2013 (3) TMI 731 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of confessional statements made by accused in a separate case (Special Case No. 4 of 2009) as evidence in the present case (Special Case No. 21 of 2006).
2. Applicability of Sections 6, 11, 25, 26, 30, 32, 60, 132, and 35 of the Evidence Act, and Section 18 of the MCOCA.
3. Relevance of Sections 35 and 80 of the Evidence Act.
4. Impact of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Admissibility of Confessional Statements:
The primary issue was whether the confessional statements made by the accused in Special Case No. 4 of 2009 could be admitted as evidence in Special Case No. 21 of 2006. The Court held that confessional statements made by individuals who are not co-accused in the present case are inadmissible under the Evidence Act. The confessions recorded by police officers in Special Case No. 4 of 2009 cannot be used in Special Case No. 21 of 2006 as they do not involve the same accused persons.

2. Applicability of Evidence Act and MCOCA:
- Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act: Confessions made to police officers or while in police custody are inadmissible.
- Section 30 of the Evidence Act: Allows confessional statements to be used against co-accused only if they are tried jointly, which is not the case here.
- Section 6 of the Evidence Act: The Court ruled that the confessions do not qualify as "res gestae" since they were made two years after the bomb blasts and lack the necessary contemporaneity.
- Section 11 of the Evidence Act: While the confessions could be relevant to show inconsistency with the prosecution's case, they must be proved by the persons who made them, not by the police officers who recorded them.
- Section 32 of the Evidence Act: Inapplicable as the persons who made the confessions are available and can be called as witnesses.
- Section 60 of the Evidence Act: Requires direct evidence; hence, the confessions must be presented by the individuals who made them.
- Section 132 of the Evidence Act: Protects witnesses from self-incrimination but does not preclude their testimony.
- Section 18 of the MCOCA: Confessions to police officers are admissible only in the trial of the person making the confession or their co-accused, abettor, or conspirator, which is not applicable here.

3. Relevance of Sections 35 and 80 of the Evidence Act:
The Court found that Sections 35 and 80, which pertain to the admissibility of public records and documents, are not applicable in this context as the objective is to establish the truth of the confessional statements, which can only be done by the individuals who made them.

4. Impact of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The Court rejected the argument that summoning the individuals who made the confessions would violate their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as Section 132 of the Evidence Act provides protection against self-incrimination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order allowing the summoning of police officers who recorded the confessions in Special Case No. 4 of 2009. The Court ruled that the accused in Special Case No. 21 of 2006 could not use these confessions as evidence unless the individuals who made the confessions testify directly. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was reversed.