LexSHARAFA THUSSAIN ABDULRAHAMAN SHAIKH AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
SHARAFA THUSSAIN ABDULRAHAMAN SHAIKH AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
NOVEMBER 22, 1996
B
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]
Criminal Law :
Te1rorist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevemion) Act, 1987.
C
Section 15 (2) read with Rule 15 ( 3) (b) of Rules-Confession-Record-
ing of-By Police Officer-Po/ice Officer neither gave certificate, in accord-
ance with R. 15(3)(b) of Rules, of his satisfaction or belief about
voluntariness of confession after same were recorded nor did he testify about
his such satisfaction or belief while being examined as a witness-Held: such
D a confession not to be used against accused.
E
F
G
The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Sections 120-B
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and S of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Sections 4
and 6 of the Explosives Substance Act, 1908. Hence this appeal. ·
The prosecution case was based upon the confessional statements
made by the appellants-accused before the Superintendent of Police, P.W.
6, which were recorded nuder Section 15 of TADA. The Designated Court
found the confessions voluntary and true and accordingly passed the order
of conviction against the appellants-accused. However, the Superintendent
of Police did not give any certificate, in accordance with Rule 15(3)(b) of
the Roles framed under TADA, of his satisfaction or belief about the
voluntariness of the confessions after the same were recorded. He also did
not testify about his such satisfaction or belief while he was examined as
a witness.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Apart from the fact that P.W. 6 did not give any certificate,
in accordance with Rule 15(3)(b) of the Rules framed under the Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, of his satisfaction or
H belief about the voluntariness of the confessions after the same were
86
'
AB. SHAIKH v. STATE [M.K MUKHERJEE, J.]
87
recorded, it is also an admitted fact that while being examined as a witness A
he did not testify about his such satisfaction or belief. Resultantly, confes·
sions allegedly made by the appellants-accused cannot be pressed into
service to prove the charges levelled against them. [89-C·D]
Chandran v. State of Madras, AIR (1978) SC 1574, relied on.
'
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
473 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.96 of the Designated Court
at Ahmedabad in C.T.C. No. 7 of 1995.
U .R. Lalit and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellants.
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, (Ms. Rekha Pandey) for Ms. Hemantika Wahi for
the Respondents.
The Jl!dgment of the Court was delivered by
B
c
D
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. The four appellants along with eight others
were tried by the Designated Court, Ahmedabad for offences punishable
under Sections 120-B and 307 !PC, Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA' for short) and Sec-
E
lion 4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The allegations against
them were that they hatched a criminal conspiracy to let loose a reign of
terror in the city of Ahmedabad by hurling bombs on the people of the
Hindu community and that pursuant to the said conspiracy they hurled
bombs near Sarangpur bus stand on January 27, 1993 as a result of which
some members of the public sustained injuries. The trial ended in an order F
of conviction and sentence recorded against all the appellants under Sec-
tions 120-B !PC and 3 and 5 of TADA, two of the appellants under
Sections 307 !PC and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and the other two
appellants under Sections 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and of acquit-
tal of the other eight. Aggrieved by their convictious and sentences the G
appellants have filed this appeal uuder Section 19 of TADA.
To sustain the charges levelled against the appellants, the prosecu-
tion rested its case primarily upon the confessional statements made by
each of the above four appellants before Shri D.B. Patel, (P.W. 6} Super-
intendent of Police, C.I.D. Crime Branch, Ahmedabad which were purpor- H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A tedly recorded under Section 15 of TADA. The Designated Court found
the confessions voluntary and true and, as they corroborated each other, .
passed the impugned judgment against the appellants.
B
Under sub-section (1) of Section 15 of TADA a confession made by
a person before a Police OffExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.