LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus MOHAMMED ATIK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
ST A TE OF GUJARAT
v.
MOHAMMED ATIK AND ORS.
APRIL 3, 1998
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.]
Criminal law :
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1987.
Section 15-Confessional Statement made by accused in earlier cases-
Covers, another crime involving the accused-Admissibility of-Held-
Admissible and can be used in the case in which the other crime is under
trial.
D
Section 15{1]-Maker of the confession dies before conclusion of trial-
Ejfect of on co-accused-Held-Such confessional statement not applicable
to co-accused.
Evidence Act, 1872 :
E
Section JO-Statement made by one conspirator-When can bind
F
another conspirator-Expression "in reference to their common intention"-
Meaning and scope of-Explained.
The respondents in appeal were accused in some cases which were
registered by different police stations in respect of certain bomb blasts. AL
and M were arrested in connection with different crimes and their confessional
statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA, 1987.
In the meanwhile, another charge sheet was filed against A.L. while
the trial was in progress, the Public Prosecutor filed an application for
G permission to use a confessional statement recorded from an accused during
investigation of another crime, which was dismissed by Trial Court. Hence
this appeal by State.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
H
HELD: 1.1. The impugned order is set aside and the prosecution is
664
STATE OF GUJARAT. v. MOHAMMED ATJK
665
permitted to make use of the confessional statement of the accused, recorded A
in earlier cases. (672-BJ
1.2. A confession, if usable under Section 15 of the TADA, would not
become unusahle mercl~· because the case is different or the c1imc is different
If the confession covers that different crime, it would he relernnt item of
evidence in the case in which that crime is under trial and it would then B
become admissible in the ca.sc. (668-E-F)
1.3. When there is no statutory provision for using such confession
on the 11remise that it was not recorded during the investigation of the
particular offence which is under trial there is no need or reason for the C
court to introduce a fmiher fetter again~1 the admissibility of the confessional
statement. It often happens that a confessor would disclose very many acts
and events including different facets of his involvement in the 11reparation,
attem11t, and commission of crime including acts of his co-pa1iicipators
therein. But to expel every other illcriminating disclosure than that under
investigation of a particular crime from the ambit of admissibility is not D
mandated by any 1m1vision of law. (668-C-E)
State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh, (1993) 10 SCC 675, applied.
2.1. The moment the maker of the confession dies before conclusion E
of the trial, the pro\•iso Section 15 [1] sinks into disuse as then it would be
impossible to try the two persons together. [669-E]
3.1. Section 10 of the Evidence Act is founded on the principle of law
of agency by rendering the statement or act of one conspirator binding on
the other if it was said during subsistence of the common intention as F
between the conspirators. If so, once the common intention ceased to exist
any statement made by a farmer conspirator thereafter cannot be regarded
as one made "reference to there common intention". In other words, post-
arrest statement made to a police officer, whether it is a confession or
othern·ise, touching his involvement in the conspiracy would not fall within G
the ambit of section HJ of the Evidence Act. [670-D-F]
Indira Chandra Narang and Ors. v. E111pero1~ AIR (1929) Patna 145;
Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Afaharashtra, AIR (1965) SC
682; Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor, AIR (1940) PC 176 and Sardar Singh
Caveeshar v. State of Bengal, AIR (1957) SC 747, relied on.
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTON: Criminal Appeal Nos ..
. HJ0-03 of 1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.97 of the Designated Court •
· Ahmedabad, in T.C.C. No. 13/95. 7/96. 14/95 and 8 of 1996.
8
S.K. Dholakia. A.D. Shah. Ms. H. Wahi and Ms. Neithono Rhetso for
the Appellant.
Sushi\ Kumar. H.N. Jhala, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Shakil Ahmed Syed
for the Respondents.
C
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
THOMAS, J. A Public Prosecutor moved in the trial court for pennission
to use a confessional statement recorded from an accused during Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.