Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Designated Judge, Pilibhit, convicting the appellants under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The prosecution case involved an incident on 17 April 1990 at 10 P.M., where the three accused along with Balwinder Singh (since deceased) went to the house of Kashmir Singh, opened fire, injuring Kashmir Singh on the leg. In the ensuing exchange of fire, Kashmir Singh's son Balkar Singh chased the accused with a torch and was fatally shot by Balwinder Singh. Balwinder Singh later died in a police encounter. The remaining three accused were prosecuted after sanction. Confessional statements were recorded by the Superintendent of Police (PW8) and marked as Exhibits 26, 27, 28. The trial court found the confessions voluntary and convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Section 120B IPC and Section 3 TADA, and five years rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 4 TADA. On appeal, the appellants challenged the conviction on several grounds: non-compliance with Rule 15 of TADA Rules because the confessions were sent directly to the Designated Court instead of through the Chief Judicial Magistrate; inadequate questioning under Section 313 CrPC regarding the confessions; reliance on the interested testimony of Kashmir Singh, the father of the deceased; the confessions being recorded in Hindi while the accused allegedly did not understand Hindi; and the confessions being fabricated. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions. It held that Rule 15 is directory and the mandatory requirement is sending the confession to the Designated Court; direct transmission did not cause prejudice. The Section 313 examination was found adequate as the gist of the confessions was put to the accused. Kashmir Singh's testimony as an injured witness was credible and corroborated by the confessions. The language objection was rejected because the accused answered lengthy questions under Section 313 without difficulty and raised the objection belatedly. The retracted confession could be acted upon as it was voluntary, true, and corroborated in material particulars. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Confessional Statements - Rule 15 TADA Rules, 1987 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Non-compliance with requirement to send confession through CJM is directory, not mandatory; direct transmission to Designated Court does not vitiate trial absent prejudice - Accused contended confession inadmissible for not being sent to CJM; Supreme Court held mandatory requirement is report to Designated Court; procedural irregularity not incurable - Held that confession need not be scrapped. (Paras not mentioned) B) Criminal Trial - Examination under Section 313 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - Entire gist of confessional statements put to accused, attention drawn; no prejudice - Accused argued no specific question about confessional statements; Court found gist and attention were specifically put, so contention factually incorrect - Held no vitiation of trial. (Paras not mentioned) C) Evidence - Interested Witness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 not cited but common law principle - Testimony of father of deceased and injured witness acceptable if credible; not to be discarded merely due to relationship; corroboration from confessions - Kashmir Singh was injured and present at occurrence; deposition had no infirmity; corroborated by confessions - Held conviction based on his deposition sustainable. (Paras not mentioned) D) Evidence - Retracted Confession - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 not cited but case law - Retracted confession can form basis of conviction if voluntary and true; corroboration is rule of prudence, not inflexible; confessions proved and corroborated by injured witness - Accused alleged fabrication; Court found confessions voluntary, proved by PW8, and corroborated - Held confessions reliable despite fabrication allegation. (Paras not mentioned) E) Language of Confession - Hindi Language Understanding - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 - Accused not knowing Hindi; no timely objection; answered Section 313 questions without difficulty - One accused filed petition 1.5 years after confession; Designated Court found all understood Hindi - Held rejection of language objection proper. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-compliance with Rule 15 of TADA Rules by sending confessional statements directly to Designated Court instead of through Chief Judicial Magistrate vitiates trial; whether Section 313 CrPC examination was inadequate for not specifically drawing attention to confessional statements; whether conviction can be based on testimony of interested/injured witness and retracted confessions; whether confessional statements recorded in Hindi were admissible when accused allegedly did not understand Hindi
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences passed by the Designated Court. The appellants' conviction under Section 120B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 TADA was upheld. Life imprisonment and other sentences were affirmed.
Law Points
- Rule 15 of TADA Rules directory not mandatory
- mandatory is sending confessional statement to Designated Court
- procedural irregularity not fatal absent prejudice
- retracted confession may form basis of conviction if voluntary and true
- corroboration is rule of prudence not inflexible
- interested witness not incompetent
- testimony to be weighed with care and caution
- injured witness presence established
- Section 313 CrPC examination fulfills requirement if gist of incriminating material put to accused
- confession recorded in language understood by accused and no timely objection
