SURESH BUDHARMAL KALANIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

A                      SURESH BUDHARMAL KALANI
                                          v.
                         STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                              SEPTEMBER 15, 1998

B     [M.K. MUKHERJEE, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, .JJ.J

           Evidence Act, 1872-Section 3()-{;onfession--Admissibility of confe.\·-
    sional statement against co-accused--Offence under Section 3(4) of Ten'Olists
    and Dis111ptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of lndia11
C   Penal Code-Gang riva/!y between Mafia.1~J.J. Hospital shoot out inci-
    dent-Accused 11111ki11g confessional statement dischmged a11d not facing
    flial--Held, his confessional statement cannot be used ~rs.ail,1~t, co-ac-
    cused-Confession of accused can only be used agailz:it co-accused if both
    are jointly facing Ilia! for the same offence.

D         Confession of the accused-Evidentimy value-Held, it cannot be
    called in aid to frame charges in absence of a11y other evidence to do so.

         Confession-Admissibility of self-cxculpatOI)' confession by ac-
    cused-Held, inadmissible i11 evidence.
E
          Section l l4--Presumptio11--Can be draw11 only from facts and not from
    other presumption.1· by a process of probable and logical reasoning.

        The gang rivalry between two mafias groups led to J.J. Hospital
  shoot out incident by a group of persons resulting in the death of one 'S'
F accused in some other crime. One 'P' and few people among the group were
  injured. However, these people managed to carry with them the injured
  associates to a private Hospital. Thereafter accused 'D' knowing fully well
  that it was a medico-legal case entertained 'P' and arranged for his
  operation by 'K' at a private hospital and helped 'P' to abscond after he
G recuperated.
          A case was registered against the appellants and on completion of
    the investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police to prosecute
    the appellants and others. The Designated Court took cognizam:r. of the
    charge sheet and passed orders for framing charges under Section 3(3) of
H   TADA & S.120-B IPC against accused 'K' and under Section 3(4) of TADA
                                         608
                           S.B. KALANI v. STATE                            609

& 212 IPC against accused 'D'. The gravamen of the charges to he framed           A
against accused 'K' was hatching of criminal conspiracy to murder 'S'. Tl.-~
prosecution relied on the evidence of the wife of one of the acrused and
another witness, as also the confessional statements of accused 'B' and
accused 'J'. The statements recorded of the two witnesses did not speak of
any conspiracy to commit murder, hut it only disclosed that accused 'K'
had a meeting with accused 'J', President of Bhiwandi Nizampura
                                                                                  B
Municipal Council, and others in his holiday resort over a no confidence
motion that was to he brought against the latter.

     In this appeal the appellants challenged the order of the designated
Court directing framing of charges against them.                                  c
      Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1.1. When the accused making confessional statement is
discharged and is not facing trial his confessional statement cannot .he
                                                                                  D
used against the co-accused. The confession of an accused can only he used
against the co-accused if both are jointly facing the trial for the same
offence. [612-G-H]

       1.2. The accused 'B' had been discharged from the case and was not
facing trial with accused 'K'. So, his confession could not he used against       E
accused 'K'. The Designated Court was fully aware of the above legal
position but, surprisingly enough, it still decided to rely upon the confes-
sion on the specious ground that the prosecution was not in any way
precluded from examining accused 'B' as a witness in the trial for estab-
lishing the facts disclosed in his confession. This was a perverse approach
of the Designated Court while dealing with the question of framing char-
ges. At that stage the court is required to confine its attention to only those
material, collected during investigation which can he legally translated into
evidence and not upon further evidence that the prosecution may, adduce
in the trial, which would commence only after the charges are framed and
the accused denies the charges. The Designated Court was, therefore, not          G
at all justified in taking into consideration the confessional statement of
accused 'B' who was discharged, for framing charges against accused 'K'.
Further for framing charges against him, in absence of any other evideIJce
to do so, the confession of accused 'J' cannot he called in aid.
                                                       [612-G-H; 613-A-B-C]       H
    610                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A         2. The self exculpatory confession by the accused is inadmissible in
    evidence as 'Confession'. Once it is left out of consideration • as it should
    be the confessional statements of the other three accused, for what they
    are worth, cannot be made • in absence of any other material, to connect
    accused 'D' with the accusation levelled against him. [615-C]

B         Kasflmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR 526, relied
    on.

           3. A presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other
    presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. The Desig-
C   nated Court was not justified in drawing the presumption of a conspiracy
    to kill 'S' as the statements of the two witnesses did not afford, by any
    stretch of imagination, any foundation for the same. [612-E-F]

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    954 of 1998 Etc.
D
         From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.97 of the Designated
    Court in M.A. No. 22 of 1996 in TADA Sp!. Case No. 31of1993.

         V.S. Kotwal, LG. Shah, V.A. Mohta, A.M. Khanwilkar, Girish
    Kulkarni, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, V.P. Vashi, K.J. John, Ms. Manju Mishra,
E   D.M. Nargolkar, Girish Kulkarni, U.U. Lalit and Hari Har Bhave for the
    appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          M.K.MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted in both the petitions.
F
         2. Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu K1lani and Dr. Aken Kumar
  Gajendra Rai Desai, the appellants in these two appeals, figure as accused
  (besides others) in TADA Special Case No. 31of1993, pending before the
  Designated Court, Brihan Mumbai constituted under The Terrorists and
  Disruptive Activities (P) Act, 1987 (TADA for short). The case arises out
G of an incident of rioting, murder and other cognate offences that took place
  on September 12, 1992 at J.J. Hospital, Bombay. According to the prosecu-
  tion case, on that day at or about 3.45 P.M. a group of persons armed with
  automatic fire arms, such as pistols, AK 47 assault rifles, stormed into
  Ward No. 18 of the hospital and opened fire upon Shailesh Haldankar,
H who was an accused in Crime No. 542/92 of V.P. Road Police Station and
               S.B.KALANiv. STATE [M.K.MUKHERJEE,J.]                       611

admitted there due to injuries earlier sustained. The indiscriminate firing       A
by the miscreants resulted in the death of Haldankar and two policemen
on guard duty and injuries to five others. Shri K.G.Thakur, Sub-Ins;.ector
of police attached to V.P. Road Police Station, who was then on duty at
the hospital returned the fire causing injuries to some of the miscreants
including one Shrikant Rai @ Pradhan. The miscreants, however, managed
to escape carrying with them the injured associates in a car. It is the further
                                                                                  B
prosecution case that the incident was the outcome of a conspiracy hatched
by Dawood Ibrahim, a notorious gangster, and his men to ·avenge the
murder of his brother-in-law, Ibrahim Ismail Parkar, who was eliminated
by the members of his rival gang led by Arun Gowli of which Haldankar
was a member.            .r.                                                      c
      3. Over the incident, a case was registered on a report lodged by Shri
Thakur and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by
the police after obtaining requisite sanction under Section 20A(2) of
TADA to prosecute the appellants and others. On that charge sheet
cognizance was taken by the Designated Court; and on consideration of             D
the documents referred to under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and, after hearing
the parties, it passed orders for framing charges under Section 3 (3) of
TADA and 120B IPC against Kalani and under Section 3 (4) of TADA
and 212 l.P.C. against Dr. Desai. Assailing the above orders, the appellants
have filed these appeals.                                                         E
      4. The gravamen of the charges to be framed against Kalani is that
he hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Haldankar and thereby abetted
the commission of his murder. The above accusation is based on the
following facts and circumstances :-
                                                                                  F
         (i)   a meeting was held on September 2, 1992 in a holiday resort
               belonging to Kalani where the decision to kill Haldankar was
               taken;

         (ii) soon after the murder, Kalani had a telephonic talk with one
              of the accused persons regarding the arrangement to be made         G
              to remove injured Shrikant Rai in his car; and

         (iii) on September 13, 1992, Kalani threatened J ayawant Suryarao,
               (one of the accused) that in case he disclosed the removal of
               Shrikant Rai in his (Kalani's) car he and his family members       H
    612                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A                 would be liquidated.

           To prove the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution seeks
    to rely upon:-

            (i)   the evidence of Smt. Priti, wife of accused Jayawant Suryarao,
B                 and Shri Himmat Rawat;

            (ii) confessional statement of Dr. Bansal; and
                                                                                      ,·
            (iii) confessional statement of Jayawant Suryarao; respectively.

c         5. On perusal of the statements of the above mentioned two witnesses
    recor~ed under Section 161 Cr. P .C. we find that they did not speak of any
    conspiracy, much less of a conspiracy to commit the murder in question.
    Their statements only disclose that on September 2, 1992 Kalani had a
    meeting with accused Jayawant Suryarao, the President of Bhiwandi
    Nizampura Municipal Council, and others in his holiday resort over a no
    confidence motion that was to be brought against the latter. It is pertinent
    to mention here that it is not the prosecution case that the murder of
    Haldankar was even remotely connected with the above no confidence
    motion. On the contrary, as noticed earlier, it is its positive case that .the
    murder was the outcome of a gang rivalry. From the impugned order we
E   find that the Designated Court, after having held that the discussion in the
    meeting was only over the no confidence motion observed 'that there is
    every possibility that they also must have discussed the planning above the
    killing of Shailesh Haldankar'. The above observation is, to say the least,
    wholly unjustified. A presumption can be drawn only from facts - and not
    from other presumptions - by a process of probable and logical reasoning.
F   The Designated Court could not have, therefore, drawn the presumption
    of a conspiracy to kill Haldankar as the statements of the two witnesses do
    not afford, by any stretch of imagination, any foundation for the same.

          6. Thus said, we may turn our attention to the confession made by
G Dr. Bansal and .Tayawant Suryarao. Under Section 30 of the Evidence Act
    a confession of an accused is relevant and admissible against a co-accused
    if both are jointly facing trial for the same offence. Since, admittedly Dr.
    Bansal has been discharged from the case and would not be facing trial
    with Kalani his confession cannot be used against Kalani. The impugned
    order shows that the Designated Court was fully aware of the above legal
H   position but, surprisingly enough, it still decided to rely upon the confession
              S.B. KALANI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. J                  613

on the specious ground that the prosecution was not in any way precluded         A
from examining Dr. Bansal as a witness in the trial for establishing the facts
disclosed in his confession. This again, was a perverse approach of the
Designated Court while dealing with the question of framing charges. At
that stage the court is required to confine its attention to only those
materials collected during investigation which can be legally translated into
evidence and not upon further evidence (de-ho1~· those materials) that the       B
prosecution may, adduce in the trial, which would commence only after the
charges are framed and the accused denies the charges. The Designated
Court was, therefore not at all justified in taking into consideration the
confessional statement of Dr. Bansal for framing charges against Kalani.

      7. So far as the confession of Jayawant Suryarao is concerned, the         c
same (if voluntary and true) can undoubtedly be brought on record under
Section 30 of the Evidence Act to use it also against Kalani but then the
question is what would be its evidentiary value against the latter. The
question was succinctly answered by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State
of Mddhya Pradesh, (1952) SCR 526 with the following words :                     D
        "The proper way to approach a case of this kind is first, to marshal
        the evidence against the accused excluding the confession al-
        together from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a
        conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief
        independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary      E
        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 other evidence and thus fortify himself      F
        in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not
        be prepared to accept."

The view so expressed has been consistently followed by this Court. Judged
in the light of the above principle the confession of Suryarao cannot be
called in aid to frame charges against Kalani in absence of any other            G
evidence to do so.

     8. That brings us to the case of Dr. Desai, the other appellant.
According to the prosecution case the injured accused Shrikant Rai was
taken to the house of Dr. Desai by Shanti Lal Patil, Jagdish Chand and           H
    614                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Hasmukh Bhai, three of the accused persons, for treatment. They told Dr.
    Desai that he (Shrikant) had sustained bullet injury in the stomach due to
    accidental firing from the licensed revolver of Shanti Lal. Dr. Desai told
    them that the injured could not be admitted in a Government hospital as
    it was a medico-legal case. They, however, insisted that Shrikant should be
B   treated in a private hospital and all expenses thereof would be paid by
    them. Dr. Desai then contacted one Dr. Kamble over phone and requested
    him to operate upon the patient. Accordingly, Shrikant was taken by the
    above three accused persons to Dr. Kamble who operated upon him. The
    prosecution alleges that knowing full well that it was a medico-legal case
    Dr. Desai entertained Shrikant and arranged for his operation by Dr.
C   Kamble at his private hospital and thereby helped Shrikant to abscond after
    he recuperated.

        9. To prove the above accusation and, for that matter, to substantiate
  the charges under Sections 3(4) of TADA and 212 I.P.C. to be framed
D against Dr. Desai, the prosecution intends to rely upon the alleged confes-
  sional statement of Dr. Desai himself and three of the co-accused, namely
  Dr. Kamble, Jagdish Chand and Hasmukh Bhai. The relevant portion of
  the statement of Dr. Desai reads as under :

             "On 12.9.1992 at about 11 p.m . .Tagdish along with one person,
E            whom he introduced to me as Hasmukh Patel, Sarpanch of Dumas,
             called at my residence. Jagdish informed me that Hasmukh's elder
             brother owns a farm at Silvasa and he is also a building contractor.
             Jagdish further informed me that on the same evening they had a
             party on the farm house, when accidently a shot was fired from
F            the weapon and one of them was injured and he may require an
             operation. He further told me that they tried to contract a surgeon
             at Silvasa, but he was not available and they are bringing the injured
             to Surat for treatment and requested me to help them. I suggested
             to them to get the injured admitted in Govt. Hospital, Surat, when
             .T agdish told me that those people wanted the injured to be treated
G            in a private hospital and were willing to pay any charges for the
              treatment. .T agdish also told me that they were prepared for the
              worst. I also came to know through Jagdish that the injured had
              an injury over the abdomen. At about 12 midnight on 12.9.92, I
              contacted Dr. Kamble on phone and narrated to him the above
H             mentioned facts as told to me by Jagdish. I also told Dr. Kamble
              S.B. KALANI v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]                    615
        that the party was ready to pay any charges, as he thought fit, for       A
        the operation. I also told Dr. Kamble that the patient was not
        before me and enquired whether he was ready to operate such a
        case. For a while Dr. Kamble thought about it and asked me to
        send the patient to his hospital at Gopipura. Dr. Kamble then
        informed me that he would intimate his staff at the hospital about
        the arrival of the injured and ask them to be ready. I then informed
                                                                                  B
        Jagdish to take the injured to Dr. Kamble's hospital. Thereafter,
        Jagdish and Hasmukh went away."

       10. A bare perusal of the above statement makes it abundantly clear
that it is self exculpatory and hence inadmissible in evidence as 'confession'.
Once it is left out of consideration - as it should be - the confessional
                                                                                  c
statements of the other three accused, for what they are worth, cannot be
made - in absence of any other material to connect Dr. Desai with the
accusation levelled against him - a basis for impugned charges in view of
the law laid down in Kashmira Singh (supra).
                                                                                  D
       11. On the conclusion as above, we allow these appeals and quash
the charges framed against the two appellants. They are discharged from
their respective bail bonds.

N.J.                                                        Appeals allowed.