Thursday, 26 November 2015

Whether confession recorded by court in Hindi language of pakistani National is valid?

With these principles in mind, we now turn to the requirements
of Rule 15(1) of TADA Rules and the facts in the matter. Rule 15(1)
stipulates that the confession “shall invariably be recorded in the
language in which such confession is made and if that is not
practicable, in the language used by such police officer for official
purposes or in the language of the Designated Court ……”. The
expression “invariably” itself suggests that the requirement under the
Rule is discretionary and not mandatory. The record in the present
matter is very clear that the confessing accused Ghulam Nabi was
produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar on 16.12.1995, was given
statutory warning and time to reflect. Everything was explained to

him and only thereafter his thumb impression was taken. On the next
occasion when the confessing accused was again produced before the
witness, soon after the recording of the confession it was again
explained to him, read over and only thereafter the thumb impression
was taken. At no stage during the recording on these two occasions,
nor at the stage when the witness was in the box, there is anything on
record, or even a suggestion that the confessing accused did not
understand or was not made to understand the contents of the
confession. The contents of the confession also disclose that many of
the assertions are personal to the confessing accused which could only
be gathered after due conversation with the Recording Officer.
 The language used as a means of communication between the
confessing accused and the recording officer being Hindi or
Hindustani, such recording of confession in Hindi language is
completely in conformity with the requirement of the Rule. The
conclusion drawn by the trial court that Ghulam Nabi being Pakistani
national his language must be Urdu and therefore the recording of the
confession in a language other than Urdu, must be held to be not in
conformity, is wrong. Nothing has been placed on record that the
confessing accused did not understand the line of questioning or that

he was not made to understand the contents of the confession after the
recording was complete. In our view the assessment made by the trial
court in this behalf is completely incorrect and against the record.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1743/2009
State of J&K …. Appellant
Versus
Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid and another.…. Respondents.
Citation; (2015)8 SCC465

1. This Appeal under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
challenges the judgment and order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the
third Additional Sessions Judge i.e. the Designated Court under the
Act in File No. 26/Challan, acquitting the respondents of the offences
under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, section 120-B read with sections
302, 307 and 34 of Ranbir Penal Code and sections 4 and 5 of the
Explosives Substances Act, 1908 arising out of FIR No. 12 of 1995. Page 2
2. On the occasion of celebration of Republic Day on 26.01.1995
at about 10:20 a.m. in Maulana Azad Memorial Stadium, Jammu,
General KV Krishna Rao, Governor of Jammu and Kashmir was
addressing a huge gathering of about 40,000 people including high
dignitaries, VIPs, Senior Officers of the Govt., leaders of political
parties and respectable citizens when three powerful bomb explosions
took place at the site of public address system, near the dais and on
the main road, outside the stadium resulting in killing of eight
persons, and in causing grievous injuries to eighteen persons and
disruption of the celebrations. Soon after the incident FIR No. 12 of
1995 dated 26.01.1995 of PS Nowbad, Jammu (J&K) relating to said
bomb blasts was registered. At the request of the Government of
Jammu and Kashmir, the investigation was transferred to Central
Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) vide notification dated 31.01.1995
and Regular Case No. RC1(5)/95-SIUV was registered in CBI on
31.01.1995.
3. After investigation was taken over by CBI, one Mohd. Irfan
was arrested on 07.04.1995. On 09.04.1995 he made disclosure
statements leading to certain recoveries. On 24.04.1995 said Mohd.
Irfan made a confessional statement which was recorded by PW2

Sharad Kumar, S.P. CBI, under section 15 of the Act, inter alia, to the
following effect:
a) Accused Mohd. Irfan along with Maj Tariq of ISI,
Pakistan, Ahmed Hassan, Commander of HM,
Muzaffarabad, Mebhoob-ul-Haq, Commander of HM,
Sialkot, Amir-ul-Haq, Naib Commander, HM and Zia
Kashmiri and others unknown had assembled in the
office of Jamait-e-Islami, Model Town, Sialkot, Pakistan
on 26.12.1994 and hatched a conspiracy to kill Governor,
J&K, Senior officers of the Government and other
persons with a view to strike terror in Jammu city on the
occasion of Republic Day Celebrations. In furtherance of
the said conspiracy, accused Mohd. Irfan,
Menboob-ul-Haq and Ahmed Hassan visited the office of
ISI situated near village Langaryali, Sialkot Cantt.
Pakistan on 26.12.1994 and held a meeting with Major
Tariq, Major Ibrahim, Captain Farhan, Subedar Anwar of
ISI, Pakistan and Wasim Ahmed @ Hamid S/o
Jallaluddin Malik R/o Asthan Mohalla, Kishtawar, J&K
and hatched the plan. In order to achieve the object of the
aforesaid criminal conspiracy, they decided to carry two
pre-set time bombs across the border to Jammu for
planting the same, one near the dais and the other near
the pavilion of MAM Stadium Jammu and deputed
Mohd. Irfan and Ghulam Nabi for this task.
b) On 23.12.1994 in the ISI Office, Sialkot at 11:00
a.m. Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed were imparted
knowledge about the bombs and their functioning and
operations, which were to be planted in the MAM
Stadium. They were also issued instructions to protect the
bombs from water and to plant them in the Stadium after
the night would set in, to take two detonators for each
bomb, to carry the Khurpa for digging the pits, and not to
leave any clue of the planting of the bombs at the site.
They were also told that the bombs were pre set so to
explode at the time of the Republic Day function on
26.01.1995. Capt. Farhan gave Rs. 3,000/- each to Mohd.
Irfan and Wasim Ahmed and Rs. 2,000/- to Ghulam Nabi
in Indian Currency and also a sack to Mohd. Irfan
wherein he put his boots, trouser, khurpa and pistol.
Major Ibrahim provided one time bomb of 5 Kg each to
Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed duly wrapped in black
polythene and green coloured sacks. All of them left ISI
Office, Sialkot and reached Check Post Jhumian at about
10:00 p.m. on 28.12.1994. Subedar Anwar and
Mahboob-ul-Haq returned to Sialkot, while Mohd. Irfan,
Wasim Ahmed and Ghulam Nabi crossed the border and
entered into Indian Territory concealed the bombs and
khurpa near River Tawi, outside Jammu city.
c) On 30.12.1994 Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed and
Ghulam Nabi went to a park where Ghulam Nabi stayed
behind while Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed went to
MAM Stadium where Wasim Ahmed pointed out to
Mohd. Irfan a place near the dais and also place inside
the fenced area of north Pavilion where bombs were to be
planted. On 30.12.1994 at about 7:45 p.m., Mohd. Irfan
and Wasim Ahmed took out two explosive devices and
khurpa and left for MAM Stadium leaving Ghulam Nabi
there. Both carried one explosive device each and entered
4Page 5
into the stadium along with ‘khurpa’. Inside the stadium,
they connected detonators and batteries to the device and
planted two explosive devices; one near the dais and
other near the fenced area of the Northern Pavilion after
digging the pits for each bomb. After planting the bombs,
they filled both the pits with earth and made shoe marks
thereon to avoid suspicion. Thereafter, both left for Tawi
Bridge. Mohd. Irfan concealed the ‘khurpa’ in the bushes
near Tawi Bridge. Thereafter, both Mohd. Irfan and
Wasim Ahmed contacted Ghulam Nabi and all three
reached Pakistani Check Post Jhumian after crossing the
international border from where they were taken to the
ISI Office Sialkot. Maj. Tariq, Maj. Ibrahim, Maj. Aamir,
Capt. Farhan praised Wasim Ahmed and Mohd. Irfan for
accomplishing the task. As desired by Captain Farhan,
Subedar Anwar paid Rs. 5,000/- to Mohd. Irfan for the
work done by him.
d) On 03.01.1995 said Mohd. Irfan and Wasim
Ahmed were again deputed by Mahboob-Ul-Haq to plant
one time bomb of 10 Kg. and two bombs of 5 Kg. each
outside MAM Stadium, Jammu and pursuant thereto they
dug a pit on the main road leading to that stadium and put
the bomb weighing 10 Kg. on 09.01.1995. The other two
bombs of 5 Kg. each could not be put because of rains,
which bombs were then concealed near Tawi River.
e) On 26.01.1995 Mohd. Irfan, Mahboob-ul-Haq,
Aamir-ul-Haq, Amzad and 2/3 other Kashmiri boys were
present in the office of Jamait-e-Islami, Sialkot. They had
waited for the news of bomb explosions, killing of VIPs
5Page 6
and general public in Jammu. At about 12 noon they
received news about the explosions in MAM Stadium, in
which lot of persons had been killed and several other
injured. After the incident, Maj. Tariq, Capt. Farhan,
Subedar Anwar called Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed and
Mahboob-ul-Haq to ISI Office, Sialkot and praised them
for planting the bombs and declared that their mission
had been successful even though the Governor of J&K
had providentially escaped. On 30.01.1995 Mohd. Irfan,
Wasim Ahmed and Mahboob-ul-Haq visited office of
Jamai-e-Islami, Muzaffarabad and met Salauddin, Chief
of the Hizbul Mujahideen who declared that their mission
was to spread terrorism in J&K which got fulfilled with
the bomb explosions in MAM Stadium. Salauddin
awarded one shield and Rs. 10,000/- each to Mohd. Irfan
and Wasim Ahmed.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on
28.09.1995 in the Court of the Special Judge, Designated TADA
Court, Jammu (J&K) u/s 120-B RPC r/w section 302, 34, 307 RPC, 4
and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act and section 3(2), 4 and 6 of
the Act. The charge sheet was filed against Mohammad Irfan @
Anwar, a Pakistani National and other absconding accused. While the
matter was pending before the Trial Court, Ghulam Nabi Guide was
arrested by J&K police on 25.10.1995. Upon CBI making an
appropriate application, custody of Ghulam Nabi Guide was granted
6Page 7
to CBI on 04.12.1995. While in custody, said Ghulam Nabi Guide
made a confessional statement which was recorded by PW1 S.K.
Bhatnagar Superintendent of Police, CBI on 18.12.1995 u/s. 15 of the
Act wherein he confessed about his involvement as also that of Mohd.
Irfan, Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid, Major Tariq, Major Ibrahim,
Major Amir, Captain Farhan, Subedar Anwar (all of ISI, Pakistan),
Ahmed Hassan, Commander of HM, Sialkot, Amir-ul-Haq, Naib
Commander, HM Sialkot and Zia Kashmiri R/o Kupwara, J&K in the
criminal conspiracy culminating in the explosions at the MAM
Stadium, Jammu 26.01.1955. Supplementary charge sheet was
therefore filed against him. During the pendency of the trial, in a
jailbreak said Mohd. Irfan escaped from high security jail. While the
trial was pending and had reached the concluding stage, another
accused named Wasim Ahmed Malik, who was marked as absconding
accused, was arrested on 15.01.2009. Since according to the
prosecution there was sufficient evidence in the form of confessional
statements of Mohd. Irfan and Ghulam Nabi Guide, said Wasim
Ahmed Malik was supplied with copies of all the relevant material
and produced before the Trial Court. Thus only two accused i.e.
7Page 8
Ghulam Nabi Guide and Wasim Ahmed Malik, present respondents,
were tried while the others remained absconding.
5. The evidence led by prosecution during the trial was to prove
following aspects, namely:-
a) That there were three bomb explosions on
26.01.1995 at 10:20 a.m. at the places in question, i.e.
near the dais and at the site of public address system in
MAM Stadium and on the main road outside the
Stadium.
b) That at the time of such bomb explosions, large
gathering had assembled while the Governor was
addressing on the occasion of Republic Day
Celebrations.
c) That it resulted in death of eight persons and
caused grievous injuries to eighteen persons and
disruption of the Celebrations.
d) That the act in question was a terrorist act, within
the meaning of the Act.
e) That it was an act of conspiracy hatched by the
accused being tried before the court and by the
absconding accused and
f) That the involvement of the accused before the
court was completely made out.
6. Various witnesses were examined and material was produced
by the prosecution to establish its case. Since the aspects (a) to (d)
8Page 9
mentioned in the preceding paragraph were never challenged, we
refrain from dealing with evidence pertaining to said aspects (a) to (d).
Proceeding on the basis that it was a terrorist act, where bomb
explosions were caused with the idea of terrorizing people in general
and those who had assembled there at the gathering in particular,
which resulted in loss of life of eight persons and injured eighteen
persons, we confine the discussion as regards aspects (e) to (f) i.e. the
role of the accused in the act in question. The trial Court had also
confined itself to the question whether involvement of the respondents
had been made out or not.
7. In order to bring home the involvement of the respondents the
prosecution relied upon the confessions of Mohd. Irfan and Ghulam
Nabi recorded under section 15 of the Act. Apart from such
confessions and the statements of these accused leading to recovery of
certain facts, no direct evidence could be placed on record. The
evidence principally relied upon by the prosecution can be
summarized as under:
A) While in custody, accused Mohd. Irfan upon being
interrogated, made three disclosure statements,
“EXPW-BD/2, EXPW-S/3 and EXPW-S/2”. The
9Page 10
testimony of PW86 Harbhajan Singh, Investigating
Officer shows that pursuant to these disclosure
statements two khurpas were recovered and identification
of the shop from where a khurpa was purchased was also
got done. Those khurpas were identified in court. The
factum of such disclosure and consequential recovery
was also supported by panch witnesses PW23 S.K. Sudan
and PW24 Gautam Goyal. PW67 Rajesh Kumar,
Inspector, CBI also testified to similar effect.
B) On 22.04.1995 another disclosure statement
“EXPW-BR” was made by accused Mohd. Irfan leading
to the recovery of a bomb vide Seizure Memo
Ext.PW/BR/1. The evidence of PW86 Harbhajan Singh,
PW67 Rajesh Kumar and panch witness PW26 B.R.
Saraf were relied upon in that behalf.
C) On 22.04.1995 Mohd. Irfan expressed his desire to
confess and was produced before PW2 Sharad Kumar,
Superintendent of Police. PW2 Sharad Kumar gave
warning to the accused that the confession could be used
against him and also gave him time to reflect. The
10Page 11
accused was again presented before the witness on
23.04.1995 on which date the confessional statement
Ext.PW-SK-3 of accused Mohd. Irfan was recorded by
PW2 Sharad Kumar. The gist of the confession and the
facts as disclosed therein are dealt with earlier. The
confession of Mohd. Irfan clearly stated about the roles
of the confessing accused as well as the co-accused.
D) After the arrest of Ghulam Nabi Guide, his custody
was granted to CBI on 04.12.1995. He having expressed
his desire to make a confessional statement, said Ghulam
Nabi Guide was produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar,
Superintendent of Police, CBI on 16.12.1995. The
witness administered statutory warning to the accused
and also gave him time to rethink. The questions were
put to the accused which were replied by him and true
record thereof was made by the witness in Hindi.
According to the witness he had explained everything to
the accused and after recording of the statement, thumb
impression of the accused was taken on the statement.
The accused was again produced before the witness on
11Page 12
18.12.1995 and having expressed the desire to make a
confessional statement, his statement was recorded by the
witness. After recording of the statement, it was read
over and the accused was made to understand the
statement whereafter admitting the statement to be true
the accused put his thumb impression.
E) The confessing accused Ghulam Nabi Guide was
produced in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jammu on 19.12.1995. The confessional statement in
original in a sealed cover was also produced, for its
onward submission to the Designated Court, Jammu.
The text of the letter was as under:
 “Sir,
Kindly find enclosed herewith original statement
(sealed) of accused Ghulam Nabi Guide recorded under
Section 15 TADA Act in case RC. 1(S)/95/SIU.V for
onward submission to the Hon’ble Judge of Designated
Court, Jammu. The accused has also been brought.
Applicant
 Sd/-
19.12.95
(S.K. Bhatnagar)
Supdt. Of Police, CBI,
SIC.II, New Delhi.”
F) On the same day, the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jammu passed the following order:
12Page 13
“Submitted in original to the Presiding
Officer of Designated Court under TADA.
Sealed envelope is enclosed herewith.”
Sd/-
Chief Judicial Magistrate
JAMMU”
8. The trial court acquitted both the respondents of all the charges
leveled against them. The case of the prosecution as regards
explosion of bombs which resulted in the death of eight persons and
caused serious injuries to 18 persons was not disputed at all.
However, the trial court rejected the evidence regarding confessional
statement of Ghulam Nabi Guide on the ground that the confessional
statement was recorded in Hindi i.e. not in the language of the
accused. It observed that the safeguards provided in Rule 15 of the
Rules made under the Act were not adhered to and therefore, the
confessional statement of accused Ghulam Nabi Guide was required
to be discarded. The relevant observations of the trial court in this
behalf were as under:
“In the present case, the confessional
statement has been recorded in Hindi and not
in the language of accused. PW Habhajan
Ram who is the Investigating Officer stated
that he cannot say whether accused Ghulam
Nabi knows Hindi or not. In any case, accused
Ghulam Nabi being a Pakistan national, his
13Page 14
language cannot be Hindi. Even so, PW Sushil
Kumar who is the recording officer of the
confessional statement of accused Ghulam
Nabi has stated that accused had given the
statement in Urdu and he had written the
same in Hindi. No reason has been given by
the said witness as to why it was not practical
to record the confession of accused in Urdu.
Even so, the record does not show that Hindi
is the language used by PW Sushil Kumar for
official purposes. Rather, the record would
show that the said witness Sushil Kumar uses
English languages for official purposes. This is
apparent from the letter EXPW-SK/III written
by him to the CJM while forwarding the
confession to the Designated Court. And
finally, the language of the Designated Court
is Urdu or English.”
9. The trial court further observed that as apart from such
confessional statement there was nothing else against said Ghulam
Nabi Guide, the accused was entitled to be acquitted. The other
accused, namely, Wasim Ahmed had not given any confessional
statement and the case against him completely depended upon the
confessional statement of co-accused Ghulam Nabi Guide.
Consequently accused Wasim Ahmed was also held entitled to be
acquitted. The trial court thus acquitted both the accused vide its
judgment and order dated 02.03.2009, which is challenged in the
present appeal.
14Page 15
10. The record of the present appeal indicates that respondent
Wasim Ahmed Malik was duly served but chose not to engage any
lawyer. It was reported that respondent Ghulam Nabi Guide was
residing in Pakistan and was served through the concerned office of
the Government of India. However, no appearance was entered on
behalf of Ghulam Nabi Guide, though duly served. Consequently, Mr.
Dushayant Parashar, learned Advocate was requested to appear for
respondent Ghulam Nabi Guide under instructions from the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee. Since there was no appearance for
respondent Wasim Ahmed Malik by order dt. 12.03.2015, Mr.
Dushayant Parashar was requested by this Court to represent said
Wasim Ahmed Malik as amicus curiae. We must record our
appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Dushyant Parashar.
11. Appearing in support of the appeal Mr. P.K. Dey, learned
Advocate submitted:
(a) Confession of accused under Section 15 of the Act is a
substantive piece of evidence and can form the foundation for
conviction of an accused for the offences punishable under the Act.
15Page 16
(b) Such confession, subject to the conditions stipulated in Section
15 of the Act itself, can also be read against the co-accused and form
basis for his conviction.
(c) The confession recorded by PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar itself
disclosed that the entire statement was read over to the confessing
accused and only thereafter thumb impression of the confessing
accused was taken under the statement. Since the language used
during such conversation was Hindi which the confessing accused
could understand, the recording of the statement was done in Hindi
and such recording was completely in conformity with Rule 15 of the
Rules framed under the Act.
(d) Lastly, soon after recording of the confession, the confessing
accused was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The
Confessional statement in a sealed cover was also produced for
onward transmission to the Designated Court. Thus, the guidelines
also stood completely complied with.
Mr. Dushayant Parashar, learned amicus curiae attempted to
support the judgment under appeal. The learned amicus curiae fairly
accepted that the document recording the confession itself disclosed
that the entire statement was read over and explained to the confessing
16Page 17
accused. He further fairly accepted that there was no effective cross
examination on this issue when PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar was in the box.
12. Section 15(1) of the Act expressly makes confession of an
accused recorded by a Police Officer admissible in a trial of such
person, co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an offence punishable
under the Act. While upholding the constitutional validity of Section
15(1) of the Act, this Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab1
specifically referred to the statutory obligation in Section 15(2) of the
Act and conditions imposed in Rule 15 of the TADA Rules in paras
258 and 259 respectively and then proceeded to lay down certain
guidelines in para 263.
The extent of admissibility of such confession under Section
15(1) of the Act as against a co-accused was considered by this Court
in State vs. Nalini & Others2
. Wadhwa J. in para 424 observed as
under:
“424. In view of the above discussions, we hold the
confessions of the accused in the present case to be
voluntarily and validly made and under Section 15 of
TADA confession of an accused is admissible against a
co-accused as a substantive evidence. Substantive
1
 (1994)3 SCC 569
2
 (1999)5 SCC 253
17Page 18
evidence, however, does not necessarily mean substantial
evidence. It is the quality of evidence that matters. As to
what value is to be attached to a confession will fall
within the domain of appreciation of evidence. As a
matter of prudence, the court may look for some
corroboration if confession is to be used against a
co-accused though that will again be within the sphere of
appraisal of evidence.”
Quadri J. struck a similar note of caution in para 706 as under:
“706. It is also to be borne in mind that the evidence of
confession of a co-accused is not required to be given on
oath, nor is it given in the presence of the accused, and its
veracity cannot be tested by cross-examination. Though
the evidence of an accomplice is free from these
shortcomings yet an accomplice is a person who having
taken part in the commission of offence, to save himself,
betrayed his former associates and placed himself on a
safer plank — “a position in which he can hardly fail to
have a strong bias in favour of the prosecution”, the
position of the accused who has given confessional
statement implicating a co-accused is that he has placed
himself on the same plank and thus he sinks or sails
along with the co-accused on the basis of his confession.
For these reasons, insofar as use of confession of an
accused against a co-accused is concerned, rule of
prudence cautions the judicial discretion that it cannot be
relied upon unless corroborated generally by other
evidence on record.”
13. It is settled position in law that a confession recorded under
Section 15(1) of the Act in accordance with statutory requirements
and in keeping with the guidelines is admissible against the maker, his

co-accused, abettor or conspirator in a trial for an offence under the
Act, subject to the condition stipulated in the proviso to Section 15(1).
Such confession is taken as substantive piece of evidence and can
form the foundation or basis for conviction of the maker, co-accused,
abettor or conspirator. However, the note of caution struck by this
Court is, insofar as use of confession of an accused against a
co-accused is concerned, rule of prudence would require the Court
not to rely thereon unless corroborated generally by other evidence on
record.
14. With these principles in mind, we now turn to the requirements
of Rule 15(1) of TADA Rules and the facts in the matter. Rule 15(1)
stipulates that the confession “shall invariably be recorded in the
language in which such confession is made and if that is not
practicable, in the language used by such police officer for official
purposes or in the language of the Designated Court ……”. The
expression “invariably” itself suggests that the requirement under the
Rule is discretionary and not mandatory. The record in the present
matter is very clear that the confessing accused Ghulam Nabi was
produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar on 16.12.1995, was given
statutory warning and time to reflect. Everything was explained to

him and only thereafter his thumb impression was taken. On the next
occasion when the confessing accused was again produced before the
witness, soon after the recording of the confession it was again
explained to him, read over and only thereafter the thumb impression
was taken. At no stage during the recording on these two occasions,
nor at the stage when the witness was in the box, there is anything on
record, or even a suggestion that the confessing accused did not
understand or was not made to understand the contents of the
confession. The contents of the confession also disclose that many of
the assertions are personal to the confessing accused which could only
be gathered after due conversation with the Recording Officer.
15. The language used as a means of communication between the
confessing accused and the recording officer being Hindi or
Hindustani, such recording of confession in Hindi language is
completely in conformity with the requirement of the Rule. The
conclusion drawn by the trial court that Ghulam Nabi being Pakistani
national his language must be Urdu and therefore the recording of the
confession in a language other than Urdu, must be held to be not in
conformity, is wrong. Nothing has been placed on record that the
confessing accused did not understand the line of questioning or that

he was not made to understand the contents of the confession after the
recording was complete. In our view the assessment made by the trial
court in this behalf is completely incorrect and against the record.
16. We find no infirmity in the recording of confession by PW1
S.K. Bhatnagar. The confession of accused Ghulam Nabi was
recorded in keeping with the guidelines issued by this Court and was
in accordance with the statutory requirement. Holding the confession
to be admissible, we have gone through the contents of the confession
which clearly admitted the guilt of the confessing accused and his
involvement right from the hatching of conspiracy to the execution
thereof. The confessing accused had spoken about various stages
since the conspiracy was hatched and how the confessing accused had
helped in transporting the explosive material from across the border
and then placed it in the pits, dug inside the stadium and on the main
road outside the stadium. The consequential explosion of the bombs
which was timed with the celebrations on account of Republic Day
was definitely designed to disrupt the celebrations and terrorize the
people in general and those who had gathered at the time of
celebration in particular. We, therefore, hold that from the
confession, the involvement of accused Ghulam Nabi in entering into
the conspiracy, execution and facilitation thereof is completely made
out. As held by this Court, the confession of an accused is a
substantive piece of evidence and his conviction can be founded on
such confession itself. We, therefore, hold Ghulam Nabi Guide to be
guilty of the offences with which he was charged.
17. However, as regards the other accused, namely, Wasim Ahmed
Malik, apart from the confession of Ghulam Nabi Guide that is to
say the confession of co-accused, nothing has been placed on record
which could lend corroboration as regards his role in the conspiracy
and execution thereof. We have minutely considered the material
but could not locate anything which could afford such corroboration.
Going by the rule of prudence as highlighted by this Court in the case
of State vs. Nalini (supra), we do not find any justification to reverse
the finding of acquittal as recorded in respect of said Wasim Ahmed
Malik. We, therefore, affirm the acquittal of Wasim Ahmed Malik as
recorded by the trial court in respect of the offences with which he
was charged.
18. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The acquittal of
Wasim Ahmed Malik is confirmed. However, the order of acquittal
in respect of Ghulam Nabi is set aside and said accused Ghulam Nabi
Guide is convicted of the offences with which he was charged. This
being an appeal against the decision of acquittal rendered by the trial
court, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to said Ghulam Nabi
Guide on the issue of sentence. The authorities are directed to
produce said Ghulam Nabi Guide before this Court so that appropriate
opportunity to address this Court on the sentence to be awarded to
him, can be afforded to him.
19. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. The
authorities are directed to ensure that Ghulam Nabi Guide is taken in
custody forthwith and brought before this Court for the hearing on
sentence.
20. We also direct the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to
pay to Mr. Dushyant Parashar Rs.20,000/- as remuneration for the
assistance rendered to this Court.
…………………………J.
(A.K. Sikri)

…………………………J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
July 01, 2015

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment