ABDUL VAHAB ABDULMAJID SHAIKH AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 24-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.
_. 
A 
ABDUL V AHAB ABDULMAJID SHAIKH AND ORS. 
_/ '"' 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
APRIL 24, 2007 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, en. AND G.P. MA THUR, J.] 
Evidence: 
l 
~ 
c 
Confessional statement-Evidentiary value of-Abduction of 
industrialist-Extortion of ransom money for his re/ease-Confession made 
by one accused (.4-12)-Appreciation of-Held: Merely because the confession 
was retracted later, when A-12 was produced before the Magistrate, that 
does not mean that the confession was not voluntary-Nothing on record to 
show that A·· 12 was under pressure to give confession-All formalities were 
D complied with by the DCP who recorded the confession-Confession giving 
intricate details of the incident-A/so mentioning the manner in which ransom 
money was transferred-Ample evidence to show that the confession was 
.. 
~ 
truthful and gained support from other items of evidence-Hence it is reliable 
and admissible-Consequently, no illegality in conviction of accused-
appellants-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-ss. 
E 15, 3 and 5 rlw s. 1208 /PC-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 395, 365, 365A, 212, 
465, 471 rlw s. 120-B. 
The present appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the Designated 
Judge in a TADA criminal case in which the accused-appellants were convicted 
F 
for the offence of abduction an industrialist, PW7, in pursuance of a criminal 
.. 
conspiracy and thereafter extorting ransom of Rs. 1 Crore for his release. 
The conviction was based on the confessional statement of one accused (A-
12). 
In appeals to this Court it is contended before this Court that the 
G confessional statement given by A-12 was not reliable and admissible as it 
was not made voluntarily. It is contended that the Magistrate was very much 
••• 
available to record the statement of A-12 under Section 164 CrPC, but the 
same was not done and PW 1, DCP, recorded the confession and the confession 
was extracted from A-12 by using extreme pressure tactics. It is further 
contended that the fact that the confession was retracted on the very next day 
H 
)38 
ABDUL V AHABABDULMAJID SHAIKH v. STA TEOFGUJARAT 
539 
.... 
showed that it was not voluntarily made. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The confession made by A-12 is running into several pages. 
He has given the intricate details of the incident and the manner in which the 
crime was executed. A-12 mentions about the participation of other accused B 
in the commission of the crime. He also mentions that an amount of Rs. 1 
crore was demanded and received and that he himself received R~. 2.5 lakhs. 
' 
In the confession, it is also mentioned as to how the money was transferred to 
., 
the accused and the places where these incidents happened. From other items 
of evidence, ample corroboration is found of what A-12 had stated in the c 
confession. (Paras 9 and 10) (543-G; 545-F-G) 
,,;.._ 
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors. 
[1999) 5 sec 253, referred to. 
2. Merely because the confession was retracted later, when A-12 was 
produced before the Magistrate, that does not mean that the confession was D 
not voluntary in nature. Whether the accused was willing to give a confession 
voluntarily or not is to be determined from his mental state at the time when 
he gave the confession. There is nothing on record to show that A-12 was 
under pressure to give any confession. When he was produced before the 
Magistrate, he had no case that he was put under pressure or third-degree E 
methods had been used against him to extract the confession. When he was 
questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC, he had only stated that he had not given 
any confession as recorded by PW-1 DCP. These facts would indicate that 
the confession was voluntary and was recorded by PW-1 after apprising him 
that he was not bound to give a confession and in case he gave the confession, 
•• 
it would be used against him. Therefore, there is no force in the contention F 
advanced by the accused-appellants regarding the inadmissibility of the 
confession. There is ample evidence to show that the confession given by A-
12 was truthful and gained support from other items of evidence. (Para 13) 
3. The DCP had taken all precautions to ascertain. that the confession 
G 
was voluntary. All formalities had been complied with and these facts are 
--. 
incorporated in the confessional statement. All confessions are invariably 
retracted at a later stage, therefore, the retraction by 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.