Desertion and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, sustained for over two decades, constitute mental cruelty: Allahabad High Court Dissolves 34-Year-Old Marriage Acquittal in Criminal Case Must Prompt Review of Dismissal: Telangana High Court There Must Be an Intention to Provoke or Drive the Victim to Commit Suicide: High Court Discharges Accused in Abetment of Suicide Case Plaintiffs' Claim of Private Ownership Over Public Road Fails: Balance of Convenience Favors Defendants, Rules Bombay High Court No Prima Facie Case Against Petitioners: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR on Unauthorized Construction Investigation Delayed; Fundamental Right to Travel Cannot Be Curtailed Without Justification: Delhi High Court Upholds Suspension of LOC Minority Members Cannot Stall Redevelopment: Gujarat High Court Upholds Majority Consent in Nidhi Apartment Case” Sufficient Proof of Security Ownership is Essential: Kerala High Court in Partition Suit Madras High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against Political Leader Over YouTube Remarks 'Employers Cannot Unilaterally Alter Employment Terms: Punjab And Haryana High Court Suspicious Circumstances Invalidated Unregistered Will in Partition Dispute: Supreme Court Consent from State Not Required for Investigation of Offenses Under Central Acts Against Central Government Employees: Supreme Court Vague Allegations Cannot Justify Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Foreign National Strict Proof Not Required in Accident Claims; Preponderance of Probability Is Sufficient: Supreme Court Leaseholders of Shamlat Deh Lands Are Not Entitled to Ownership; Eviction Orders Upheld: Supreme Court Environmental and Energy Laws Must Be Harmonized to Tackle Waste Challenges: Supreme Court Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Resolved Even After Valid Execution of Will: Supreme Court Procedural Rules Cannot Obstruct Access to Justice: Litigants Should Not Suffer for Counsel's Negligence: Supreme Court Restores Suit Dismissed Ex-Parte Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Reappreciate Evidence or Reverse Well-Founded Factual Findings: Supreme Court IBC | Corporate Guarantee Under Hypothecation Deeds Qualifies as Financial Debt: Supreme Court Beneficial Legislation Must Be Interpreted Purposively to Protect the Rights of Senior Citizens: Supreme Court Quashes Gift Deed Executed by Senior Citizen Attempt Must Go Beyond Preparation: Rajasthan High Court Alters Conviction in 33-Year-Old Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Aided Institution to Pay Leave Encashment to Retired Employees Kerala High Court Allows Review Petitions in Custody Dispute, Recalls Earlier Judgment Granting Interim Custody to Father Copyright in Sound Recordings Must Be Protected: Delhi High Court in Interim Injunction Grounds of Arrest Must Be Served in Writing, But Remand Report Can Satisfy Constitutional Mandate: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Confessions By Co-Accused Cannot Form Sole Basis For Indictment Without Independent Evidence: Bombay High Court Quashes Prosecution in 1993 Communal Riot Case

02 January 2025 2:59 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Today, Bombay High Court discharging Kisan Soma Sathe (Accused No. 4) in a case related to the 1993 Mumbai communal riots. The Court overturned a Sessions Court order from November 2002 that had rejected Sathe’s discharge application, citing the absence of corroborative evidence and reliance solely on confessional statements by co-accused.
The case originated from a violent attack on January 12, 1993, during widespread communal unrest in Mumbai. Assailants armed with swords, iron rods, and sticks attacked Blue Steel Company in Andheri, killing two watchmen, Soheb Khan and Naushad Khan, and one other individual, Irfan Ansari. An FIR (C.R. No. 26 of 1993) was lodged by the complainant, Firoz Mohammad Sultan, naming 15 unknown individuals, later narrowed to 13 accused. Sathe’s name emerged only through the voluntary confessions of five co-accused during recovery proceedings.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav scrutinized the evidentiary basis of the prosecution’s case against Sathe. The Court highlighted that:
1.    Confessions by Co-Accused Are Inadmissible Without Corroboration:
Referring to Sections 26 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, Justice Jadhav stated:
“Confessions made by co-accused before police officers, unless corroborated by substantive evidence, lack admissibility. Such statements are inherently weak and cannot sustain a conviction or even a charge.”
2.    Absence of Corroborative Evidence:
Despite three decades, the prosecution failed to provide any independent evidence connecting Sathe to the crime. The Court noted:
“The mere mention of the applicant’s name in the confessional statements of co-accused does not establish his involvement. The prosecution has not produced any material to substantiate the allegations or link the applicant to the offense.”
3.    Judicial Precedents on Confessional Evidence:
Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana and Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the judgment emphasized:
“The testimony of a co-accused can only lend assurance to other independent evidence; it cannot stand alone as the basis for conviction.”

The Court found that the prosecution relied entirely on the recovery panchanama and the confessional statements of five co-accused. These statements, recorded during police proceedings, lacked legal admissibility as they were neither made before a Magistrate nor corroborated by any external evidence.

The judgment also dismissed the prosecution's contention that these were "voluntary statements" rather than "confessional statements." Justice Jadhav clarified:

“A statement admitting participation in a crime and leading to the recovery of weapons is confessional in nature. Such statements must comply with strict evidentiary safeguards to be admissible.”
In concluding, the Court quashed the Sessions Court's 2002 order and discharged Sathe, ruling:

“The prosecution’s failure to produce any independent evidence over decades renders the indictment against the applicant unsustainable. Judicial prudence demands caution against basing charges solely on co-accused testimonies.”

This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding against wrongful prosecutions based on uncorroborated allegations. By emphasizing the inadmissibility of confessions without corroborative evidence, the judgment reinforces foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: January 2, 2025
 

Similar News