LexGURDEEP SINGH @ DEEP versus THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- GURDEEP SINGH @ DEEP v. THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.) SEPTEMBER 17, 1999 [K.T. THOMAS AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: A B S.15.-Confessional statement-Whether voluntarily made- Determination of-Confession made before Superintendent of Police-No C threat, inducement or promise in making confession-Confession recorded while in handcuffs, in the pr:esence of a constable holding handcuffs and armed guards standing outside the room-Admissibility of-Held; confession voluntary and truthful-Prosecution can rely upon the confession without further corroboration-Conviction and sentence confirmed-Terrorist ·and D disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987-Rule 15-Penal Code-Ss. 302 and 324-The Explosive Substances Act, 1908-S.5-Jndian Explosive Act, 1884-S. 9(b)(2). S.15-Confession-Admissibility of-Difference between TADA Act and other criminal proceedings-Evidence Act, 1872-Ss.25 and 27. . E S.15-Confession-Whether voluntarily made._Burden of proof-Held, initially lies on the prosecution to prove that the requirements under the Act and Rules were complied with-On discharge of initial burden, it shifts on the accused person to prove that it was not voluntarily made-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987-Rule 15. F Criminal jurisprudence-Punishment-object of confessional statement-Need for encouragement through some incentive-Consideration by legislature-Suggested Words and Phrases: "Voluntary"-Meaning of in the context of S.15 of the TADA Act and S.24 of the Evidence Act, 1872. G Appellant was prosecuted for offences under Ss.302 and 324 IPC, S.5 H 693 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and under S.9(b )(2) of Indian Explosive Act, 1884. The prosecution case was solely based on the confessional statement of accused made under S.15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, before the Superintendent of Police. The said confessional statement was duly corroborated by prosecution witnesses. B Designated Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences charged. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of appellant it was .contended that the confessional statement recorded while in handcuffs, in the presence of a police officer holding the handcuffs and armed guards standing outside the room cannot be construed C to be voluntary as threat perception was hanging over his head. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Confessional statements of the accused is not only admissible but was voluntarily and truthfully made by him on which prosecution D could rely for his conviction without any further corroboration. (709.;A] 1.2. Mere handcuffing of the appellant for another police man being present in the room with the chain of his handcuff, or arme~ guards present outside the room could not in fact or law be constituted to be such to hold that such confessional statement was not made voluntarily. Under the TADA E Act, a confession recorded before a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police even under police custody is admissible but not under other criminal trials. Keeping the accused under police custody in what manner with what precautions is a matter for the police administration to decide. It is for them to decide what essential measures are to be taken in a given case for the purpose of security. What security, in which manner F are all in the realm of administrative exigencies and would depend on the class of accused, his antecedents and other information etc. Security is also necessary for the police personnel keeping him in custody or other personnel of the police administration including the public at large. Thus what measure has to be taken is for the police administration to decide and if they feel G greater security is required in a case of trial under the TADA Act, it is for them to decide accordingly. [708-A; 707_.E-F-G] 2. The Legislature has conferred different standard of admissibility of a confessional statement made by an accused under the TADA Act, from those made in other criminal proceedings. While under s.15 of the TADA H Act a confessional statement by an accused is admissible even when made GURDEEPSINGH@DEEPv. THE STATE(DELHIADMN.) 695 to a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, in other A criminal proceedings it is not.admissible unless mad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.