Supreme Court of India

SIDHARTH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

Citation: 2005 INSC 462
Decided: 30 September 2005
Bench: K G BALAKRISHNAN

Holding

Amit Das's confession was voluntary and admissible; it could be used under Section 30 against Sidharth (who had independent corroborative evidence) but not against Rohan Prakash (who lacked such evidence), leading to upholding the convictions of Amit Das and Sidharth and setting aside Rohan Prakash's conviction.

Summary

The State of Bihar prosecuted three accused—Amit Das, Sidharth and Rohan Prakash—for the murder of a student named Abhishek, alleging a conspiracy in which Amit Das shot the victim with a country‑made pistol supplied by Sidharth. Amit Das made a detailed confession before a Judicial Magistrate (recorded under Section 164 CrPC) and an extra‑judicial confession to a witness, both of which were later re‑tracted. The Supreme Court examined whether the confession was voluntary, whether it could be used as substantive evidence against the co‑accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, and whether independent corroborative evidence existed against each co‑accused. It held that the confession was voluntary, was corroborated by medical, forensic and eyewitness evidence, and could be used against Sidharth, who was also placed at the scene by independent witnesses, but could not be used against Rohan Prakash, for whom no independent evidence existed. The Court also ruled that the entire police case diary should not be disclosed to the accused as it compromises confidentiality. Consequently, the convictions of Amit Das and Sidharth were upheld, while Rohan Prakash's conviction was set aside and he was released.

Issues considered

The voluntariness and admissibility of Amit Das's confession under Sections 10 and 30 of the Evidence Act.
Whether a co‑accused's confession can be used as substantive evidence against other co‑accused.
The presence or absence of independent corroborative evidence against Sidharth and Rohan Prakash.
The legality of making the entire police case diary available to the accused under Section 172 CrPC.
The appropriate appellate disposition for each appellant.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 145, s. 161, s. 164, s. 172, s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 10, s. 3, s. 30
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 120-B, s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

confessionco‑accused testimonySection 30 Evidence Actvoluntary confessionmurderconspiracycase diary confidentialityCrPC Section 172

Judgment

A SIDHARTH ETC. ETC.
v.
STATE OF BIHAR

SEPTEMBER 30, 2005

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 r/w Sections 34, l/4 and 120-B.

Murder-Confession of co-accused-Conviction on the basis of-
C Justification-Deceased along with accused 'R' and two others used to
attend tuition classes at the residence of a Professor-Accused 'S' told
accused 'A' that accused 'R' was in love with a girl 'P' but she was not
responding as she was in love with the deceased and, therefore, he is to be
killed-Accused 'S' provided accused 'A' with a double barrel country-made
pistol and loaded two cartridges in the pistol in his presence-Accused 'A '
D took deceased away from the gate of the house, caught hold of him and fired
a shot at him from a close range-Accused 'R' wanted to go to the gate, but
on hearing the shot, the Professor's wife advised him not to go out-Accused
'R' pretended to be ignorant and gave FI statement and took the deceased
to the hospital-Accused 'A' made a detailed confession and extra-judicial
E confession to PW-8 implicating accused 'S' and 'R'-The confession was
voluntary in nature and was amply corroborated-Trial court convicted
accused persons on the basis of confession of accused 'A '-High Court
affirmed the conviction-Validity-Held: The confession made by accused 'A'
showed that it was voluntary in nature and not at the instance of the police-
Hence, the confession made by co-accused 'A ' could be made use of against
F accused 'S' under S. 30 of the Evidence Act-However, apart from the
suspicious conduct of accused 'R' there was no independent evidence against
him-Hence, confession of co-accused 'A' could not be used against him-
Therefore, conviction of 'A' and 'S' upheld and conviction of 'R' set aside-
Evidence Act, 1872, Ss. JO and 30.
G Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Section 172-Diary of proceedings in investigation-Entire case diary
was made available to the accused-Legality of-Held: The confidentiality
is always to be kept in the matter of criminal investigation-Hence, it is not
desirable to make available the entire case diary to the accused.
II 800
SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. v. STATEOFBIHAR 801
According to the prosecution, the deceased along with accused 'R' and A
two others used to attend tuition classes at the residence of a Professor.
Accused 'S' told accused 'A' that accused 'R' was in love with a girl 'P' but
she was not responding as she was in love with the deceased and, therefore,
he is to be killed. Accused 'S' provided accused 'A' with a double barrel
country-made pistol and loaded two cartridges in the pistol in his presence.
Accused 'A' took deceased away from the gate of the house, caught hold of B
him and fired a shot at him from a close range. Accused 'R' wanted to go to
the gate, but on hearing the shot, the Professor's wife advised him not to go
out. Accused 'R' pretended to be ignorant and after the incident, to mislead
the police, he gave FI statement and took the deceased to the hospital. Accused
'A' made a detailed confession and extra-judicial confession to PW-8 C
implicating accused 'S' and 'R'. The confession was voluntary in nature and
was amply corroborated.
The trial court convicted the appellants on the basis of the confession
of appellant 'A' under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 114 and 120-B of
the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the D
appeal
The following question arose before the Court:-
Whether the confession made by appellant 'A' could be made use of
against the other two appellants as a substantive evidence and what was the
evidentiary value of that confession in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, E
1872?
Allowing the appeal filed by appellant 'R' and dismissing the appeals
filed by appellants 'A' and 'S', the Court
HELD: 1. The confession of the accused 'A' was recorded by PW-7. PW-
7 complied with all formalities contemplated under Section 164 of the Code F
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused when produced before PW-7 had
no complaint that he was tortured by the police. When he was produced before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of remand, then also he had no
complaint of any torture by the police. PW-7 put a series of questions to
accused 'A' to find out whether he was making a voluntary confession. The G
Magistrate had specifically; ascertained from the appellant whether he was
making a voluntary statement. The appellant 'A' was told by the Magistrate
that he was not bound to make any statement and that in case he makes a
statement, it would be used against him. PW-7 had recorded in the proceedings
paper that two hours' time was given to accused 'A' for reflection.
(810-C-D-EJ H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, 11982) 2 SCC 202 and Sarwan
Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1957) SC 637, referred to.
2. It is true that accused 'A' had retracted the confession made by him
before PW-7. At one stage, he made a statement that he had not given any
confession at all before the Magistrate and it was all cooked up by the police
B to support the prosecution. The confession made by accused 'A' is a detailed
confession giving out so many facts connecting him with accused 'S' and 'R'.
has divulged all details regarding the conspiracy and the way in which the
murder had taken place. The very nature of the confession given by accused
'A' would show that it was voluntary in nature and was not at the instance of
the police. (811-B-C-]
c Mirza Akbar v. The King-Emperor, (1940-41) 45 C.W.N. 269 (PC), Mohd.
Khalidv. State of W.B., (2002] 7 SCC 334, Amminiv. State of Kera/a, (1998]
2 SCC 301 and State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/ST! v. Nalini,
I1999) 5 sec 253, relied on.
3.1. The complicity of the other two accused persons is to be ascertained
D from the other items of evidence. Apart from the confession, the complicity of
accused 'S' is borne out from the other independent evidence. The evidence
of PW-6 clearly shows that accused 'S' was present at the place of occurrence.
PW-6 had seen him running away from there. At the time of his evidence, he
deposed that he was in a perplexed condition. The evidence of PW-6 would
E show that the appellant 'S' was present at the place of occurrence and was
escaping from there immediately after the firearm was shot. The evidence of
PW-6 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW-18. PW-18 deposed that
PW-6 informed him that while he was returning to his house after purchasing
some goods from the market, he heard the sound of firing of two shots and he
just stayed there for a while after hearing the shots and saw 'S' running from
F eastern side towards western side of the park. PW-6 enquired from 'S' what
had happened but 'S' ran away towards his house without saying anything.
PW-18 also deposed that PW-6 told him that 'S' was running in a very
suspicious manner. On the contrary, this appellant tried to prove that he was
not present at the place of occurrence and examined defence witnesses, but
G the Sessions Court disbelieved these witnesses for valid reasons.
(815-G-H; 816-A-B-Cj

Kashmira Singh v. State of MP. AIR (1952) SC 159 and Haricharan
Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR (1964) SC 1184, referred to.

H
SIDHARTHETC. ETC. v. STATEOFBIHAR 803
3.2. Therefore, the confession made by co-accused 'A' could be made A
use of against appellant 'S' under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
(816-E)

4. In the confession made by appellant 'A', he has explained in detail
the involvement of appellant 'S' in the crime. Therefore, the confession made
by appellant 'A' clearly supports the other items of evidence against 'S' and B
his participation in the conspiracy and his role in the crime isup-2X fully established.
(816-F-G)

5. The F.I. statement given by appellant 'R' was in a way a misleading
one. It is true that there was no necessity for the appellant 'R' to come out of
the tuition class. In the confession statement made by appellant 'A', he has C
mentioned that appellant 'R' was one of the conspirators. Apart from the
suspicious conduct of appellant 'R' on the date of the incident, there is no
other evidence against him. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that there is other
independent evidence to find him guilty of the murder and as there is no
independent evidence against 'R', the confession made by the co-accused' A' D
cannot be made as the supporting evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence
Act. The prosecution has not succeeded fully in proving the guilt of appellant
'R'. The independent evidence is not sufficient to prove that he had actively
participated in the conspiracy. The conduct exhibited by this. appellant would
cast a serious suspicion on him, but that by itself is not sufficient to find him
guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 120-B IPC. E
(817-E-F-G)

6. Appellant' A' made his confession before the Judicial magistrate and
his confession is corroborated by other items of evidence. He had also made
extra-judicial confession to PW-8. The confession made by appellant' A' was
not under any inducement, threat or promise and is voluntary in nature. F
Therefore, it is perfectly admissible under the Evidence Act. The conviction
and sentence entered against appellant' A' on all counts are not liable to be
interfered with. (818-B-Cf

7. Appellant 'S' has been proved to have actually participated in the
conspiracy. There is independent evidence to prove that he made all the G
arrangements pursuant to the criminal conspiracy and induced appellant 'A'
to commit the murder of the deceased. 'S' was present at the scene of the
occurrence and that fact is proved by the evidence of PW-6 corroborated by
the evidence of PW-18. rt is proved that 'S' abetted the commission of the
murder and as he was present at the scene of occurrence at the time of H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A ·commission of the crime, Section 114 IPC also would apply. The independent
evidence adduced against appella_nt 'S' is further corroborated by the
confession made by appellant' A'. The conviction of appellant 'S' under Section
302 read with Sections 120-B and 34 IPC is only to be confirmed.
[818-C, D, E, F)

B 8. The entire case diary maintained by the police was made available to
the accused. Under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
every police officer making an investigation has to record his proceedings in
a diary setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time
at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by
C him and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his
investigation. It is specifically provided in Section 172(3) that neither the
accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries nor shall he
or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the
Court, but if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his
memory, or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police
D officer, the provisions of Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Section
145 of the Evidence Act shall be complied with. The court is empowered to
call for such diaries not to use it as evidence but to use it as an aid to find out
anything that happened during the investigation of the crime. These provisions
have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to achieve certain
E specific objectives. The police officer who is conductingU the investigation may
come across a series of information which cannot be divulged to the accused.
He is bound to record such facts in the case diary. But if the entire case diary
is made available to the accused, it may cause serious prejudice to others and
even affect the safety and security of those who may have given statements to
the police. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of criminal
F investigation and it is not desirable to make available the entire case diary to
the accused. In the instant case, the entire case diary was given to the accused
and the investigating officer was extensively cross-examined on many facts
which were not very much relevant for the purpose of the case. The Sessions
Judge should have been careful in seeing that the trial of the case was
G conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
[818-G-H, 819-A, B, C, DJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 688 of
2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2003 of the Patna High Court
H in Crl.A. No. 395 of2001.
SIDHARTH'ETC. ETC. v. STA TE OF BIHAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.) 805
Sushi! Kumar, S.B. Sanyal, V.R. Manohar, Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Adolf A
Mathew, Vinay Arora, Sanjay Jain, Barunendra Pd. Singh, N.R. Choudhury,
Somnath Mukherjee, Dr. Abhishek Priyadarshi, Anuj Prakash, Shishir Pinaki
and S. Muralidhr for the Appellants.

Altaf Ahmed, Ms. Minakshi Arora, Amitesh Kumar, Anshul Singh and
B.B. Singh for the Respondent B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. All the three appellants were found guilty
by the Sessions Court for various offences. Appellant Amit Das was found
guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act as also for the offence C
under Section 302 read with Section 120B !PC and sentenced to death. Appellant
Sidharth was convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section
34 and Section l 20B !PC and appellant Rohan Prakash was convicted for the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B !PC. The two appellants
who were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, filed separate appeals D
before the High Court of Patna and their conviction on all counts was
confirmed. In the appeal preferred by Amit Das, his conviction was confirmed
but the sentence of death imposed on him was commuted to life imprisonment.

All these appellants were tried by the Sessions Court alleging that they
entered into a conspiracy on 4.9.1998 to do away with one Abhishek. Deceased E
Abhishek, along with appellant Rohan Prakash, and two others, namely,
Shweta and Anvesh, used to attend tuition classes at the residence of Prof.
J.C. Banerjee from 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and again from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.
Another student by name, Pallavi, used to get tuition from Prof. J.C. Banerjee
from 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. Appellant Sidharth told appellant Amit Das that F
appellant Rohan Prakash was in love with Pallavi but she was not responding
and instead she had expressed her love towards deceased Abhishek and,
therefore, he is to be killed. According to the prosecution, appellant Sidharth
told appellant Amit Das that all arrangements had been made to kill Abhishek
and if appellant Amit Das kills him, he would be introduced to veteran
criminals, including one Suraj Bhan. Appellant Sidharth gave the description G
of deceased Abhishek to appellant Amit Das and on 4.9.1998, he promised
to provide a firearm to appellant Amit Das. On 5.9.1998 at about 5.00 p.m,
appellant Amit Das came to the room of appellant Sidharth where the latter
provided him with a double barrel country-made pistol, and loaded two
cartridges in the pistol in his presence. Two extra cartridges were also given. H
Appellant Amit Das was directed to go to the house of Prof. J.C. Banerjee
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A and request the deceased, Abhishek to come out of the tuition class. He was
told that appellant Rohan Prakash would help him to identify Abhishek. As
part of the conspiracy thus hatched by these three appellants, at about 7.15
p.m. on 5.9.1998, appellant Amit Das went to the house of Prof. J.C. Banerjee.
His wife Rekha Banerjee was in an adjoining room and appellant Amit Das
B told her that he wanted to meet Abhishek. Abhishek came out of the tuition
class followed by appellant Rohan Prakash. The further case of the prosecution
is that appellant Amit Das took Abhishek ten to twelve steps away from the
gate of the house of Prof. Banerjee, caught hold of him and fired a shot at
him from a close range. Appellant Amit Das fired one more shot, but it did
not hit the deceased. Appellant Rohan Prakash, who had, in the meanwhile
C returned inside Prof. Banjeree's house, wanted to go to the gate, but on
hearing the shot, Mrs. Rekha Banerjee caught hold of his hand and advised
him not to go out as she had heard the sound of firing of a shot. But appellant
Rohan Prakash came out of the house and saw Abhishek lying on the ground
with bleeding injury. He saw the assailant making good his escape on a
D bicycle. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution case was that though
appellant Rohan Prakash was one of the abettors in this murder, he pretended
to be ignorant and after the incident, to mislead the police, he himself gave
the F.I .Statement. Appellant Rohan Prakash looked at injured, Abhishek, and
took him to the hospital in the car which incidentally belonged to Dr. Neel
Kamal, father of Pallavi. Abhishek, was taken to Shahi Clinic where he
E underwent a surgery but died on the next day. Appellant Rohan Prakash
stated in the FI Statement that deceased Abhishek was being threatened by
some students of the college and this had caused some tension to him. ·

Based on the First Information Report given by appellant Rohan Prakash,
a case was registered, the inquest report prepared and the 'Fardebeyan'
F recorded. The police could not get any clue regarding the murder and they
suspected the involvement of appellant Amit Das. On 13.9.1998, PW 21, the
Investigating Officer raided the house of appellant Amit Das. On interrogation
by the police, appellant Amit Das made a clean breast of the entire incident
to the police. He showed the wearing apparels worn by him at the time of the
G incident and the cycle he had used to escape from the scene of occurrence.
The pants, shirt and the cycle were taken into custody. Appellant Amit Das
was arrested and he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the
next day. PW 21, the Investigating Officer gave an application before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that appellant Amit Das wanted to make a
confession before the Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed PW7
H Deepak Kumar Singh, the Judicial Magistrate to record the confession of
SID HARTH ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR (BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 807

appellant Amit Das. PW-7 recorded the statement and on the basis of the A
information furnished by appellant Amit Das, the other appellants were arrested
and after completion of the Investigation, the final report was filed before the
court.

Before the Sessions Court, 21 witnesses were examined. The main
evidence relied on by the prosecution was the confession made by appellant B
Amit Das before PW 7 Judicial Magistrate, as also his extra-judicial confession
made to PW 8 Arko Pratim Bannerjee. The prosecution also relied on the F.I.
Statement given by appellant Rohan Prakash to show his involvement in the
conspiracy and the attempt made by him to mislead the police and to prevent
the police from tracing out the real culprits. To prove the motive, the C
prosecution relied on the evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses,
mainly the evidence of the father of the deceased, Dr. Ajit Singh, and the
evidence of one hostile witness.

Appellant Sidharth had set up a plea of alibi and stated that at the
relevant point of time, he was receiving tuition from DW 2 Mohan Prasad and D
examined witnesses to prove the alibi. Appellant Rohan Prakash completely
denied any part in the conspiracy and alleged that he was falsely implicated
by the father of the deceased. Though appellant Amit Das had given a
statement at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.PC that he had not
made any confession before the Magistrate, he filed an application stating
that he was severely tortured by the police and was taken to the Magistrate E
for his confession, and alleged that the police had prepared the confession.
The Sessions Court accepted the prosecution version and convicted the
appellants accordingly.

It may be noticed at this juncture that appellant Amit Das when produced F
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stated that he was below 16 years of age;
therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. As
per Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, 'Juvenile' is defined as "a
person who has not attained the age of 16 years." According to appellant
Amit Das, he had not attained the age of 16 years as on the date of occurrence.
This question was considered by the Juvenile Court and appellant Amit Das G
gave oral and documentary evidence before the Juvenile Court. The Juvenile
Court came to the conclusion that appellant Amit Das was above 16 years
of age as on the date of the occurrence and therefore not entitled to the
benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. Appellant Amit Das preferred an
appeal against the order passed by the Juvenile Court before the Sessions H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Judge, Patna. The Sessions Judge, Patna dismissed the appeal and the appellant
thereafter filed a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Patna. The High
Court held that the appellant was above 16 years of age as on the date of
occurrence, i.e., on 5.9.1998, and therefore not entitled to invoke the provisions
of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The appellant thereafter preferred a Special
B Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 729 of2000 (Criminal Appeal no. 496 of2000)
which was considered and this Court came to the following finding:-

"So far as the finding regarding the age of the appellant is concerned,
it is based on appreciation of evidence arrived at after taking into
consideration of the material available on record and valid reasons
have been assigned for it. The finding arrived by the learned A.C.J.M.
c has been maintained by the Sessions Court in Appeal and the High
Court in Revision. We find no case having been made out for interfering
therewith. "

The appellant thereafter filed a Review Petition and it was contended
D that the finding of the two Judge Bench of this Court was in conflict with the
view taken by this Court in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, [1982] 2
sec 202 wherein it was held that the relevant date for consideration of the
age to determine the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act is the date of
occurrence and this view was in conflict with the earlier decision where the
crucial date for determining the question whether the accused was a juvenile
E or not was the date on which he was brought before the competent authority.
In view of this conflict of opinion, the matter was referred to a bench of five
judges and the bench dismissed the review petition filed by appellant Amit
Das.

Despite these findings entered into by the Court against the appellant
F regarding the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, the learned
Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of the Juvenile Justice (Court & Protection of Children) Act, 2000
(hereinafter being referred to as "Juvenile Justice Act, 2000") which came into
force on 30th December, 2000. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Sanyal ~ade
G a fervent plea before us that the appellant was a "juvenile" as per the
definition of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and thus entitled to the benevolent
provisions of Section 20 of that Act. It was contended that no sentence of
imprisonment for life could have been passed against this appellant. Learned
Counsel for the State, on the other hand, pointed out that appellant Amit Das
is not entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 as he had
H
SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. v. STA TE OF BIHAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.) 809

already completed 16 years as on the commencement of the Act. So he could A
not be held to be a "Juvenile" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

The learned Counsel for this appellant urged before us that the
documents produced by the appellant before the Juvenile Court were not
properly considered and there was a serious error in the finding of the Chief B
Judicial Magistrate regarding the determination of the age of this appellant.
Appellant Amit Das challenged the finding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
but he could not succeed and at this stage the appellant cannot challenge
that finding as the decision has become conclusive and final and the Juvenile
Justice Act 2000 also cannot be applied as he would not be a "juvenile" as C
defined under that Act.

As noticed earlier, the main evidence adduced by the prosecution is the
confession made by appellant Amit Das before PW 7 Judicial Magistrate as
also the extra-judicial confession made by him before PW 8 Arko Pratim
Bannerjee. The question before us is whether the confession made by appellant D
Amit Das could be made use of against the other two appellants as a
substantive evidence and what is the evidentiary value of that confession in
view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act. The learned Counsel appearing for
the State of Bihar submitted that the confession made by appellant Amit Das,
to a great extent, was admissible under Sections I 0 and 30 of the Evidence
Act. It was argued that there was a prima facie evidence of conspiracy E
against all the appellants, and as appellants Sidharth and Rohan Prakash were
participants in this conspiracy, the confession made by appellant Am it Das
could be made use of against the other two appellants as well.

Before going into this question, it is to be considered whether the F
confession made by appellant Amit Das is genuine and voluntary or whether
it was caused by any inducement, threat or promise. The learned counsel for
the appellants strongly urged before us that the judicial confession made by
appellant Amit Das is tainted with so many legal infirmities. Firstly, it was
contended that the confession has already been retracted by appellant Amit
Das; therefore, it is not admissible. It was argued that appellant Amit Das was G
severely beaten up and the alleged confession is not voluntary in nature and
that the police extracted the confession and got it prepared with the connivance
of the Magistrate. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the
learned Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory guidelines issued by
the High Court of Patna for recording the confession statement under Section
H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 164 Cr. PC. It was argued that the Magistrate failed to give sufficient time for
reflection and the accused was produced virtually from the police custody
and he had been under the supervening influence of the police and was not
having free mind to give any statement before the Magistrate. In view of the
serious contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellants against this
judicial confession, we have considered these items of evidence with
B meticulous detail and given our thoughtful consideration as to whether the
confession made by appellant Arnit Das is vitiated by any legal infirmities.

The confession of the accused Amit Das was recorded by PW 7. PW
7 complied with all the requisite formalities contemplated under Section 164
C of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused when produced before PW
7 had no complaint that he was tortured by the police. When he was produced
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose ofremand, then also he
had no complaint of any torture by the police. PW 7 put series of questions
to accused Amit Das to find out whether he was making a voluntary
confession. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Magistrate
D had not put any questions to find out the mental condition of the accused.
This plea is not correct as the Magistrate had specifically ascertained from
the appellant whether he was making a voluntary statement. Appellant, Amit
Das was told by the Magistrate that he was not bound to make any statement
and that in case he makes a statement, it would be used against him. PW 7
E had recorded in the proceedings paper that two hours' time was given to
accused Amit Das for reflection. The learned Counsel for the appellant
contended that it is incorrect and that the accused was not given any time
for reflection and straightaway produced before the Magistrate to give the
statement. The defence had adduced some evidence to shciw that the entry
made in the register of the remand home would prove that the accused was
F not given enough time for reflection for making the confession before the
Magistrate. This evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW9 was discussed in detail by
the Sessions Court and it was found that the entries were not genuine and
contained interpolations and the evidence of these witnesses was not sufficient
to prove that the Magistrate had not given two hours time before the accused
G made the confession.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even if two hours
time was given to the accused it was not sufficient. He further contended that
this Court in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1957) SC
637 had observed that accused person should at least be given 24 hours time
H to decide whether or not he should make a confession. It may be noted that
SID HARTH ETC. ETC. v. STA TE OF BIHAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 811

in the very same judgment it was stated that it would naturally be difficult A
to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the time which should be allowed
to an accused person in any given case before recording his confession
under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

It is true that accused Amit Das had retracted the confession made by
him before PW7. At one stage, he made a statement that he had not given B
any confession at all before the Magistrate and it was all cooked up by the
police to support the prosecution. The confession made by accused Amit
Das is a detailed confession giving out so many facts connecting him with
accused Sidharth and Rohan Prakash. He has divulged all details regarding
the conspiracy and the way in which the murder had taken place. The very C
nature of the confession given by accused Amit Das would show that it was
voluntary in nature and was not at the instance of the police. In the
confessional statement, he stated that accused Sidharth, himself and Rohan
Prakash were good friends and Rohan Prakash and Sidharth were boys of
rowdy character and that accused Sidharth used to visit his house with
country-made pistol and other fire arms. On 1.9.1998, accused Sidharth asked D
him to assault Abhishek, the deceased, but he refused to do so and on
4.9.1998, at about 5.00 p.m., he went to the house of accused Sidharth.
Accused Rohan Prakash and Lakshman, the servant of accused Sidharth were
present and they all gathered in a room on the ground floor of the house of
accused Sidharth, and on that day, accused Sidharth told him that Rohan E
Prakash was in love with a girl named Pallavi, but Pallavi liked Abhishek, the
deceased, and therefore, Abhishek is to be killed. Accused Amit Das was told
that he should kill Abhishek and that all set<ings had been done to kill him.
He was further told that if he killed Abhishek, he would get him acquainted
with veteran criminals, including one Suraj Bhan. Accused Amit Das spent
about two to three hours in that room and he was instructed to go to the F
residence of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at 7.00 p.m. on 5.9.1998 as Abhishek would
be getting tuitions there. Accused Amit Das was further told to call him out
of the class and shoot him. On 5.9.1998, accused Sidharth"gave him a two bore
country-made pistol loaded with two cartridges and two extra cartridges were
also given. Accused Amit Das kept the country-made pistol in the right side G
pocket of his jeans and covered the same by his I-Shirt. Accused Amit Das
left the house ofSidharth at about 6.00 p.m. on 5.9.1998 and reached the gate
of the house of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at about 6.30 p.m. The house was shown
to him by accused Sidharth. Deceased Abhishek had come to the house of
... Prof. J.C. Banerjee alongwith another boy. The wife of Prof. J.C. Banerjee was
sitting in the verandah. Accused Amit Das in his confession further stated H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A that he was in two minds as to whether he should kill Abhishek or not. At
that time, accused Sidharth came to him and told him that the boy who had
come alongwith deceased Abhishek had returned and that he should now go,
call Abhishek out and kill him. He was warned that if he did not kill him, he
(Amit) would be killed. Accused Amit Das went to the house of Prof. J.C.
Banerjee and asked Mrs. Banerjee about Abhishek. Deceased Abhishek and
B accused Rohan Prakash came out and accused Rohan Prakash pointed towards
Abhishek. Accused Amit Das then told Abhishek to come out for a minute
as accused Sidharth was calling him. When Abhishek came out, he took him
10 to 12 steps away from the gate on the pretext of meeting Sidharth and told
him that he was having affairs with girls of Science College and spoiling their
C career, and saying so, he caught hold of Abhishek but Abhishek managed to
get himself released by a quick jerk and caught hold of the left hand of
accused Amit Das. However, using the right hand, accused Amit Das took
out a country-made pistol from his pocket and shot at him. As Abhishek tried
to run from there, Amit Das fired a second shot but it did not hit him.
Abhishek fell down and accused Amit Das ran towards his bicycle with the
D pistol and the remaining cartridges and saw Sidharth standing at a distance.
He heard accused Rohan Prakash shouting there. He stated that after the
incident he was very much afraid. At about quarter past eight on that day,
Sidharth came to his house and told him that he had done the job well. On
the next day, Lakshman came to his house and told that Sidharth 'bhaiyya'
E had asked him to go out of Patna, but he declined to do so on the ground
that the school was scheduled to re-open on 14.9.1998. Lakshman also told
that if accused Sidharth was implicated, accused Amit would be shot. Amit
Das gave the country-made pistol and two cartridges to Lakshman. At that
time, his friend Arko Pratim Banerjee was also present. Taking the country-
made pistol and cartridges Lakshman went away. On 13.9.1998, accused Amit
F Das was picked up by the police for interrogation and he disclosed the entire
facts to police.

The genuineness of the confession is to be decided on the basis of the
extensive evidence, which lends corroboration to the confession. In the case
G of confession made by accused Amit Das, it is amply corroborated by the
following material evidence.

I. The fact that deceased Abhishek died of a firearm injury is proved
by the ·satisfactory evidence given by PW 3 Dr.. Arv ind Kr. Singh, who
conducted the post-mortem examination. He deposed that there was a firearm
H injury on the body of deceased Abhishek and that he must have been shot
SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 813

at from a close range, as there was blackening and charring of the wound. A
The medical evidence is in consonance with the confession made by accused
Amit Das. The accused was arrested on 13.9.1998 and on the very same day,
the cycle used and the clothes allegedly worn by him at the time of committing
the murder, were recovered by the Investigating Officer.

2. The evidence of PW-5 is also relevant. PW-5 BM Shahi is a teacher B
residing in the vicinity of the place of incident. He heard the sound of two
rounds of firing and also the voice saying "Amit ab bhago ". PW-6 is another
witness who saw appellant Sidharth running away from the place of occurrence.
He too heard the sound of firing.

3. Another important evidence which is consistent with th.e confession C
made by appellant Amit Das is the evidence of Arko Pratim Banerjee, who
was examined as PW-8. PW-8 is a friend of.Amit Das. On 5.9.1998, that is,
on the date of the occurrence at about 7.30 P.M. he had gone to the house
of appellant Amit Das. He found Amit Das in a state of nervousness and
made enquiries. Amit Das told him that he had committed the murder of D
Abhishek. He told him that he had fired a shot at Abhishek in front of the
house of Prof. Banerjee. Then appellant Amit Das showed a double barrel
pistol and two cartridges and gave the cartridges to him and asked him to
return the same on the next day. PW-8 could not believe this and he returned
to his house. On the next day he read the newspaper and came to know that
Abhishek had been shot. PW-8 got frightened and went to the house of Amit E
Das and returned the empty cartridges which he had received on the previous
day. PW-8 further deposed that the parents of Amit Das came to know that
Amit Das had been concealing something. In the evening, PW-8 again went
to the house of Amit Das and there he saw Lakshman, the servant of
Sidharth. PW-8 heard Lakshman saying that "Sidharth bhaiya had advised F
Amit Das to flee away to Bengal". This witness again went to the house of
Amit Das on 7.9.98. Lakshman was present again and all the three went to
·the terrace of the building. Amit Das handed over a double barrel pistol and
empty cartridges to Lakshman. Though PW-8 went to the house of Arnit Das
on 9.9.98, he could not meet him. Police came to his house on 14.9.98 and took

- his statement and later his evidence. was recorded by the Magistrate. PW-8 G
was cross-examined by the counsel for appellants Sidharth and Amit Das, but
the evidence of this 17 years old boy could not be shaken to any extent. The
unimpeachable evidence of PW-8 gives complete corroboration to what had
been stated by Amit Das in his confessional statement.
H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 4. It is also important to note that appellant Amit Das mentioned in his
confession that he himself along with accused Rohan Prakash and Sidharth
assembled in a room in the house of Sidharth. He gave detailed description
of the room. The investigating officer later visited this room and prepared the
report and the description of that room tallied with the description given by
Amit Das in his confessional statement.
B
The confession made by appellant Amit Das is voluntary and is fully
corroborated by the above items of evidence. The Sessions Judge was perfectly
justified in relying on the confession made by appellant Amit Das.

C The learned Counsel for the State extensively relied on Section 10 of the
Evidence Act and contended that the confession made by appellant Amit
Das fully implicates appellant Rohan Prakash and Sidharth and as the charge
of conspiracy made against all the three accused persons is satisfactorily
proved, the confession made by appellant Amit Das is admissible under
Section 10 of the Evidence Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant, on the
D other hand, contended that the words used in Section 10 of the Evidence Act
are not capable of being widely construed. He argued that the statements
made in the confessions related to the past acts done by the accused and
they were made after the object of conspiracy had been accomplished. It was
argued that things said, done or written while the conspiracy was afoot are
relevant as evidence of the common intention once reasonable ground has
E been shown to believe in its existence, but it would be a very different matter
to hold that any narrative or statement or confession made to a third party
after the common intention or conspiracy was no longer operating and had
ceased to exist, is admissible against the other party. Reliance was placed by •
the appellant's learned Counsel on the decisi~n of the Privy Council in Mirza
F Akbar v. The King-Emperor, (1940-41) 45 C.W.N. 269 and also the decision
of this Court in Mohd Khalidv. State of W.B., (2002] 7 SCC 334. The learned
Counsel for the State on the other hand, relied on the decision in Ammini and
Ors. v. State of Kera/a, (1998] 2 SCC 301 and also in State through
Superintendent of P'.1/ice, CBIISJTv. Nalini and Ors., (1999] 5 SCC 253. The

-
confession made by appellant Amit Das was made after the common intention
G of the parties was no longer in existence. There is some force in the contention
advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant; therefore, we do not
propose to invoke Section 10 as against appellants Sidharth and Rohan
Prakash.

The counsel for appellants Sidharth and Rohan Prakash further submitted
H
SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 815 .
that the confession made by Amit Das shall not be used against these two A
accused as the confession of a co-accused shall not be the basis for a
<:onviction. It was submitted that the confession of a co-accused is not an
evidence and it cannot be taken into consideration as against other accused
persons. It was submitted that the confession made by a co-accused cannot
be sufficient to convict the other accused and the confession statement can
only be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence. It was argued that in B
the absence of other reliable evidence against Sidharth and Rohan Prakash,
the confession made by Amit Das shall not be used against them.

It is true that the confession made by a co-accused shall not be the sole
basis for a conviction. This Court in Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya C
Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159 held that the confession of an accused person is
not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as defined in Section 3. It
cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in
support of other evidence. The proper way is, first, to marshall the evidence
against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration
and see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based on it. D
If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is
not necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the
Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands, even though,
if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event
the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the E
other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of
the confession he would not be prepare,d to accept.

This view was later followed in Haricharan Kurmi and Anr. v. State of
Bihar, AIR ( 1964) SC 1184. The Constitution Bench held that the confession
of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can F
be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept other
evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of
its conclusion deducible from the said evidence.

Therefore, it is necessary to assess the evidentiary value of the
confessional statement of Amit Das in the light of other evidence adduced G
in this case. The complicity of the other two accused persons is to be
-· ascertained from the other items of evidence. Apart from the confession, the
complicity of accused Sidharth is borne out from the other independent
evidence. The evidence of PW-6 Rajeev Ranjan clearly shows that accused
Sidharth was present at the place of occurrence. PW-6 had seen him running H
away from there. At the time of his evidence, he deposed that he was in a
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A perplexed condition. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that this was
not stated by the said witness to the police. But, nevertheless, the evidence
of PW-6 would show that appellant Sidharth was present at the place of
occurrence and was escaping from there immediately after the firearm was
shot. The evidence of PW-6 gets corroboration from the evidence of PW-18, :t-
the father of deceased Abhishek. PW-18 deposed that on 5.9.98, PW-6 informed
B him that while he was returning to his house after purchasing some goods
from the market, he heard the sound of firing of two shots and he just stayed
there for a while after hearing the shots and saw Sidharth running from
eastern side towards western side of the park. PW-6 enquired from Sidharth
what had happened but Sidharth ran away towards his house without saying
c anything. PW-18 also deposed that PW-6 Rajeev Ranjan told him that Sidharth
was running in a very suspicious manner. On the contrary, this appellant tried
to prove that he was not present at the place of occurrence and examined
defence witnesses, but the Sessions court disbelieved these witnesses for
valid reasons.

D The evidence of PW-8 Arko Pratim Banerjee also supports the
prosecution version. He saw Lakshman in the house of appellant Amit Das
and also heard Lakshman say to Amit Das that ''Sidharth bhaiya had advised
him to flee away to Bengal." The involvement of appellant Sidharth in the
crime is satisfactorily proved by these items of evidence. It may also be
E noticed that according to prosecution, there was a conspiracy between
appellant Amit Das and the two other appellants. In that view of the matter,
the confession made by co-accused Amit Das could be made use of against
appellant Sidharth under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.

In the confession made by appellant Amit Das, he has explained in
F detail the involvement of appellant Sidharth in the crime. He stated that on
1.9.1998, he was asked to assault Abhishek, but he refused to do so and again
on 4.9.1998 he was called to the house of Sidharth and told that though he
had made attempts to assault Abhishek many times, he escaped and Sidharth
wanted Amit Das to kill Abhishek. Appellant Sidharth told him that ifhe killed
Abhishek, he would make him acquainted with notorious criminals, including
G
one Suraj Bhan. Jn the confession, appellant Amit Das explained as to how
the mission was to be carried out. Description of Abhishek also was mentioned.
Again, on 5:9.1998 he met Sidharth at his residence where the latter gave him
a double bore country-made pistol and loaded two cartridges in his presence
and two extra cartridges were also given. Amit Das further stated in his
H confession that he went to the residence of Prof. J.C. Banerjee at about 6.30 ;...
SIDHARTHETC. ETC. v. STATE OFBIHAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 817

""t p.m. and Sidharth too came and •told him to call Abhishek out and kill him. A
Appellant Amit Das told in his confession that he called Abhishek out of
Prof. Banerjee's house and shot him with the country made pistol and at that
time saw Sidharth standing at a distance. Amit has further stated that at
quarter past eight on that day, Sidharth came to his house and told him that
he had accomplished the job. On 7.9.1998 Sidharth sent his servant Lakshman
to Amit Das to tell him to go out of Patna, and that if Sidharth was implicated, B
he would shoot him (Amit). Therefore, the confession made by appellant
Amit Das clearly supports the other items of evidence against Sidharth and
his participation in the conspiracy and his role in the crime is fully established.

But as regards appellant Rohan Prakash, his conduct and behaviour on
the date of the occurrence were of highly suspicious nature. Appellant Rohan
c
Prakash was present in the tuition class along with deceased Abhishek.
Appellant Amit Das came to the house of Prof. Banerjee at about 7.00 p.m.
on 5.9.1998 and met Mrs. Rekha Banerjee and enquired about Abhishek. At
that time, appellant Rohan Prakash and deceased Abhishek were attending
the tuition classes. Appellant Amit Das introduced himself as a friend of D
Abhishek to Mrs. Rekha Banerjee and requested to call him. Abhishek came
out followed by Rohan Prakash. Shortly thereafter, PW 1I Prof. Banerjee
heard the sound of firing. When the sound of firing was heard, appellant
Rohan Prakash wanted to go out in that direction. Although Mrs. Rekha

- Banerjee tried to prevent him from going out, he managed to extricate himself
and went out to the place of occurrence and later gave the F.l. statement to
the police. The F.I. statement given by appellant Rohan Prakash was in a way
a misleading one. It is true that there was no necessity for appellant Rohan
E

Prakash to come out of the tuition class. In the ,confession statement made
by appellant Amit Das, he has mentioned that appellant Rohan Prakash is one
of t~e conspirators. Apart from the suspicious conduct of appellant Rohan F
Prakash on the date of the incident, there is no other evidence against him.
Therefore, it is difficult to hold that there is other independent evidence to
find him guilty of the murder and as there is no independent evidence against
Rohan Prakash, the confession made by .the co-accused Amit Das cannot be
made as supporting evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. In our
view, the prosecution has not succeeded fully in proving the guilt of appellant G
.(
Rohan Prakash. The independent evidence is not sufficient to prove that he
had actively participated in the conspiracy. The conduct exhibited by this
appellant would cast serious suspicion on him, but that by itself is not
sufficient to find him guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with
Sections 34 and 120-B !PC. In our view, appellant Rohan Prakash is entitled H
~
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A to get the benefit of doubt. Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2003 filed by Rohan
Prakash is, therefore, liable to be allowed.

Appellant Amit Das made his confession before the Judicial Magistrate
and his confession is corroborated by other items of evidence. He had also
made extra-judicial confession to PW-8 Arko Pratim Banerjee. The confession
B made by appellant Amit Das was not under any inducement, threat or promise
and is voluntary in nature. Therefore, it is perfectly admissible under the
Evidence Act. The conviction and sentence entered against appellant Amit
Das on all counts are not liable to be interfered with. Criminal No. 689 of2003
filed by appellant Amit Das is liable to be dismissed.
c Appellant Sidharth has been proved to have actually participated in the
conspiracy. There is independent evidence to prove that he made all the
arrangements pursuant to the criminal conspiracy and induced appellant Amit
Das to commit the murder of deceased Abhishek. Sidharh was present at the
scene of the occurrence and that fact is proved by the evidence of PW-6
D corroborated by the evidence of PW-18. It is proved that Sidharth abetted the
commission of the murder and as he was present at the scene of occurrence
at the time of commission of the crime, Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code
also would apply. Section 114 IPC provides that "whenever any person, who
is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the
act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the
E abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or
offence." The independent evidence adduced against appellant Sidharth is
further corroborated by the confession made by appellant Amit Das. The
conviction of appellant Sidharth under Section 302 read with Section 120-8
and 34 JPC is only to be confirmed. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 688
p of 2003 is liable to be dismissed.
Lastly, we may point out that in the present case, we have noticed that
·the entire case diary maintained by the police was made available to the
accused. Under Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, every police
officer making an investigation has to record his proceedings in a diary
G setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which
he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and
a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. It is .>-
specifically provided in Sub-clause (3) of Section 172 that neither the accused
nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries nor shall he or they
H be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court, but
SIDHARTH ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF BIHAR [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 819
if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, A
or if the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer,
the provisions of section 161 of the Cr.P.C. or the provisions of section 145
of the Evidence Act shall be complied with. The Court is empowered to call
for such diaries not to use it as evidence but to use it as aid to find out
anything that happened during the investigation of the crime. These provisions
have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to achieve certain B
specific objectives. The police officer who is conducting the investigation
may come across series of information which cannot be divulged to the
accused. He is bound to record such facts in the case diary. But if the entire
case diary is made available to the accused, it may cause serious prejudice
to others and even affect the safety and security of those who may have C
given statements to the police. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter
of criminal investigation and it is not desirable to make available the entire
case diary to the accused. In the instant case, we have noticed that the entire
case diary was given to the accused and the investigating officer was
extensively cross-examined on many facts which were not very much relevant
for the purpose of the case. The learned Sessions Judge should have been D
careful in seeing that the trial of the case was conducted in accordance with
the provisions of the Cr. P.C.

In the result, we allow the Criminal Appeal No. 736/2003 filed by appellant
Rohan Prakash and he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required E
in any other case. Criminal Appeal No. 688/2003 filed by appellant Sidharth
and Criminal Appeal No. 689/2003 filed by appellant Amit Das are dismissed.

V.S.S. Crl. Appeal No. 736/03 allowed.
Crl. Appeal Nos. 688 and 689 of 2003 dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "confession"Sign in to search