WARIYAM SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 19-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-
WARIYAM SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 
[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Ten'Dlist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987/Rules . 
Sections 3,4/Rule JS-Confessional statement-Sending of to the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate to be transmitted to the Designated Court-Whether man-
dat01y or directory-Held, directory. 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973: 
S. 313--Drawing attention of accused to the confessional statement and 
A 
B 
c 
coTToboration thereof. 
D 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Interested witness-Deposition of-To be weighed with care and cau-
ti on. 
The appellants-accused and one more person B.S. went to the house 
of one KS and accused him and his family. Later they opened fire hitting 
KS on his leg. The son of the injured and the other family members also 
opened fire and the son chased the accused upto 100-150 yards by flashing 
torch. In that process he was hit by a bullet fired by BS which caused his 
death. Later, BS died in an encounter with the Police and the remaining 
three accused were prosecuted before the Designated Court. They were 
convicted under S. 120B IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Terrorist 
and Disruptive Activities (prevention ) Act, 1987 (TADA) and each of them 
was sentenced to life imprisonment, five years rigorous imprisonment and 
E 
F 
a fine of R. 1000 (one year's rigorous imprisonment in default) for the G 
respective offences. 
In this appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the 
confessional statements had not been sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate 
in accordance with S.15 of TADA, which is mandatory and the confessional 
statement could not be looked into by the designated, for non-compliance H 
807 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A with the mandatory provision; that no specific question was pointedly put 
to the accused under S.313 Cr. P.C. drawing their attention to the confes-
sional statements on which Prosecution placed reliance, and such omission 
has caused serious prejudice to the accus~d; that in the absence of cor-
roborative statements from independent witnesses reliance could not have 
B 
been placed on the deposition of the father of the deceased, who was an 
interested witness; that the confessional statements were recorded in Hindi 
but the accused did not know Hindi; and since the accused claimed that 
the confessional statements were fabricated, the Court should not have 
relied on the confessional statements in the absence of corroboration. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The provisions in Rule 15 of the TADA Rules relating 
to the procedure to be followed for sending the confessional statement to 
th.e Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for 
being transmitted to the concerned designated court is not mandatory but 
D directory. What is mandatory is that the report must be sent to the 
Designated Court. Accordingly, .merely for not sending the said confes-
sional statement to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward transmission 
to the designated court, the said confessional statement need not be 
scrapped on the score of incurable illegality for not following the man-
E 
datory provisions of Rule 15 of the said Rules. (812-F] 
1.2. In the instant case, such confessional statement had in fact been 
directly· sent to. go the designated court immediately after recording the 
same. In the aforesaid facts, no prejudice has been caused to the accused 
for not sending the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward 
F 
transmission to the Designated Court, The lapse committed in not sending 
the said confessional statements to the Designated Court through the 
Chief Judicial Magistrate is only a procedural irregularity which has not 
vitiated the trial. (812-G-H] 
2. It appears that while examining the accused under Section 313 Cr. 
G P.C. the entire gist of the confessional statements were specifically put to 
the accused and it was also pointed out to them that such confessional 
statements had been proved by the Superintendent of Police in his deposi-
tion. Therefore, the contention that the attention of the accused to such 
confessional statements had not been drawn at the time of examination of 
H the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is factually incorrect. [813-C-D] 
.lj 
WARIYAMSINGH v. STATE 
809 
3. The Designated Court has rightly indicated that it is the quality A 
and intrinsic worth of the evidence which is to be considered a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.