Quashes high court ruling that had allowed the confession of an accused under Pota to be used as evidence against co-accused.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set in motion the long-stayed trial of the 1993 Mulund train blast case. Twelve people were killed and 71 were injured in the blast that occurred on March 13, 2003.
The apex court quashed a judgment, passed by a full bench of the Bombay high court in November 2004, explaining that the provisions of section 32 of anti-terror law Pota (Prevention of Terrorism Act).
In a detailed judgment on Wednesday, the apex court rejected the interpretation offered by the Bombay high court, saying a statement recorded under section 32 of Pota is a confessional statement and cannot be used as “a substantive piece of evidence against other co-accused.”
The high court had said that such a statement could be used for any purpose to the extent that a statement under sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC can be used.
A statement recorded by the police falls under section 161, while under section 164, a statement is recorded by a magistrate and can also be used as a confessional statement.
Disposing of the petitions, a bench of justice P Sathasivam and justice BS Chauhan said that court decisions in the parliament attack case, and in another one involving Navjot Sandhu, have made it clear that a confession or a statement made under section 32 of Pota by an accused “cannot be used as a piece of evidence for any purpose against the other co-accused.”
Now, accused persons who have been aggrieved by the HC ruling can move Pota courts for appropriate relief.
Lawyer Akhil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioners, said that in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2005 (in the State of Delhi versus Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru case), the high court’s conclusion did not hold water. Thus, its decision to proceed with the trial in the light of its interpretation of section 32 ought to be quashed.
Now the Mulund blast trial can proceed, but without using the confessional statement recorded under section 32 of Pota as a piece of evidence against the co-accused.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}