Holding

Rule 15 of the TADA Rules is directory, not mandatory; the confessional statements sent directly to the designated court are admissible, the accused were duly informed under Section 313, the language of the statements does not invalidate them, and an interested witness’s testimony is admissible with appropriate caution and corroboration.

Summary

The appellants were convicted under Section 120B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 for a shooting incident that resulted in death. They challenged the conviction on several grounds, chiefly that the confessional statements were not sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as required by Rule 15 of the TADA Rules, that they were not properly drawn to their attention under Section 313 of the CrPC, that the statements were recorded in Hindi which they did not understand, and that the testimony of an interested witness (the victim's father) lacked independent corroboration. The Supreme Court held that the requirement to send confessional statements to the Chief Judicial Magistrate is directory, not mandatory, and that the direct transmission to the designated court did not prejudice the accused. It also found that the accused were duly informed of the confessional statements during Section 313 examination, that the language of the statements did not invalidate them, and that an interested witness’s testimony is admissible if weighed with care and corroborated by other evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The procedural requirement of Rule 15 of the TADA Rules for sending confessional statements to the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mandatory or directory and its non‑compliance vitiates the trial.
Whether the accused were properly informed of the confessional statements under Section 313 of the CrPC.
Whether confessional statements recorded in Hindi are admissible when the accused claim they do not understand Hindi.
The admissibility and weight of testimony of an interested witness without independent corroboration.
The necessity of corroboration for confessional statements, especially when their authenticity is challenged.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 3, s. 4

Subjects

TADAconfessional statementRule 15Section 313 CrPCinterested witnesscorroborationprocedural irregularityconfession admissibility

Judgment

WARIYAM SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF U.P.

SEPTEMBER 19, 1995

[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B

Ten'Dlist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987/Rules.
•
Sections 3,4/Rule JS-Confessional statement-Sending of to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate to be transmitted to the Designated Court-Whether man-
dat01y or directory-Held, directory.
c

- Code of Criminal Procedure 1973:

S. 313--Drawing attention of accused to the confessional statement and
coTToboration thereof. D
Evidence Act, 1872 :

Interested witness-Deposition of-To be weighed with care and cau-
tion.
E
The appellants-accused and one more person B.S. went to the house
of one KS and accused him and his family. Later they opened fire hitting
KS on his leg. The son of the injured and the other family members also
opened fire and the son chased the accused upto 100-150 yards by flashing
torch. In that process he was hit by a bullet fired by BS which caused his
death. Later, BS died in an encounter with the Police and the remaining F
three accused were prosecuted before the Designated Court. They were
convicted under S. 120B IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of the Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (prevention ) Act, 1987 (TADA) and each of them
was sentenced to life imprisonment, five years rigorous imprisonment and
a fine of R. 1000 (one year's rigorous imprisonment in default) for the G
respective offences.

In this appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the
confessional statements had not been sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
in accordance with S.15 of TADA, which is mandatory and the confessional
statement could not be looked into by the designated, for non-compliance H
807
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A with the mandatory provision; that no specific question was pointedly put
to the accused under S.313 Cr. P.C. drawing their attention to the confes-
sional statements on which Prosecution placed reliance, and such omission
has caused serious prejudice to the accus~d; that in the absence of cor-
roborative statements from independent witnesses reliance could not have
been placed on the deposition of the father of the deceased, who was an
B interested witness; that the confessional statements were recorded in Hindi
but the accused did not know Hindi; and since the accused claimed that
the confessional statements were fabricated, the Court should not have
.lj
relied on the confessional statements in the absence of corroboration.

C Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The provisions in Rule 15 of the TADA Rules relating
to the procedure to be followed for sending the confessional statement to
th.e Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for
being transmitted to the concerned designated court is not mandatory but
D directory. What is mandatory is that the report must be sent to the
Designated Court. Accordingly, .merely for not sending the said confes-
sional statement to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward transmission
to the designated court, the said confessional statement need not be
scrapped on the score of incurable illegality for not following the man-
E datory provisions of Rule 15 of the said Rules. (812-F]

1.2. In the instant case, such confessional statement had in fact been
directly· sent to. go the designated court immediately after recording the
same. In the aforesaid facts, no prejudice has been caused to the accused
for not sending the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward
F transmission to the Designated Court, The lapse committed in not sending
the said confessional statements to the Designated Court through the
Chief Judicial Magistrate is only a procedural irregularity which has not
vitiated the trial. (812-G-H]

2. It appears that while examining the accused under Section 313 Cr.
G P.C. the entire gist of the confessional statements were specifically put to
the accused and it was also pointed out to them that such confessional
statements had been proved by the Superintendent of Police in his deposi-
tion. Therefore, the contention that the attention of the accused to such
confessional statements had not been drawn at the time of examination of
H the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is factually incorrect. [813-C-D]
WARIYAMSINGH v. STATE 809

3. The Designated Court has rightly indicated that it is the quality A
and intrinsic worth of the evidence which is to be considered and deposi-
tion by the relation or an interested party need not to be discarded as a
matter of course. A relation or an interested witness is not incompetent to
depose in a criminal case but rules of prudence dictate that deposition of
such witness should be weighed with care and caution before accepting
B
such deposition. The deposition of deceased's father gets ample corrobora-
tion from the confessional statements of the accused. The very fact that he
had sustained injuries in the incident in question also points out that he
was present at the place of occurrence and therefore, had occasion to
notice that incident. (813-G-H, 814-A]
c
5. One of the accused made a petition before the Designated Court
on 23.10.1991 stating therein that except the Punjabi language, he could
not follow any other language. Such application was however rejected by
the Designated Court by holding that all the accused understand Hindi.
The confessional statements were recorded on 14.5.1990. But none of the D
accused raised any objection against recording of confessional statements
in Hindi by contending that they could not follow what had been recorded.
It is only on 23.10.1991 i.e. almost after 1 1/2 years after recording confes-
sional statements only one of the accused made such application. As a
matter of fact, various lengthy questions were put to the accused under
Section 313 Cr. P.C. and such questions were answered by them and none E
of the accused expressed any difficulty in understanding the questions and
answering them. (814-B-E] .

4. The confessions made by the accused have been proved by the
Superintendent of Police, who recorded the same, being examined as PW.
8. A part of the confessional statements also stands corroborated by the F
deposition of deceased's father. It cannot be said that the confessional
statements were fabricated and hence could not be accepted. [815-C]

Pyarelal Bhargava v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR (1963) SC 1094,
referred to. G
CRlMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
524 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.94 of the Designated Judge
Pilibhit in Special Case No. 17 of 1992. H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A N.A. Siddiqui for the Appellant. -
Anis Ahmad Khan and A.S. Pundir, for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

B This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Ac-
tivities (Prevention) Act, .1987, hereinafter referred to as TADA, is
directed against the judgment dated 10th January, 1994 passed by the
Designated Judge (Sessions Judge), Pilibhit in Special Case No. 17of1992.
By the impugned judgment the appellants have been convicted under
C · Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section5 3 and 4 of
TADA. For the offence under Section 1208 IPC, a sentence of life im-
prisonment has been passed against each of the accused and sentence of
life imprisonment bas also been passed against each of the accused under
Section 3 of TADA. For the offence under Section 4 of TADA, each of
the accused has been sentenced to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment
D and also a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, one year's rigorous imprisonment.
The said special case No. 17/92 was instituted against the appellants after
obtaining necessary sanction from the·competent authority in respect of an
incident which had taken place on 17.4.1990 at 10 P.M.

The prosecution case in short is that PW 1 Kashmir Singh, his son
E Balkar and other members of the family were sitting in their house and the
three accused together with Balwinder Singh, since deeeased, came there
and after accusing Kashmir Singh and members of the family, the accused
opened fire hitting Kashmir Singh on bis leg. Balkar Singh the son of
Kashmir Singh and other members of the family present there also spened
F fire and the said son chased the accused upto 100-150 yards by flashmg
torch. But the said Balkar Singh was hit by the bullet fired by Balwinder
Singh which caused his death. Later on, Balwinder Singh also died in an
encounter with police and the remaining three accused were prosecuted
before the Designated Court.
G According to the prosecution case. all the three accused made
confessional statements before the Superintendent of Police and such
confessional statements are Exhibits 26, 27 and 28. The Superintendent of
Police deposed as PW 8 and he specifically stated that the accused made
voluntary statements; they were given time to reflect before making such
H voluntary statements and it was ensured by him when there was no other
WARIYAM SINGH v. STATE 811

person present when such confessional statements were made. The accused A
statement were also warned by the Superintendent of Police that the
confessional statements would be used against them and they might be
convicted for such confessional statements.

P.W. 1 Kashmir Singh, who himself was injured in the incident, stated
in his deposition that out of the three person who came with arms to his B
house he knew Balwinder Singh, since deceased; and one of the appellants
Bassan Singh. The said persons accompanied by another came to his house
and threatened him by saying that they would kill him and the members of
the family. It was stated by the said Kashmir Singh that the said persons
became angry with Kashmir singh and the members of his family because c
of the recovery of arms and ammunition by the police on the basis of the
statement made by the said Kashmir Singh on a previous occasion. He has
also stated that when the accused fired shots with the rifles carried by them
he was hit on his leg and in defence, Subedar and the said Kashmir Singh
also fired from their rifles and his son Balkar Singh also fired with a SBBL D
gun and Guljar Singh also fired with a DBBL gun. But when Balkar Singh
chased the accused by flashing his torch, he sustained bullet injury fired by
the Balwinder Singh causing his death on the spot.

It may be stated here that the F.LR. was lodged in this case within
1 1/2 hours of the incident in the police station which was 4 1/2 kms. away E
from the incident. Excepting Kashmir Singh, other witnesses examined in
this case in support of prosecution case are police personnel. In the
statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
accused denied the prosecution case. No witness, however, was examined
on behalf of any of the accused. It transpires from the cross-examination F
that the accused tried to make out a case that the confessional statements
were manufactured on places of papers in which the police had taken
thumb impression of the said accused.

The learned designated court, after considering the evidences ad- G
duced in the case and materials on record, inter alia, came to the finding

• that the confessional statements had been voluntarily made by the accused
and the case of manufacturing such confessional statements as sought to
be made cannot be accepted. On a finding that the prosecution case was
proved on the basis of the evidences adduced in the case, the learned
Designated Court convicted the accused and passed the order of sentence H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A as indicated hereinbefore. 1
~-

Mr. Siddiqui, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
contended that the confessional statements had not been sent to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate in accordance with Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Dis-
ruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987. It may be stated here that the
B said confessional statements had been sent directly to the designated court.
PW.8 Superintendent of Police. Who had recorded the confessional state-
ment, has deposed that he sent the confessional statements on the very
same day when the confessional statements were recorded by him to be
dispatched to the Designated Court, it is also not in dispute such confes-
c sional st~tements were promptly received by the designated court.

Mr. Siddiqui has submitted that to safeguard any tampering with the
confessional statements the rule provides that such confessional statements
shall be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or to the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, as the case may be, and such Magistrate, in his turn will send
D such confessional statement to the concerned designated court. He has
submitted that the requirement of sending confessional statements
recorded by the police officer to the C.J .M. being mandatory, the confes-
sional statement can not be looked into by the designated court for non
compliance with the said mandatory provisions.
E It, however, appears to us that the provisions in Rule 15 of the said
TADA Rules relating to the procedure to be followed for sending the
confessional statement to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate for being transmitted to the concerned designated
court is not mandatory but directory. What is mandatory is that the report
F must be sent to the designated court. Accordingly, merely for not sending
the said confessional statement to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward
transmission to the designated court, the said confessional statement need
not be scrapped on the score of incurable illegality for not following the
mandatory provisions of Rule 15 of the said Rules.
-
G In the instant case, such confessional statement had in fact been
directly sent to the designated court immediately after recording the same.
In the aforesaid facts, no prejudice has been cal,lsed to the accused for not
sending the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for onward transmission
to the designated court. The lapse committed in not sending the said
H confessional statements to the designated court through the Chief Judicial
WARIYAM SINGH v. STATE 813

Magistrate is only a procedural irregularity which has not vitiated the trial. A

Mr. Siddiqui has also contended that in the instant case, no specific
question was pointedly put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
drawing the attention of the accused that they had made confessional
statements, which were being relied on by the prosecution. According to
him such omission on the part of the learned Designated Court has caused B
a serious prejudice to the appellants thereby vitiating the trial. He has
submitted that as a matter of fact the court has relied on the said confes-
sional statements for convicting the appellants.

In our view, the contention of Mr. Siddiqui cannot be accepted. It C
appears that while examining the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the
entire gist of the confessional statements were specifically put to the
accused and it was also pointed out to them that such confessional state-
ments had been proved by the Superintendent of Police in his deposition.
Therefore, the contention that the attention of the accused to such confes- D
sional statements had not been drawn at the time of examination of the
accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is factually incorrect. In that view of
the matter, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the purpose of
showing that failure of the court in not drawing the attention of the accused
about incriminating materials while examining him under Section 313 Cr.
P.C. causes serious prejudice to the accused vitiating the trial, have no E
application in this case.

It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants
that Kashmir Singh is an interested witness being the father of the
... deceased. In the absence of corroborative statements from other inde- F
pendent witnesses, no reliance should be placed on the deposition of the
said Kashmir Singh. In our view, such contention, in the facts of this case,
should not be accepted. Kashmir Singh himself is an injured witness and
we have not noted any infirmity in his deposition. The learned Designated
Court has rightly indicated that it is the quality and intrinsic worth of a G
evidence is to be considered and deposition by the relation or an interested
party need not to be discarded as a matter of course. A relation or an
interested witness is not incompetent to depose in a criminal case cut rules
of prudence dictate that deposition of such witness should be weighed with
care and caution before accepting such deposition. We may also indicate
here that the deposition of Kashmir Singh gets ample corroboration from H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A the confessional statements of the accused. The very fact that Kashmir f
Singh sustained injuries in the incident in question also points out that he
was present at the place of occurrence and therefore, had occasions to
notice the incident.

Mr. Siddiqui has also submitted that the confessional statements
B were recorded in Hindi but the accused did not know Hindi. Hence, they
could not understand what was recorded as their alleged confessional
statements. Darshan Singh made a petition before the Designated Court
on 23.10.1991 stating therein that except the Punjab Language, he could
not follow any other language. Such application of Darshan Singh was,
c however, rejected by the learned Designated Court by holding that all the
accused understood Hindi. We may also indicate here that the confessional
statements were recorded on 14.5.1990. But none of the accused raised any
objection against recording of confessional statements in Hindi by contend-
'
ing that they could not follow what had been recorded as their confessional
D statements. It is only on 23.10.1991 i.e., almost after 1 1/2 years after
recording confessional statements only one of the accused namely Darshan
made such application before the designated court and the same was
rejected by the designated court by holding that the accused could follow
Hindi. As a matter or fact, various lengthy questions were put to the
accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and such questions were answered by
E them and none of the accused expressed any difficulty in understanding
the questions and answering them. Hence the said contention of Mr.
Siddiqui cannot be accepted.

Mr. Siddiqui has also submitted that as the accused came out with a
F case that the confessional statements were fabricated, the court should not
have relied on such confessional statements in the absence of corrobora-
tion. In this connection, he has relied on a decision of this Court in Pyarelal
Bhargava v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR (1963) SC 1094. In that case, this
Court considered the case of a retracted confession and it has been
indicated by this Court that the retracted confession may form the legal
G basis of conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and was
voluntarily made. It has however been indicated in the said decision that
court shall not base a conviction on such retracted confession without
corroboration. This Court has also indicated that though it is not a rule of
law, but such course is followed as a rule of prudence. It has however been
H indicated specifically in the said decision that it cannot even be laid down
WARIYAM SINGH v. STATE 815

as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances A
such a conviction can be made without corroboration, for a court may, in
a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and
prepared to act upon it without corroboration; but it may be laid down as
a general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much
less on a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted B
confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in
material particulars.

In the instance case, the confessions made by the accused have been
proved by the Superintendent of Police, who recorded the same, being
examined as PW 8. A part of the confessional statement also stands c
corroborated by the deposition of Kashmir Singh. Accordingly, we do not
find any difficulty in rejecting the said confessional statement simply be-
cause it was alleged by the accused that confessional statements were
fabricated. We may also indicate here that the said allegation of fabrication
is without any substance and cannot be accepted.
D
In the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to take a contrary
view. The appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed.

The appellant No. 3 has been released on bail during the pendency
of the appeal. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the should be taken
into custody to serve out the sentence. E
G.N. Appeal dismissed.