2002 (3) TMI 929 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the confessional statement is true and voluntary?
2. Whether there is any corroboration to the said statement?

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the confessional statement is true and voluntary?

The appellant was convicted by the Designated Court-I, New Delhi for offences u/s 3(2)(i) of TADA and Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 323, 436, and 427 of the IPC, sentenced to death, and fined Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant contended that the confessional statement was neither voluntary nor true and lacked corroborative evidence. The prosecution's evidence included testimonies from PW37 Inspector Severaia Kujur and PW83 Inspector Tej Singh Verma, who detailed the appellant's arrest and subsequent disclosure statements. However, discrepancies were noted, such as the absence of a cyanide capsule panchnama and the fact that the confessional statement was not produced before the ACMM. The Court observed that the confessional statement was recorded by DCP B.S. Bola, the Investigating Officer, raising doubts about its voluntariness and truthfulness. The Court cited Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing the need for the court to ensure no coercion or duress during custodial interrogation. The Court found it unsafe to rely solely on the confessional statement recorded by the investigating officer, as it lacked the necessary certification and was not corroborated by independent evidence.

Issue 2: Whether there is any corroboration to the said statement?

The Court noted that the confessional statement lacked corroboration from independent witnesses or material evidence. The co-accused, Daya Singh Lahoria, was acquitted due to the absence of evidence and confessional statements. The Court highlighted that none of the neighbors or landlords testified that the appellant stayed in the mentioned premises, and no incriminating articles were found. The Court referred to Topandas v. State of Bombay, emphasizing that one person alone cannot be held guilty of criminal conspiracy. The Court concluded that without corroborative evidence, it would be difficult to rely solely on the confessional statement for conviction. The Court held that such a confessional statement cannot be the basis for awarding a death sentence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and death sentence, and acquitted the appellant, directing his release if not required in any other case. Consequently, the Death Reference Case (Crl.) No. 2 of 2001 was disposed of accordingly.