Valiullah. On 9.10.1992, appellant Nos.A-5, A-7, A-8 and A-11 gunned down Rauf Valiullah at around 2.30 p.m.

        4. In furtherance of Notification dated 12.2.1993 and corrigendum dated 17.2.1993 issued by the Government of India the case was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

        5. The trial Court concluded that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges of conspiracy and murder and held Javedkhan @ Jaid Azizkhan Pathan, Mohd. Taslim Mohd Umar Shaikh, appellant Nos.A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-10 guilty under Section 120B and Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. Appellant Nos.A-4 and A-11 were held guilty of offence punishable under Section 114 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 302 read with Section 114 IPC. Appellant Nos.A-5 and A-8 were held guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 135 of theBombay Police Act. Abdul Khurdush was acquitted of all the charges but was found guilty under Section 176 IPC. However, all the accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act. Abdul Khurdush was sentenced to one months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month. Appellant Nos.A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10 and A-11 were sentenced to life imprisonment. Each of them was also directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Nos.A-5 and A-8 were sentenced to 3 years imprisonment for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act, appellant Nos.A-5 and A-8 were awarded sentence of one month with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

       Finding of the Court :

        There is no infirmity n the impugned judgment.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.