LexMOHMED AMIN @ AMIN CHOTELI RAHIM MIYAN SHAIKH & ANR. versus C.B.I THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 155 MOHMED AMIN @AMIN CHOTELI RAHIM MIYAN SHAIKH A & ANR. v. C.B.I. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR (Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2007) NOVEMBER 18, 2008 B [8.N. AGRAWAL AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987: C s. 15 - Confession - HELD: A confession recorded in accordance with the provisions of s. 15 and r. 15 is admissible and can be used in the trial of the maker as also the co- accused, abettor or conspirator not only for an offence under 0 the Act but also for an offence under /PC or other enactments provided that such co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case - Conviction can be based on such confession without its corroboration, if the Court is convinced of its probative value independently - In E the instant case, the trial court has rightly relied upon the confessions - Besides, prosecution has also led sufficient corroborative evidence and the trial court did not commit any error in recording the conviction- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 - r.15 - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021120-Bl114 /PC. F s.15 - Confession - HELD: If an accused challenges his confession as having not been made voluntarily, then the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove that all requirements uls 15 and r. 15 have been complied with - G Once this is done, burden shifts on the accused to prove his a/legations - In the instant case, there was total compliance of the mandate of law in recording the confessions - Evidence - Burden of proof. 155 H' 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. A s. 15 - Confession - HELD: A confession cannot be held to be inadmissible merely because before recording the same the accused was in police custody or that the statement was recorded by the officer supervising the investigation. B PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 3021120-B, 3021120-81114, and s. 120-B - Conspiracy and murder - HELD: To prove a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all conspirators know each and every detail c of the conspiracy, so long as they are co-participants in the main object of conspiracy - It is also not necessary that all conspirators should participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end - If there is unity of object or purpose, all participating at different stages of the crime will be guilty D of conspiracy - In the instant case, the trial court did not commit any error in recording a finding that charges of .. conspiracy and murder are proved against appellants - Arms - Act, 1959 - s.27 - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - s.135. E The appellants (A-4 to A-8, A-10 and A-11) seven in number, along with 4 others were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable ulss 3(1), 3(3) and 3(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, s.120-8 read with s.302 IPC, s.302 read with s.114 and s.120-8 IPC and s.27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The F prosecution case was that one 'AL' and his gang had gunned down an illicit liquor supplier· and 8 others on 3.8.1992, and planned to make surreptitious surrender of some unimportant members of their party so that the real culprits could go scot free. This was opposed by one 'RV' G who was a former Rajya Sabha Member and General Secretary of the State unit of a political party. 'AL' and his gang decided to eliminate 'RV' and create terror among the people so that no one could dare oppose their plan. The task was entrusted to 'R' Party, and his gang of H which A-5, A-7, A-8 and A-11 were members, and they shot MOHMED AMIN @AMIN CHOTELI RAHIM MIYAN 157 ' ----- SHAIKH & ANR. v. C.B.I. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR dead the said 'RV' who at the time of occurrence was A accompanied by PW-28. The Designated Court on the basis of the prosecution evidence, the confessions made by the accused-appellants u/s 15 of the Act as also the statements made by them u/s 313 Cr PC found the charges of conspiracy and murder established and B ~ convicted A-4 to A-8, A-10 and A-11, inter alia, u/s 302 read withs. 120 IPC and/or u/s 302 read with ss. 114 and 120- B IPC and sentenced all of them to imprisonment for life. It acquitted all the accused of the charges under the TADA Act. c In the instant appeals, it was contended for the accused-appellants that they were subjected to physical torture in order to extract confessions and, as such, the ... confessions alleged to have been made were not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.