Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed appeals arising from a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). The appellant challenged the High Court's ruling that allowed confessions made under POTA to be used against co-accused. The Full Bench had framed two questions regarding the substantive use of confessions and concluded that such statements could not be used against co-accused. The Supreme Court, referencing its earlier decision in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, reiterated that confessions made under Section 32 of POTA are admissible only against the maker and not against co-accused. The court vacated the interim stay on the trial and directed the Division Bench to consider the merits of the case based on the established legal principles. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and clarified that the decision in Navjot Sandhu's case would govern the issues raised. The court allowed the appeals and disposed of the related writ petition and special leave petition, enabling the petitioners to seek appropriate relief from the POTA Court. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the claims made by the parties.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Confessions under POTA - Admissibility of Confessions - Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, Section 32 - The court held that confessions made under Section 32 of POTA cannot be used as substantive evidence against co-accused, reaffirming the principle that such confessions are admissible only against the maker in their trial. The court emphasized the need for explicit language in law to include co-accused confessions, which was absent in POTA (Paras 49-50).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a confession made under Section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 can be used as substantive evidence against co-accused.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Full Bench's judgment, and clarified that confessions made under Section 32 of POTA cannot be used as substantive evidence against co-accused. The court directed the Division Bench to consider the merits of the case based on the established legal principles and vacated the interim stay on the trial.
Law Points
- Admissibility of confessions
- substantive evidence
- joint trial
- interpretation of POTA
- Evidence Act provisions
