STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 14-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 128 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2013) 
B 
MARCH 14, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM ANO JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.5 to 16, 17 to 31, 32 and 60 -
Appreciation of evidence - Two different cases relating to the 2006 
bomb blasts in local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways -
C Separate trials - Different accused in the two cases - Respondents 
were accused in the first case - Three persons accused in the 
second case, who were not accused/co-accused in the first case, 
made confessional statements before officials holding the rank · 
of Deputy Commissioners of Police who were witnesses in the first 
D case -Prayer made by respondents to summon the said witnesses 
as defence witnesses - Tenability - Held: Not tenable -
Respondents could not be pennitted to summon said witnesses ,, 
as defence witnesses, in order to substantiate confessional 
statements made by the three accused in the second case - Said 
E witnesses could not vouchsafe the truth or falsity of the 
confessional statements - Their evidence did not fall within the 
realm of admissibility with reference to ''facts in issue" or "relevant 
facts" - Whilst it was pennissible to the accused-respondents to 
rely on the confessional statements made by the three accused 
F in the second case, it was open to them to do so only through the 
persons who had made the confessional statements - Only the 
three accused in the second case who made the confessional 
statements could vouchsafe for the same and be produced as 
defence witnesses by accused-respondents, for their statements 
fell in the realm of relevance u/s. 11 - And if said three accused 
G appear as defence witnesses in the first case, protection available 
to a witness u/s. 132, would also extend to them, if they are 
compelled to answer questions posed to them, while appearing 
as defence witnesses - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime 
H 
128 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED 129 
VAKIL ANSARI 
Act, 1999(MCOCA)-ss.3(1)(ij, 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5)-IPC-ss.302, 
A 
307, 324, 325, 326, 327, 427, 436, 1208, 121-A, 122, 123, 124A, 
201, 212 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - ss.10, 13, 
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 40 - Explosives Act, 1884 - ss. 6, 98 - Explosive 
Substances Act, 1908 - ss.3, 4, 5, 6 - Prevention of Damage to 
Public Property Act, 1984 - ss.3, 4 - Railways Act, 1989- ss.151, 
B 
152, 153, 154. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.5 to 16 - Admissible evidence -
Expanse/sphere of - Held: Is postulated in s.5 - Evidence may 
be given "of every fact in issue" and of such other facts expressly 
''declared to be relevant': and of no other facts - ss. 6 to 16 define 
C 
"relevant facts': in respect whereof evidence can be given. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.6- Rule of ''res gestae" incorporated 
in s. 6 -Admissibility under - Determining test - Case regarding 
bomb blasts in local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways -
Confessions made by accused in another case sought to be D 
admitted as evidence - Held: The confession_s were not 
spontaneous reactions arising out the bomb blasts which was the 
''fact in issue" and could not be said to have contemporaneously 
arisen along with bomb blasts, hence, were not admissible under 
the rule of res gestae. 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 11 - Realm of relevance under - Held: 
Facts inconsistent with ''facts in issue" are included in the realm 
of relevance - Likewise, facts making existence or non-existence 
of a ''fact in issue" highly probable or improbable, also included 
in the realm of relevance - In order to be relevant uls. 11, such 
F 
statement ought to be "a statement about the existence of a fact': 
and not 'a statement as to its existence". 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 17 to 31 - Admissions and 
confessions -Admissibility and inadmissibility of - Held: An 
admission or a confession to be relevant must pertain to a "fact 
G 
in issue" or a ''relevant fact" - In that sense, s. 5 (and consequently 
ss.6 to 16) inescapably intertwined with admissible admissions/ 
confessions - Admissibility of admissions/ confessions, would 
depend on whether they would fall in the realm of "facts in issue" 
H 
130 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 
A or "relevant facts" - That in tum to be determined with reference to 
ss.5to 16. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 17 to 31 - Admissions and 
confessions - Held: Are exceptions to the "hearsay" rule - The 
Evidence Act places th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.