HARDEEP SINGH SOHAL ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CBI

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 28-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARDEEP SINGH SOHAL ETC. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CBI 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.J 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B, 302: 307, 394: 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (as amended 
by Act 43 of 1993)-Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3) and 15: 
C 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rule, 1987-Rule 15: 
Murder-Prosecution-Confessional Statement under TADA Act and 
extra-judicial confession of co-accused-Co-accused absconded and not 
tried with the accused-Certificate as per Rule 15 not given-Conviction of D 
accused relying on the confessional statement and extra-judicial confession 
of the absconded co-accused-On appeal, held: Accused liable to be 
acquitted-The confession under TADA and the extra-judicial confession 
were inadmissible in law-The same could have been admissible only if 
confessor was charged and tried in the same case together with the accused-
Also because confessional statement was not recorded in compliance of Rule 
15-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 30. 
Appellants-doctors were alleged to have entered into conspiracy to 
kill a doctor by hiring another accused on account of professional rivalry. 
The hired accused was apprehended by Police and on the basis of his 
confessional statement u/s 15 of Terrorist and. Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1987, the appellants were charged u/s 120-B, 302, 307, 
E 
F 
394 IPC, Sections 3(1 ), 3(2) and 3(3) of TADA Act and Section 25 of 
Arms Act. He could not be tried as he absconded and was declared as 
proclaimed offender. To prove conspiracy prosecution relied on evidence 
of PWs-32, 42 and 34. PW-32 was a staff nurse in the hospital where one 
G 
of the appellants-accused was working. As per her evidence appellants-
accused had arranged meeting with absconded accused through her and 
that the absconded accused had told her that the appellant-accused had 
wanted him to kill a person and he had done so. PW-42, wife of the 
deceased stated that absconded accused had made extra-judicial H 
783 
784 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
confession to her that he had killed her husband at the behest of appellant-
accused. PW-34 Superintendent of Police had recorded the confessional 
statement of the absconded accused. Although he had put questions to 
the accused as to whether he was aware that his statement could be used 
against him on the basis of which he would be sentenced and whether 
B 
c 
.D 
there was any pressure or fear on him and the accused had answered 
in the negative. However, PW-34 did not p,ive certificate in terms of 
Rule 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987. 
Trial Court held the appellants-accused guilty for the offences 
charged, holding that merely because one accused died before charges 
were framed, that did not affect the confessional statement; and that by 
operation of Section 30 of Evidence Act, confession of the co-accused 
could be made use of. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that confessional 
statement made under Section 15 of TADA Act by absconded accused 
was inadmissible as the same was recorded in violation of the mandatory 
provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 
Allo_wing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. As the absconded accused could not be jointly tried with 
F 
G 
the appellants, the entire evidence of confession recorded under Section 
15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (Exbt. 
PAA) and the extra-judicial confessions have become inadmissible and 
in the absence of any other reliable evidence the appellants are to be 
acquitted of the charges framed against them. [797-E, F, G) 
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1994) 3 SCC 569, referred to. 
2. Confession made by absconded accused to PW-34 (Exbt PAA) is 
inadmissible in law and cannot be used against the appellants. So also, 
the extra-judicial confessions allegedly made to PW-32 and PW-42 suffer 
from the same infirmity. (797-B, CJ 
3. Section 15 of the TADA Act as amended by Act 43 of 1993 
clearly stipulates that the confession recorded under Section 15 of the 
TADA Act is admissible only if the confessor is charged and tried in the 
H 
same case together with the co-accused. [793-G, H) 
H. S. SO HAL v. ST A TE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CBI 
785 
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) AIR SCW 1665, 
A 
relied on. 
4. Exh. PAA does not contain a certificate under Rule 15 of Terrorist 
a

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