LexBIHARI MANJHI AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- BIHARI MANJHI AND ORS. A v. STATE OF BIHAR APRIL 15, 2002 [M.B. SHAH, B.N. AGRAWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) B Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Rules, 1987 Section 7 5/Rule 15-Recording of confessional statement made to Police C officer-Reliability of-On facts, accused person tried for gruesome carnage- Designated Court convicting accused persons on the basis of confessional statement of one of the accused-However, investigating officer not following prescribed procedure under the Rule-Non-identification of accused before the court by police officer who recorded the confession-As such recording of D confessional statement by police officer and putting of signature by accused doubtfal-Therefore, such confessional statement should not be relied upon. Appellants-accused persons along with others were tried by the Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Sections 302/149 Penal Code for gruesome carnage where 35 persons E lost their lives, some houses/huts were burnt, number of persons were injured. Court convicted the appellants-accused on the basis of confessional statement ofone of the accused which was recorded by Police Inspect-0r in the presence of Superintendent of Police. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. On facts of the instant case, it Would be difficult to hold that the confessional statement recorded by Police Inspector, who went there F for apprehending the accused can be considered to be confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act even though it was recorded in G the presence of Superintendent of Police. (1176-C-DJ 1.2. The statement was recorded by the police officers in the presence of the police party at night time between 26th and 27th February, 1992 in the light of the jeep as there was no other light available. It was not sent to 1173 H 1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R. A the Chief Judicial Magistrate as required under the TADA Rules but was produced for the first time before the Designated Court on 21.3.1997 which was allegedly kept in the police diary. Designated Court holding that the procedure prescribed under Rule 15 was directory, would not mean that Investigating Officer is not required to follow the said procedure. He has to follow the said procedure. If there is delay in sending the statement, the Court B would consider its evidentiary value by weighing other evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Further, the Superintendent of Police, in whose presence the statement was recorded, as well as Police Inspector who recorded the statement have not identified the accused whose statement was recorded, before the Court which throws a serious doubt with regard to the confessional C statement being recorded by Police Inspector and putting of signatures by the accused on the same. There is no other evidence so far as co-accused appellants are concerned despite the fact that accused are residents of same village where occurrence took place and no other prosecution witnesses have identified them as the persons present at the scene of offence nor there is any recovery alleged to have been made from them or at their instance. Thus the D confessional statement ought not to have been relied upon by the Court for convicting the appellants-accused. (1176-E-H; 1177-A-B-C] E F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated ·g .6.200 I of the Designated Court at Gaya in G.R.C. No. 430 of 1992. WITH Crl. A.No. 765 of 200 I. A. Sharan, Rajiv Datta, Irshad Ahmed, Amit Kumar, Madhu Sharan, S. Chandra Shekhar, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Rajiv Singh and Sartaj Ali Khan, for Rajesh Prasad Singh for the Appellants. H.L. Agrawal and Kumar Rajesh Singh for B.B. Singh for the G Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. In gruesome carnage, 35 persons lost their lives, some houses/ huts were burnt, number of persons were injured and in that case charge- H sheet was submitted against 119 persons. Out of them, 13 were tried by the ..... .. ..... • - - BIHARI MANJHI v. STATE OF BIHAR [SHAH, J.) 1175 Designated Court of Sessions Judge, Gaya in G.R. Case No. 430 of I 992, A Tekari Police Station Case No.19 of 1992 under the provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.