LexSUNDERLAL KANAIYALAL BHATIJA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 1149 SUNDERLAL KANAIYALAL BHATIJA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1222 of 2006) MARCH 31, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] A B Evidence Act, 1872: s.25 - Confessional statement recorded in case relating to offences under the TADA Act would not be admissible in evidence against the accused in c prosecution for offence under any other law if the offences under any other law and those under the TADA Act are being tried separately- On facts, accused convicted in TADA case on the basis of his confessional statement - In a separate complaint accused charged under ss302, 307, 353 and 402 0 /PC- Some offences under TADA Act were also incorporated initially but later same were dropped - Confession made by accused under TADA Act cannot be used by prosecution for offences committed under /PC - Terrorist and Destructive Activities Act, 1987 - ss.12 and 15 - Penal Code, 1860 - E ss.302, 307, 353 - Arms Act, 1959 - s.35(c). The Private respondent No.4 was convicted in TADA case on the basis of his confessional statement. A separate complaint was filed wherein he was charged under Sections 302, 307, 353 and 402 of the Indian Penal F Code, r.w. Section 35(c) of the Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 (TADA Act) were also applied in the said case. However, the said provisions of the TADA Act were dropped since the TADA Review/Screening Committee G came to the conclusion that offences under the TADA Act were not attracted in the said case. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether the confessional statements 1149 H 1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A recorded in a case relating to offences under the TADA Act would be admissible in evidence against the accused in prosecution for offences other than those under the TADA Act. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the general provision regarding a confession made by an accused to a police officer. In terms of the Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made c by an accused to a police officer is not admissible. D However, an exception has been carved out under the provision of Section 15 of the TADA Act which provides that certain confessions made to police officers by an accused involved in a case charged for an offence under the TADA Act or rules made thereunder would be admissible in evidence in the trial of such person. [Para 12] [1156-G-H; 1157-A-~] Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409; State of Gujarat v. Mohammed Atik & E Others (1998) 4 SCC 351, referred to. 1.2. It is now a settled law that a confessional statement duly recorded by a police officer in a case related to TADA Act and the rules framed thereunder would continue to remain admissible for the offences F under any other law which were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 read with Section 15 of the Act notwithstanding that the accused was acquitted of offences under the TADA Act in the same trial. But, in the instant case the allegation was mainly for the offences G under the IPC. Some offences under the TADA Act were also incorporated initially but later on the same were dropped. Consequently, charges in the said case were framed only for offences under the IPC and not under the TADA Act and the trial was also only for offences under H the IPC and not under the TADA Act. Therefore, such SUNDERLAL KANAIYALAL BHATIJA v. STATE OF 1151 MAHARASHTRA confessional statement as made by the respondent no. A 4 under the TADA Act, in a different case, cannot be used or utilised by the prosecution in the present case as the charges were framed only for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. [Para 16) [1159-D-G] Case Law Reference: (2005) 2 sec 409 (1998) 4 sec 351 referred to referred to Para 11 Para 13 B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal C No. 1222 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 29.9.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 354 of 2006 with Criminal Revision Application 36 of 2006. R. Sundervardhan, Hari, Sanjeev Tyagi, Rekha Pandey, D Bhupender Yadav, S.S. Shamsherry, Debaleena Kilikdar, Ram Lal Roy, Chinmany Khaladkar, Sanjay Kharde, Nitin S. Tambwekar, B.S. Sai, Asha Gopalan Nair, R.C. Kohli, R.N. Keshwani, At
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.