CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus ASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOO AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 30-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
V. 
ASHIQ HUSSAIN FAKTOO AND ORS. 
JANUARY 30, 2003 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND B.N. AGRAm\L, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, !987/Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987-Sections 3 and I 5-Rules I 5(/), 
A 
B 
(2). (3) and (4)-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 1208- Prosecution-
Based on confessional statement-Acquittal by designated court on the ground C 
that statements not recorded in conformity with law-On appeal, held-Accused 
~ 
liable to be convicted as confessional statements were made in conformity 
with the provisions of law. 
Respondents-accused were prosecuted for offences under Section 3 D 
of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and under 
Sections 302 and 1208 IPC. It was alleged that accused- respondents 
were members of a terrorist organization and they took part in a 
conspiracy to kill 'W' and pursuant thereto, they kidnapped him and 
then killed him. The only evidence •against the accused was their 
confessional statements made under Section IS of the Act. 
E 
Designated court. acquitted the accused on the grounds that 
Superintendent of Police, CBI had failed to satisfy himself as to whether 
the accused were going to make the confessional statements voluntarily; 
that he had not explained to the accused that confessional statements 
made before him would be used as evidence against them; that there was 
contradiction in his statement as during his evidence he stated that the 
statements were recorded in his own hand while in his cross examination 
he stated that the statements were recorded by his steno under his 
dictation; that the confessional statements of one of the respondents was 
F 
not in the official language; that the accused were not asl;e<l, whether G 
they wanted to add or subtract anything from their confessional 
statements; and that the statements were not recorded in conformity 
with the provisions of law and hence the same could not be considered as 
a substantive piece of evidence against the accused persons. Hence the 
appeal. 
733 
H 
i ., 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
~ 
HELD: 1. The confessional statements, could under Section 1.5 of 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activitie.s (Prevention) Act, 1987 be used against 
the Respondents. In the confessional statements each of the respondents 
B 
admits that they were part of the organization and that they had taken 
part in the conspiracy to eliminate 'W'. So far as 3rd respondent is 
concerned he had actually participated in the kidnapping of 'W' and had 
then given orders in writing that 'W' be killed. Therefore, the offence 
under Section 3 of the Act as well as under Section 302 read with 1208 
IPC is made out. Therefore, the respondents are convicted under Section 
c 3 of the Act and under Section 302 read with 1208 IPC. In view of the 
activities which had been carried on by the respondents this is a fit case 
where the sentence should be life imprisonment. (742-F, G] 
'f-
2.1. The reasoning of the designated court that the confessional 
statements are ~ot in conformity with the provisions of law cannot be 
D accepted. In all the three confessional statements the Officer has first 
ascertained whether the Respondent who is making the statement was 
making the statement voluntarily. The respondents have been informed 
that the confessional statements made by them could be used against 
+ 
them as evidence. They were then asked whether they still wanted to 
E make the confessional statements. They have been told that they are not 
bound to make the confessional statements and that if they make the 
confessional statements the same would be used against them and that 
therefore they should think over the matter and let the Officer know 
whether they still wanted to make the confessional statements. The 
F 
~uperintendent of Police, CBI has signed as such. The respondents have 
also signed. This clearly shows that the respondents were aware that they 
..J.. 
were making their confessional statements before the Superintendent of 
Police, CBI. (740-D; 739-F-H( 
· 2.2. Respondents were given one day's time to think over the matter. 
G 
On the next day the Superintendent of Police, CBI again informed them 
that they were not bound to make the confessions and that if they make 
the confessions the same could be used as evidence against them. It has 
been recorded that even after this warnin

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