| Headnote |
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.5 to 16, 17 to 31, 32 and 60 - Appreciation of evidence - Two different cases relating to the 2006 bomb blasts in local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways - Separate trials - Different accused in the two cases - Respondents were accused in the first case - Three persons accused in the second case, who were not accused/co-accused in the first case, made confessional statements before officials holding the rank · of Deputy Commissioners of Police who were witnesses in the first case -Prayer made by respondents to summon the said witnesses as defence witnesses - Tenability - Held: Not tenable - Respondents could not be pennitted to summon said witnesses ,, as defence witnesses, in order to substantiate confessional statements made by the three accused in the second case - Said witnesses could not vouchsafe the truth or falsity of the confessional statements - Their evidence did not fall within the realm of admissibility with reference to ''facts in issue" or "relevant facts" - Whilst it was pennissible to the accused-respondents to rely on the confessional statements made by the three accused in the second case, it was open to them to do so only through the persons who had made the confessional statements - Only the three accused in the second case who made the confessional statements could vouchsafe for the same and be produced as defence witnesses by accused-respondents, for their statements fell in the realm of relevance u/s. 11 - And if said three accused appear as defence witnesses in the first case, protection available to a witness u/s. 132, would also extend to them, if they are compelled to answer questions posed to them, while appearing as defence witnesses - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999(MCOCA)-ss.3(1)(ij, 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5)-IPC-ss.302, A 307, 324, 325, 326, 327, 427, 436, 1208, 121-A, 122, 123, 124A, 201, 212 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - ss.10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 40 - Explosives Act, 1884 - ss. 6, 98 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss.3, 4, 5, 6 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - ss.3, 4 - Railways Act, 1989- ss.151, B 152, 153, 154. Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.5 to 16 - Admissible evidence - Expanse/sphere of - Held: Is postulated in s.5 - Evidence may be given "of every fact in issue" and of such other facts expressly ''declared to be relevant': and of no other facts - ss. 6 to 16 define "relevant facts': in respect whereof evidence can be given.Evidence Act, 1872 - s.6- Rule of ''res gestae" incorporated in s. 6 -Admissibility under - Determining test - Case regarding bomb blasts in local trains of Mumbai Suburban Railways - Confessions made by accused in another case sought to be admitted as evidence - Held: The confessions were not spontaneous reactions arising out the bomb blasts which was the ''fact in issue" and could not be said to have contemporaneously arisen along with bomb blasts, hence, were not admissible under the rule of res gestae. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 11 - Realm of relevance under - Held: Facts inconsistent with ''facts in issue" are included in the realm of relevance - Likewise, facts making existence or non-existence of a ''fact in issue" highly probable or improbable, also included in the realm of relevance - In order to be relevant u/s. 11, such statement ought to be "a statement about the existence of a fact': and not 'a statement as to its existence".Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 17 to 31 - Admissions and confessions -Admissibility and inadmissibility of - Held: An admission or a confession to be relevant must pertain to a "fact in issue" or a ''relevant fact" - In that sense, s. 5 (and consequently ss. 6 to 16) inescapably intertwined with admissible admissions/ confessions - Admissibility of admissions/ confessions, would depend on whether they would fall in the realm of "facts in issue" or "relevant facts" - That in tum to be determined with reference to ss.5 to 16. Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 17 to 31 - Admissions and confessions - Held: Are exceptions to the "hearsay" rule - The Evidence Act places them in the province of relevance, presumably on the ground, that they being declarations against the interest of the person making them, they are in all probability true. Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 17 to 31 - Admissions and confessions - Admissibility - Held: Person who made the admission/confession (or of whose behest, or on whose behalf it was made), should be a party to the proceeding because that is the only way a confession can be used against him.' Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 17 to 31 - Admissions and confessions - Admissibility -· Held: Only such admissions confessions are admissible Which are made without'any coercion, threat of promise. Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25 and 26 - Confessions made · before a police officer or while in police custody - 1; admissible - Held: A confession should.be uninfluenced, voluntary and fair and since it may not be possible to presume, that admissions/ confessions are uninfluenced, voluntary and fair, i.e., without coercion, threat or promise, if made to a police officer, 'or while in police custody,·· the same are· rendered 'inadmissible. Evidence Act, 1872 ~ s. 27 -Admissibility under- Held: Gamut of the bar contemplated u/ss.25 and 26, is marginally limited by way of a proviso thereto, recorded in s.27 - Thereunder, a confession has been made admissible, to the extent of facts "discovered" on the basis of such confession.Evidence Act, 1872 - S.30 .- Ordinarily, a confessional statement is admissible only as against an accused who has made it- But there is only one exception - Exception provided for in s.30 whereunder a confessional statement can be used even against a co-accused - For such admissibility, the person making H .. the confession 'besides implicating himself, should also implicate others jointly tried with him - In that situation alone, such· a A confessional statement is relevant even against the others implicated.Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 - Secondary evidence is permissible when the issue relates to the cause of a person's death, or the circumstances of a transaction which resulted in his B death - But such permissibility, would extend clarify to the exigencies expressly enumerated in s. 32. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 60 - Direct primary evidence. -.Oral evidence in respect of a fact, must be of a primary,evidence would be evidence of a primary nature, if it satisfies the state of facts described as "direct" in s.60 - Oral evidence cannot (be hearsay, for that would be indirect/secondary evidence of the fact in issue (or the relevant fact). Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,, 1999.- s.18. - Confession made to police officer (not below the rank of Deputy ·• Commissioner of Police) - Admissibility- Interpretation of s.18 - Overriding effect - Held: S.18 of the MCOCA though a nonobservant clause, overrides the mandate contained in ss. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, by rendering a· confession as admissible, even if it is made to a police officer (not below the rank 'of Deputy Commissioner of Po/tee) - However, s. 18 of the MCOCA makes such confessional statements admissible,. only for trial of such person, or co-accused, abetter or conspirator" - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.25 and 26Maharashtra Control of Organised _Crime,1999; s.18 - Interpretation of - Strict interpretation - Held: Since s. 18 .of the MCOCA is an exception to? the role laid down in ss.25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the same will have to be interpreted strictly, and for the limited purpose contemplated thereunder Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25 and 26. |
