- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prakash Kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto v. State Of Gujarat .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise from a common judgment dated 19-3-2001 rendered by the Designated Court at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Criminal Case No. 24 of 1996. Seven persons were tried in the first case and four in the second. One accused died during trial, and six others—including the present appellants—were convicted under Sections 120-B, 365 read with 120-B IPC and Section 342 read with 120-B IPC.
The prosecution case was that on 26-9-1993, several accused abducted industrialist Babulal Misrimal Jain from outside Rani Sati Hall, Ahmedabad, confined him for two days, and extorted a ransom that was allegedly shared among them. The incident involved gun-shots fired by some co-accused and the victim was kept at Amul Process House, Dani Limda. Investigations led to multiple arrests between 1994 and 1996, during which confessions of two co-accused were recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
Reliance for convicting the present appellants rested primarily on the confession of co-accused A-11, Babakhan, who claimed the appellants were part of the conspiracy and identified the victim for abduction. The Designated Court convicted the appellants; they filed the instant criminal appeals before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the confession of a co-accused, standing alone, constitutes sufficient legal evidence to sustain the conviction of the present appellants for offences under Sections 120-B, 365 and 342 IPC.
- Whether the prosecution established, by independent corroborative evidence, the appellants’ participation in the kidnapping and conspiracy.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184; (1964) 6 SCR 623 | A confession of a co-accused is a “fragile and feeble” type of evidence that can only be used to lend support to other prosecution evidence. | The Court invoked this principle to hold that A-11’s confession could not, by itself, ground the appellants’ conviction. |
| State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253 | Although a confession can be a substantive piece of evidence, as a matter of prudence courts should seek corroboration. | Used to reinforce the need for independent corroborative evidence, which the prosecution failed to supply. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated established jurisprudence that a co-accused’s confession is inherently weak evidence and requires independent corroboration. After reviewing the record, the Court found:
- The sole link implicating the appellants was A-11 Babakhan’s confession stating that an appellant gestured toward the victim, enabling other accused to seize him.
- No eyewitness, physical evidence, or other testimony independently placed the appellants at the scene or in conspiracy with the principal offenders.
- Although the broader kidnapping was proved, the prosecution could not establish the appellants’ complicity beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the trial court’s reliance on the uncorroborated confession was deemed erroneous.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Criminal Appeals Nos. 526, 545 and 665 of 2001 are allowed; the appellants are ACQUITTED of all charges and released from their bail bonds.
Implications: The decision sets aside the Designated Court’s convictions against these appellants, underscoring the Supreme Court’s insistence on corroborative evidence when a conviction is premised on a co-accused’s confession. No new legal doctrine was created, but the judgment reaffirms the evidentiary safeguards in criminal adjudication.
K.G Balakrishnan, C.J— All these appeals arise out of common judgment dated 19-3-2001 of the Designated Court at Ahmedabad for trial of TADA cases in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Criminal Case No. 24 of 1996. There were seven accused in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 33 of 1994 and four accused in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 24 of 1996. One accused died during the pendency of the case and six accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120, 365 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 342 read with Section 120-B IPC.
2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001 was the ninth accused and was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 342 and 365 IPC. All the accused were charged for various offences under IPC, the TADA Act and the Arms Act. The allegation against the appellant was that on 26-9-1993 at about 2.00 p.m, he along with other accused kidnapped one Babulal Misrimal Jain and kept him in confinement for two days and extorted money. The said Babulal Misrimal was the owner of Ratnamani Tubewell Limited at Kalol. On 26-9-1993, he went for a community lunch held at Rani Sati Hall in Ahmedabad. After the lunch he was standing outside the hall with his friends when the accused came in a Maruti van and Accused 2, Mohammad Salim (now deceased), Accused 3, Iqbal Hussain and Accused 10, Mohammad Atik dragged him into that van. Thereafter they took him to an unknown place and kept in confinement. When Babulal Misrimal was being taken away, some of his friends and relatives standing outside made a hue and cry and it was alleged that Accused 3 Iqbal Hussain and Accused 10 Mohammad Atik opened fire by using their revolvers. Babulal Misrimal was taken to Amul Process House at Danilimbad owned by Accused 6. Thereafter, the accused demanded Rs 60 lakhs from the brothers and relatives of Babulal Misrimal. Finally, the deal was struck at Rs 25 lakhs. The amount of ransom was received and it was shared amongst all the accused. The major share of Rs 4 lakhs was paid to Accused 1, Abdulwahab. An amount of Rs 40,000 was received by Accused 10 Mohammad Atik. Prosecution also alleged that some of the accused purchased properties making use of the money received from Babulal Misrimal. Accused 1 is reported to have also applied for a passport under a fictitious name. Another accused, namely, Sherjada died during the course of investigation. Accused Abdul Latif though charge-sheeted died before the charge could be framed against him by the court.
3. On 26-9-1993 at about 2.30 p.m Dinesh Ramanlal Shah gave a complaint to Shahibaug Police Station. They registered the crime and informed the superior police officers about the incident. PW 18 visited the scene of occurrence and recovered two empty cartridges from the place and also the chappals and slippers. Police Inspector Jivabhai Ratnabai Prajapati (PW 19) took over further investigation. He visited the scene of occurrence and recorded the statements of some of the witnesses who were available. Later, the investigation was handed over to another officer and on 9-4-1994 Accused 3 was arrested. Thereafter Police Inspector Udaykumar Tribhavan took over the investigation and arrested Accused 6 and 7 on 27-7-1994. A-4, A-1 and A-2 were also arrested later. On 8-9-1994, the investigation was handed over to ACP Shri B.R Patil. He requested for the Government sanction for invoking the provisions of the TADA Act against the accused. A-8 was arrested on 12-3-1996. Accused Sattar Battery expressed his willingness to give a confession and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner of Police, B.R Patil recorded his confession under Section 15 of the TADA Act. PW 25, B.R Patil, Assistant Commissioner of Police in Crime Branch at Ahmedabad arrested Babakhan, s/o Ismailkhan on 11-1-1995. On 14-1-1995, accused Babakhan (A-11) expressed his desire to make a confession and he was produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shri A.K Surolia. On the next date, that is, 15-1-1995, PW 25 was asked to produce A-11 Babakhan and his confession was recorded. Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri A.K Surolia gave the confession of A-11 Babakhan in a sealed cover to PW 25 B.R Patil and asked him to produce A-11 Babakhan, along with the sealed cover containing his confession, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. A-11 Babakhan gave a detailed statement regarding the commission of the crime and the relevant part of the confession is as follows:
“About quarter and one year ago, in the ninth month of 1993, during last week, Atik told me that Sherjada sits in the office situated opp. Mirzapur Court where Prakash Bhutto is sitting. He told us that on 26th noon, in Rani Sati Hall, near Shahibaug Underbridge, there is community lunch of Baniyas, wherein leading persons are to come and for their abduction, there would be no difficulty and crores of rupees would be obtained. After such talk, Sherjada called me, Atik, Vahab, Iqbal Bhuriyo, Salim Ando and Yasin Chipa of Jamalpur at his home and he gave .45 revolver to Atik and .38 revolver to Ibu. The number plate of Maruti van of Sherjada being No. GJ-9-1045 was affixed and taking it, we went to Rani Sati Hall. Salim Ando was driving the vehicle. We stood at one place. Outside the hall, Prakash Bhutto pointed out one fat industrialist seated on the scooter by making the sign, whom we identified exactly. Salim Ando took the Maruti van towards him and brought it near the said fat man and stopped it. Lifting the said fat man and while throwing him in the vehicle, some scuffle took place. At that time, Ibu and Atik fired shots from their revolvers and therefore, people scattered and hence, said fat man was thrown in the vehicle. Applying bandage on his eyes, via underbridge he was brought to Amul Process House in Dani Limda. There also bandage continued on the eyes of said fat man. Sherjada and Vahab telephoned to the friends and relatives at the residence of the fat man, and demanded money. The name of the said fat man was Babulal Sanghvi. On the next day, Vahab told that transaction was over and let us release Babulal. I do not know, what amount was taken for the release of Babulal Sanghvi. But subsequently Vahab told that Rs 15 lakhs were obtained. Latifbhai has told not to make disposal. And Vahab applied the cotton and the bandage of medicine on the eyes of Babulal and putting black goggles on them, Vahab told Atik, Ibu and Sherjada to take Babulal at Kankaria and get him seated in rickshaw, allowing him to go to Shahibaug. Accordingly, on the motorcycle of Sherjada, Atik and Ibu seated Babulal Sanghvi and dropped him at Kankaria. Subsequently Vahab gave me Rs 50,000 for this work.”
5. Based on the above confession made by A-11 Babakhan, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 342 and 365 IPC.
6. The confession of a co-accused by itself is not sufficient to hold the other accused guilty. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that the confession of a co-accused is a fragile and feeble type of evidence and it could only be used to support the other evidence, if any, adduced by the prosecution (see Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184, (1964) 6 SCR 623). Though in State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 it has been held that confession is a substantive piece of evidence, but as a “rule of prudence” the court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity.
7. The prosecution could not adduce any other supporting evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. Even based on the confession of the co-accused, the only allegation against the appellant is that he was in the company of the other co-accused and had pointed out towards the victim by making a sign whereupon the other accused overpowered the victim and took him forcibly in the Maruti van. To prove that the appellant was in the company of other accused, there is no other independent evidence. Even though the prosecution adduced other evidence to prove that the victim Babulal Misrimal Jain was forcibly taken and kept in unlawful custody, the complicity of the appellant could not be proved. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant.
8. Therefore, the finding of the Special Judge is erroneous. Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001 is allowed and the appellant herein is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
9. Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2001 filed against the same judgment are also accordingly allowed and the appellants therein are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
Alert