STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHAMMAD ATIK
LAWS(SC)-1998-4-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on
April 03,1998
STATE OF GUJARAT
Appellant
VERSUS
MOHAMMED ATIK
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SARDUL SINGH CAVEESHAR PARMESHWAR NATH KAUL VALLABHDAS PHULCHAND MEHTA CHARWHARA GUHAN VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [CITED]BHAGWAN SWARUP LAL BISHAN LAL V V SUBEDAR NARAYAN VITHAL SAYANA SARDAR SARDUL SINGH CAVEESHAR DAMODAR SARUP SETH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [RELIED ON]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BHUP SINGH [APPLIED]
Cited Judgements :-
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1999-9-105] [REFERRED]TUNCAY ALANKUS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-5-33] [REFERRED]
MUKESH DOLATRAM HARJANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
SUPRINTENDENT CENTRAL EXCISE AKOLA RANGE DISTRICT AKOLA VS. SURESH MULCHAND SETH [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-155] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ARNIT DAS [LAWS(PAT)-2003-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORE BHAGTANI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
ABBASBAIG HABIBBAIG MIRZA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
ANAS ABDUL RASHID MACHISWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. RAJU CHINTAMAN SONAWANE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-10-124] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSHANAND AVDOOT @ GHANSHYAM PRASHAD VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-118] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-311] [REFERRED TO]
NANTU @ NARAYAN GHOSH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2007-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD KHALID VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2002-9-100] [REFERRED]
S ARUL RAJA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA ALIAS BABBAL VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-134] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SAYEED MOHD HANIF ABDUL RAHIM [LAWS(BOM)-2012-2-143] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PAPPU ALIAS SURESH BUDHARIMAL KALANI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-250] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDERLAL KANAIYALAL BHATIJA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-83] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-26] [RELIED]
MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-88] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED JAMIL MOHAMMED HAIDERALI MULLA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-115] [REFERRED]
AHTESHAMUDIN ALIAS BHURIYO NAZIMUDIN KAZI & 2 VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-320] [REFERRED]
KAVIT ALIAS KAVINDRA VISHNUBHAI PANCHAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-107] [REFERRED]
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-273] [REFERRED]
R M MANJUNATHA GOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-9-384] [REFERRED]
ANUPAM CHOUKSEY VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
UPENDRA SAHNI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-144] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM ABDUL RAHEMAN ERACHAM VEETIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-3-117] [REFERRED TO]
GURRALA SURENDRANATH SURI VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P.) [LAWS(MPH)-2020-8-326] [REFERRED TO]
RAGINI DWIVEDI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
R. K. ANAND VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Thomas, J. -
(1.)A Public Prosecutor moved in the trial Court for permission to use a confessional statement recorded from an accused during investigation of another crime, but the trial Judge disallowed the motion on the premise that unless the confession was recorded during the investigation of the very offence under trial it cannot be used in evidence of that case. The order thus passed by the trial Court (A Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, (TADAA as acronym) is now being challenged by the State of Gujarat by special leave.
(2.)It is not necessary to set out facts of the case which is now pending before the Designated Court. Nonetheless, some skeletal facts necessary for disposal of these appeals have to be stated:The three respondents in these appeals were accused in some cases registered by different police stations of Gujarat State following certain instances of bomb blasts at different places. Investigation revealed that those instances were the aftermath of conspiracies hatched by different conspirators who operated in different areas. Hence, offences came to be registered at different police stations and different investigating agencies commenced investigation in separate areas. Fourth respondent (Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh) was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1/34 of 1993 of the Maninagar Police Station. During investigation of that case a Superintendent of Police (Shri Ashish Bhati) has recorded a confessional statement from the said Abdul Latif under Section 15 of the TADAA. Second respondent (Musakhan alias Babakhan) was arrested in connection with Crime 1/284 of 1993 of Shahibag Police Station. His confessional statement was also recorded in the same manner.
(3.)In the meanwhile, police charge-sheeted the cases which were registered at two other police stations (Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations) as against fourth respondent Abdul Latif and some others. The Designated Court at Ahmedabad began proceedings to try those cases. While the trial was in progress, the Public Prosecutor in that Court felt that the confessional statements recorded by the police during investigation of the case registered at Maninagar Police Station under Section 15 of the TADAA have to be used as prosecution evidence as those statements related to events which are subject-matter of the cases registered in Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations. It was then that the Public Prosecutor filed application for permission to use such confessional statements. The application was opposed on the main ground that the confession made in another case cannot be used in the crime registered by Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations. Learned Judge of the Designated Court, thereupon, considered the following question:
"The question therefore is whether the prosecution be permitted to introduce and prove the confessional statement of an accused, alleged to have been made during the investigation of another offence committed on a different date, during the trial of that accused in another crime."
Learned Judge answered the question in the negative by upholding the objection raised by the respondent, as per the impugned order.
(2.)It is not necessary to set out facts of the case which is now pending before the Designated Court. Nonetheless, some skeletal facts necessary for disposal of these appeals have to be stated:The three respondents in these appeals were accused in some cases registered by different police stations of Gujarat State following certain instances of bomb blasts at different places. Investigation revealed that those instances were the aftermath of conspiracies hatched by different conspirators who operated in different areas. Hence, offences came to be registered at different police stations and different investigating agencies commenced investigation in separate areas. Fourth respondent (Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh) was arrested in connection with Crime No. 1/34 of 1993 of the Maninagar Police Station. During investigation of that case a Superintendent of Police (Shri Ashish Bhati) has recorded a confessional statement from the said Abdul Latif under Section 15 of the TADAA. Second respondent (Musakhan alias Babakhan) was arrested in connection with Crime 1/284 of 1993 of Shahibag Police Station. His confessional statement was also recorded in the same manner.
(3.)In the meanwhile, police charge-sheeted the cases which were registered at two other police stations (Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations) as against fourth respondent Abdul Latif and some others. The Designated Court at Ahmedabad began proceedings to try those cases. While the trial was in progress, the Public Prosecutor in that Court felt that the confessional statements recorded by the police during investigation of the case registered at Maninagar Police Station under Section 15 of the TADAA have to be used as prosecution evidence as those statements related to events which are subject-matter of the cases registered in Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations. It was then that the Public Prosecutor filed application for permission to use such confessional statements. The application was opposed on the main ground that the confession made in another case cannot be used in the crime registered by Kalupur and Karanj Police Stations. Learned Judge of the Designated Court, thereupon, considered the following question:
"The question therefore is whether the prosecution be permitted to introduce and prove the confessional statement of an accused, alleged to have been made during the investigation of another offence committed on a different date, during the trial of that accused in another crime."
Learned Judge answered the question in the negative by upholding the objection raised by the respondent, as per the impugned order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.