Holding

The confession of A‑12 was voluntary, reliable, and admissible, and, being corroborated by other evidence, justified the convictions.

Summary

The accused were convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act for kidnapping an industrialist and extorting a Rs 1 crore ransom. The conviction rested primarily on a detailed confessional statement recorded by the DCP from co‑accused A‑12, which was later retracted. The appellants argued that the confession was not voluntary, was improperly recorded (not before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC), and that a co‑accused’s confession cannot be a substantive piece of evidence without independent proof. The Supreme Court held that the confession was made voluntarily, that the DCP had complied with all procedural safeguards, and that the retraction did not per se invalidate the statement. The Court further observed that the confession was corroborated by independent witness testimony and other material evidence, satisfying the rule of prudence. Consequently, the convictions were upheld and all appeals dismissed.

Issues considered

The voluntariness and admissibility of a confession recorded by a police officer under Section 15 of the TADA Act, despite later retraction.
Whether a confession of a co‑accused can be used as substantive evidence against other accused under TADA, and the requirement of corroboration.
The propriety of the conviction based primarily on the co‑accused’s confession.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 1208, s. 120B, s. 164, s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 212, s. 365, s. 365A, s. 395, s. 465, s. 471
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 15, s. 3, s. 5

Subjects

TADAconfessionvoluntarinessco‑accused confessionkidnappingextortionadmissibility of evidencecorroborationcriminal appeal

Judgment

_..
_/
A ABDULVAHAB ABDULMAJID SHAIKH AND ORS. '"'
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT

APRIL 24, 2007

B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, en. AND G.P. MA THUR, J.]

Evidence: l
~

Confessional statement-Evidentiary value of-Abduction of
c industrialist-Extortion of ransom money for his re/ease-Confession made
by one accused (.4-12)-Appreciation of-Held: Merely because the confession
was retracted later, when A-12 was produced before the Magistrate, that
does not mean that the confession was not voluntary-Nothing on record to
show that A·· 12 was under pressure to give confession-All formalities were
D complied with by the DCP who recorded the confession-Confession giving
intricate details of the incident-A/so mentioning the manner in which ransom
money was transferred-Ample evidence to show that the confession was ..
~

truthful and gained support from other items of evidence-Hence it is reliable
and admissible-Consequently, no illegality in conviction of accused-
appellants-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-ss.
E 15, 3 and 5 rlw s. 1208 /PC-Penal Code, 1860-ss. 395, 365, 365A, 212,
465, 471 rlw s. 120-B.

The present appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the Designated
Judge in a TADA criminal case in which the accused-appellants were convicted

F
for the offence of abduction an industrialist, PW7, in pursuance of a criminal
conspiracy and thereafter extorting ransom of Rs. 1 Crore for his release. .
The conviction was based on the confessional statement of one accused (A-
12).

In appeals to this Court it is contended before this Court that the
confessional statement given by A-12 was not reliable and admissible as it
G
was not made voluntarily. It is contended that the Magistrate was very much
available to record the statement of A-12 under Section 164 CrPC, but the •••
same was not done and PW 1, DCP, recorded the confession and the confession
was extracted from A-12 by using extreme pressure tactics. It is further
contended that the fact that the confession was retracted on the very next day
H )38
ABDULVAHABABDULMAJID SHAIKH v. STA TEOFGUJARAT 539
.... showed that it was not voluntarily made. A
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The confession made by A-12 is running into several pages.
He has given the intricate details of the incident and the manner in which the
crime was executed. A-12 mentions about the participation of other accused B
in the commission of the crime. He also mentions that an amount of Rs. 1
crore was demanded and received and that he himself received R~. 2.5 lakhs.
In the confession, it is also mentioned as to how the money was transferred to
'., the accused and the places where these incidents happened. From other items
of evidence, ample corroboration is found of what A-12 had stated in the
confession. (Paras 9 and 10) (543-G; 545-F-G) c
,,;.._ State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors.
[1999) 5 sec 253, referred to.

2. Merely because the confession was retracted later, when A-12 was
produced before the Magistrate, that does not mean that the confession was D
not voluntary in nature. Whether the accused was willing to give a confession
voluntarily or not is to be determined from his mental state at the time when
he gave the confession. There is nothing on record to show that A-12 was
under pressure to give any confession. When he was produced before the
Magistrate, he had no case that he was put under pressure or third-degree
E
methods had been used against him to extract the confession. When he was
questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC, he had only stated that he had not given
any confession as recorded by PW-1 DCP. These facts would indicate that
the confession was voluntary and was recorded by PW-1 after apprising him
that he was not bound to give a confession and in case he gave the confession,
F
•• it would be used against him. Therefore, there is no force in the contention
advanced by the accused-appellants regarding the inadmissibility of the
confession. There is ample evidence to show that the confession given by A-
12 was truthful and gained support from other items of evidence. (Para 13)

3. The DCP had taken all precautions to ascertain. that the confession
was voluntary. All formalities had been complied with and these facts are G
- -. incorporated in the confessional statement. All confessions are invariably
retracted at a later stage, therefore, the retraction by itself is not a ground to
discard the confession by holding that it was not voluntarily made.
[Para 8) (543-F)
H
4. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that PW-7 was
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.
,.,/
A kidnapped and the kidnappers were paid ransom amount for his release. The
details ofthe kidnapping, the manner in which it was done and the extortion
of money are all spoken of by the witnesses. In the confession statement, A-
12 has given all these details and these details are in perfect consonance with
the evidence given by the witnesses. But it seems that all these witnesses
were afraid of giving the identity of the accused. A-12 in his confession has
B given the details of participation of all the accused persons and has also stated
that the money was indeed received and shared by them. [Para 15) [547-F-H)

5. Taking all these factors into consideration, there is no difficulty in ..t
accepting the confession made by A-12. The confession given by him cannot
c be said to be a figment of his imagination, but appears to be a true account of
the events of kidnapping and extortion of money. Therefore, there is no
illegality in the conviction as recorded against these accused-appellants. .....
[Para 16) [548-A-BJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1228 of
D 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2004 of the Addi. Designated )j
Judge Court No. 11 at Ahmedabad in TADA Criminal Ca5e No. 22 of 1996.

WITH
E
Crl. A. No. 129 & 130 of2005.

Sushi! Kumar, Vinay Arora, Adolf Mathew, Mukesh Kumar, Sanjay Jain,
Priyank Adhyaru, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Prakash Kumar
8. (for Ashok K. Mahajan) and Anu Mohla, with him for the Appellants.
F }
Yashank Adhyaru, Vibha Datta Makhija, Sadhana Sandhu, Pinky 8ehera,
Hemantika Wahi and K. Sarada Devi with him for the Respondent

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. I. All these appeals arise out of Judgment
G
dated 30.7.2004 of the Additional Designated Judge, Ahmedabad in TADA
Criminal Case No. 22/1996. 14 accused were tried for the offences punishable
,..
under Sections 395, 365, 365A, 212, 465, 471 read with Section 120-8 !PC and
also under Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA Act read with Section 1208 !PC.
They were also charged under Sections 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of TADA Act read
H with Section 1208 !PC. Out of the 14 accused, accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-7,
ABDULVAHABABDULMAJ!DSHAIK!iv. STATEOFGUJARAT[BALAKRISHNAN, CJ] 541
A-8, A-I I, A-12 & A-14 were found guilty of offences punishable under A
Sections 120 B, 342, 365 and 384 !PC and were acquitted of other offences,
The other accused A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9 and A-10 were not found guilty,
' Accused A-I 3 died during the pendency of the trial. Criminal Appeal No,
l 1228/2004 has been filed by the accused who have been convicted by the
Special Judge. Criminal Appeal No. 129/2005 has been filed by the State
alleging that the acquittal of the accused-appellants in Criminal Appeal No,
B
I 228/2004 for certain other offences for which they were charged was not
justified. Criminal Appeal No, 130/2005 is filed against the acquittal of accused
f
~ A-4, A-5, A-6, A-9 & A-I 0 of all the offences charged against them.

2. The prosecution case was that the accused persons hatched a criminal
conspiracy to kidnap PW 7 Vedprakash Devkinandan Chidipal and extort a
c
ransom of Rs. I crore from him, One Sherjada (now deceased) c'llled the
assistance of A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan Ismailkhan, A-11 Jahangir
Mahammadanwar Saiyed and A-1 Abdulvahab and together they planned to
kidnap PW 7 Chidipal. The other accused namely, A-2, A-3, A-8 and A-14
were also present In pursuance of their common object, on 22.2, I 994 they all D
went to Pirana Road in a Maruti car, a Maruti Van and a Yamaha motorcycle.
\. PW 7 Chidipal was found going in a Maruti 1000 car and his vehicle was
driven by one Sangramsinh. The Maruti car wherein some of the accused-
appellants were travelling overtook the Maruti 1000 car ~ven by Sangramsinh
and made that car to stop. One of the accused opened the door of the Maruti
E
1000 car near the driver's seat, pushed the driver from his seat and took
control of the vehicle. Two other accused entered the car and sat on either
side of PW 7 Chidipal. The car was driven to Octroi-Naka and after sometime,
driver Sangramsinh was pushed out of the car. PW 7 Chidipal was then moved
to a White Maruti van and his eyes were bandaged with cotton. He was taken
to a room and confined there for two days. The accused took the telephone F
numbers of the brothers of PW 7 Chidipal. PW I 1 Jaiprakash, brother of
Chidipal was contacted and told that he shall not inform the police and a sum
of Rs, 1 crore was demanded from him. Nobody came forward to give money
to the accused. On 24.2, 1994, PW 11 Jaiprakash was contacted again and told
to reach the house of PW 9 Sattar, PW I 1 Jaiprakash and one Shivbhagwan
G
... went to the house of PW 9 Sattar in a white Maruti car with four bags, Again,
PW 11 Jaipakash was told to go to Anjuman High School at Astodia and was
directed to leave his Maruti car behind a rickshaw. They left the Maruti car
behind the rickshaw and came back to the house of PW 9 Sanar Bhai. At
about 10.00 p.m, on that day, PW 7 Chidipal came back to his house.
Sangramsinh the driver of PW 7 Chidipal went to Vatva Police Station. He H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A gave a First Information statement to the Police Inspector and investigation
started pursuant to his statement. The Maruti 1000 car owned by PW 7
Chidipal was found parked by the side of the road. It was recovered under
Exh. 182-B Panchnama. PW 24 Police Inspector searched the house of A-7
Salim Noorrnahammad Haveliwala and recovered a diary which contained the
B telephone number of Chidipal Textile Mill. A-9 Prakash Shobhnath was arrested
on 2.6.1994 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered in the course of
investigation and the accused A-1 Abdulvahab, A-3 Najirmahammad Vora, A-
5 Salauddin Haveliwala, A-6 Mahammadrafik and A-8 Abdulsattar were
arrested. The Yamaha motorcycle allegedly used by the accused was also
recovered. The first appellant produced Rs. 1,50,000/- before the Investigating
C Officer. On 11.8.1994, the Investigating Officer requested the State to invoke
the provisions of the TADA Ac£ against the accused and a report was sent
to the DCP. PW 27 Shri B.R. Patil was entrusted with the task of investigation.

3. A-12 Musakhan@Babakhan Ismailkhan was arrested by PW 27 Shri
B.R. Patil and produced before PW 1 Shri Suroliya, DCP, Ahmedabad as the
D accused expressed his willingness to make a confessional statement. At the
instance of PW 1 Shri Suroliya DCP, A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan gave a
detailed confessional statement. The rest of the accused were also arrested
and finally the charge sheet was prepared by the police.

4. This being the first appeal filed under the provisions of the TADA
E Act, we have carefully considered the entire case adduced by the prosecution
before the Sp!. Judge and heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the
accused-appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

5. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants strongly urged before
F us that the confessional statement given by A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan
was not reliable and admissible as it was not voluntarily made. It was also
urged before us that the confession made by a co-accused is extremely fragile
and feeble type of evidence and it is not substantive evidence under Section
3 of the Indian Evidence Act and is liable to be rejected. It was also urged
by the appellant's learned Counsel that the confession of co-accused should
G not be used against the other accused and it is only to be used as corroborative
piece of evidence and that the Court must begin with some other evidence
adduced by prosecution and in any case the confession of a co-accused
cannot be the sole ground for conviction of the accused. The accused-
appellants placed reliance on the observations of this Court in Haricharan
H kurmi v. State of Bihar, [1964] 6 SCR 623. It was further submitted that
ABDULVAHABABDULMAilDSHAIKHv.STATEOFGUJARAT[BALAKRISHNAN,CJ.l 543

provisions of Section 15 of the TADA Act could make the confession A
admissible in evidence, but the 'Rule of prudence' would require that such
evidence shall be supported by other items of evidence.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the
confession made by A-12 Musakhan@ Babakhan was not voluntary and he
was put under serious pressure and on the very next day he had retracted B
the confession and that by itself showed that it was not voluntarily made. The
learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the Magistrate was
very much available to record the statement of A-12 Musakhan @Babakhan
under Section 164 Cr. PC, but the same was not done and PW 1 Shri Suroliya,
DCP recorded the confession and the confession was extracted from him by C
using extreme pressure tactics.

7. The learned Counsel further urged that the fact that the confession
was retracted on the very next day is indicative that it was not voluntarily
made.
D
8. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the
$_ appellant's learned .Counsel. Merely because the confession was retracted, it
need not be taken as a confession made under pressure. The state of mind
of the accused at the time of making the confession is the relevant factor. He
was arrested by the police and as he expressed his willingness to make a
confession, he was produced before the DCP and told that he was not legally E
bound to give a voluntary state~ent and that in case any statement is found
to be false, it would be used against him. The DCP had taken all precautions
to ascertain that the confession was voluntary. All formalities had been
complied with and these facts are incorporated in the confessional statement.
All confessions are invariably retracted at a later stage, therefore, the retraction F
by itself is not a ground to discard the confession by holding that it was not
voluntarily made.

9. In the instant case, the confession made by A-12 Musakhan @
Babakhan is running into several pages. He has given the intricate details of
the incident and the manner in which the crime was executed. The relevant G
portion of the confession made by A-12 Musakhan@ Babakhan is as follows:-

" .... Before one month of the murder of Sherjada, on Piplaj-road,
outside Pirana Octroi Check-Post, he had abducted one industrialist.
The tip was brought by Vijaybapu residing at Maninagar. Sherjada
called me and Atik at the house ofVahab, situated in Devi-Park during H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A 2 to 2.30 P.M. When we reached there, Shejada, Vahab, Salim Chipa, ~/
..
Najir Vora, Sattar Ghanti, Salim Tola, Aehmad Behro were present, and
told that Chidipal is a big industrialist and he comes in his 1000
vehicle always. His factory is situated on Piplaj road and it was
decided to abduct him. Therefore, taking the Fron ti of Vahab, one ...
Yamaha and Maruti-van of Sherjada, we left affixing on it the false
B number-plate. Vijaybapu had given me and Atik one revolver Point-
38 of Vahab. Sherjada and Vahab also had with them their revolvers.
Najir Vora was sent to keep watch towards the road leading to Vishala
-\
Hotel. We all also went. I, Vijaybapu and Atik sat in the van of
Sherjada and Salim Ando was driving it. Sherjada had put on the dress
•
c of Shephered. Aehmad Behra was seated in the Fronti of Vahab and
Vahab was driving it. We all stayed near one Electric Sub-Station on
the road, leading to Piplaj by going via Pirana, Excise Post. Najir Vora
came at 5 p.m. from Vishala Bridge and told that the industrialist is
coming. Therefore, we become alert. After sometime, 1000 of that
industrialist came. Vahab drover Fronti ahead of said 1000 and Tolo
D drove the van behind it. Driving the vehicle upto some distance,
Vahab stopped his vehicle and therefore, 1000 also stopped. We all
got down from our vehicle and ran and went near 1000. Sherjada -t
opened the gate of driver's side of the said 1000 and gave him push
and removed him from the seat and he himself sat on steering.
E Vijaybapu took seat on the left-side of the driver. The industrialist was
seated on the back-seat and around him, I and Atik sat. The industrialist
and driver were shown revolvers and by giving threats, they were
made silent. Vahab drove the Fronti ahead and Sherjada drove 1000.
Tolo was driving the van. Crossing Pirana Excise point, via Sl!ez Farm,
we went towards the hospital of infectious-disease. There are trees
F and there was no movement of anyone. Hence, the Vehicles were
stopped and the industrialist was taken into the van. I000 was given
to Vijaybapu and he was told to leave it anywhere and come to
Devipark. V."hen he went away, we all came to Devipark taking with
us said industrialist. Vahab took away revolvers from everybody except
G Sherjada. Vijaybapu had come after leaving 1000. There, Sherjada and
Vahab also made a plan to extort money by taking telephone numbers
of friends and relatives of industrialist Chidipal Vedprakash Vahab and .-
Sherjada went out for doing telephone. After sometime, they returned
and told that the work does not complete. Subsequently, for doing
telephone, they took Chidipal to Kankaria, and after getting talk with
H Chidipal from his friends and relatives, they brought him back to
ABDUL VAHAB ABDULMAJID SHAIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] 545

Devipark and detained him. After 3 days, Vahab and Sherjada told me A
and Atik to go in rickshaw at the comer of the street opposite
Anjuman High School. There while Maruti Fronti would come and tell
to the driver of the said Maruti Fronti Code-Word pen and he would
give you the key. I and Atik went in rickshaw to Gol-Limda and Vahab
and Sherjada came there on motorcycle. Maruti Fronti had come there.
Saying code-word Pen to its driver, he gave key to Atik. Taking the B
said Fronti, he went to old Muni quarters situated at Gita Mandir and
Vahab and Sherjada were driving their Motorcycle behind the said
Fronti. We parked the Fronti there. I and Atik were sent back in
rickshaw and we were told to come to Devi-park. When we reached
to Devi-park, at that time, Vahab told Salim Tola to drop the industrialist C
Chidipal on Isanpur Highway. Tola put the cotton on the eyes of
Chidipal and affixed bandage of medicine on it and put Black co!Q\!l'ed
spacts on that bandage. On the Yamaha Motorcycle ofNajir Vora,.fttjk
and Tola dropped Chidipal at lsanpur. Subsequently, Atik told me that
for the release of Chidipal, Rs. 1 crore is received. Vahab told us that
Latif has big share in money. Sherjada was given Rs. 17 lacs. Atik was D
given Rs. 4,00,000/-. I was given Rs. 2.5 lacs, Salim Tola and Vijaybapu
each got Rs. 2 lacs, while sattar Ghanti and Najir Vora were given Rs.
1 lac each and Aehmad Behra was given Rs. 50,000/-. Vahab told that
the said matter is given by Latif from Dubai and he has large share.
Rs. 60 lacs_ are sent to Latif by adjustment and deducting Rs. I lac E
towards expenditure, Vahab told that he had received only Rs. 9
lacs .... "

10. The confession made by A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan gives an
account of the kidnapping of PW 7 Chidipal. He mentions about the
participation of other accused in the commission of the crime. He also mentions F
that an amount of Rs. 1 crore was demanded and received and while Latifhad
received a big share in the money and Sherjada was given Rs. 17 lakhs, he
himself received Rs. 2.5 lakhs. In the confession, it is also mentioned as to
how the money was transferred to the accused and the places where these
incidents happened. From other items of evidence, ample corroboration is G
found of what A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan had stated in the confession.

11. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that the
confession of a co-accused is not a substantive evidence as against the other
accused and even though it is admissible under Section 15 of the TADA Act,
it cannot be used for fixing criminal liability of other accused. It was submitted H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 5 S.C.R.
.{
,..
A that such confession could only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence
and unless there is a primary evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the
confession cannot be used against them. In State through Superintendent of
Police, CBl/S!Tv. Nalini and Ors., [1999] 5 SCC 253, this Court held that the
confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act is a substantive piece
of evidence, but as a 'Rule of Prudence', it could be accepted only when there
B is corroboration.

12. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants also contended that
t
the confession was not voluntary and, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence. t
It was pointed out that though a Magistrate was readily available to record
c the confession, A-12 Musakhan @ Babakhan was not produced before the
Magistrate and PW-I DCP Shri Suroliya recorded the confession without
following the procedure.

13. We have perused the records and observed that PW 1 DCP Shri
Suroliya has followed all procedural formalities before recording the confession.
D Merely because the confession was retracted later, when A-12 Musakhan@
Babakhan was produced before the Magistrate, that does not mean that the
confession was not voluntary in nature. Whether the accused was willing to
give a confession voluntarily or not is to be determined from his mental state
at the time when he gave the confession. There is nothing on record to show
that A-12 Musakhan@ Babakhan was under pressure to give any confession.
E When he was produced before the. Magistrate, he had no case that he was
put under pressure or third-degree methods had been used against him to
extract the confession. When he was questioned under Section 313 Cr. PC,
he had only stated that he had not given any confession as recorded by PW-
1 DCP Shri Suroliya. These facts would indicate that the confession was
F voluntary and was recorded by PW-I after apprising him that he was not
bound to give a confession and in case he gave the confession, it would be
used against him. Therefore, we do not find any force in the contention
advanced by the learned counsel for accused-appellants regarding the
inadmissibility of the confession. As stated earlier, there is ample evidence to
show that the confession given by A-12 Musakhan @Babakhan was truthful
G and gained support from other items of evidence.
~- -
14. PW-7 Chidipal the victim had given evidence that on 22.2.1994, he
went t~ his factory at about 10.00 a.m. in a Maruti 1000 car and later when
he came back, he got down at Mithakhali at the residence of his relative and
from there, he started at 5 o' clock and when the car reached near Toll Naka,
H
ABDUL VAHAB ABDULMAJID SHAIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] 547

one vehicle overtook his car and stopped in front of his car. PW-7 Chidipal A
further deposed that 4-5 persons got down from that car and one of them got
into his car from the driver's side while another one got into the car from the
left front door. Yet another person got into the car and the car was driven
towards Octroi Post. His eyes were shut with a cotton bandage and he was
kept in confinement. On the next day, he was asked to give the telephone
numbers of his relatives and he talked to his brother. But this witness deposed B
that he did not know the identity of the kidnappers. The evidence of PW- I I
Jaiprakash, the brother of PW-7 Chidipal gives further details as to how the
kidnappers were paid money. He deposed that on 22.2.1994 he got a call from
the kidnappers and they asked him whether the money was ready. He further
deposed that the kidnappers demanded Rs. I crore. This witness also did not C
support the prosecution but he admitted that four bags were taken in a car
and that car was parked behind a rickshaw whereafter they left the place. This
witness would deny having given the bags of money, but his entire evidence
would show that kidnappers were paid money. In the cross-examination, he
admitted that he told the kidnappers that Rs. I crore was ready when they
asked him for money over telephone. From the evidence of PW-11 Jaiprakash, D
it is clear that Rs. I crore was paid as ransom to the kidnappers. PW-12 Jyoti
Prakash is another brother of PW-7 Chidipal who also gave evidence as to
how the brothers assembled at his residence and discussed the issue of
raising Rs. I crore. He contacted his friends and relatives to make arrangements
of Rs. 1 crore, but this witness also did not fully support the prosecution and E
declined to give evidence regarding the actual payment of money. The evidence
of PW-9 Satarbhai Abdul Rehman is also very important. He deposed that the
victim Chidipal was known to him and this witness used to do some designing
work for him. He deposed about the kidnapping of PW-7 Chidipal and about
his active participation in the payment of money to kidnappers.
F
15. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is clear that PW-7 Chidipal
was kidnapped and the kidnappers were paid ransom amount for his release.
The details of the kidnapping, the manner in which it was done and the
extortion of money are all spoken of by the witnesses. In the confession
statement, A-12 Musakhan@ Babakhan has given all these details and these G
details are in perfect consonance with the evidence given by the witnesses.
But it seems that all these witnesses were afraid of giving the identity of the
accused. A-12 in his confession has given the details of participation of all
the accused persons and has also stated that the money was indeed received
and shared by them.
H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 s.c .R.

A 16. Taking all these factors into consideration, we do not find any
difficulty in accepting the confession made by A-12 Musakhan@ Babakhan.
The confession given by him cannot be said to be a figment of his imagination,
but appears to be a true account of the events of kidnapping and extortion
of money. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the conviction as
recorded against these accused-appellants. The Criminal Appeal No. 1228/
B 2004 filed by the accused is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

17. Criminal Appeal No. 129/2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 130/2005 are
filed by the State against the acquittal of some of the accused and also
against the acquittal of some accused for certain other offences for which
C they were charged. Going by the evidence on record, we do not find any merit
in the contentions advanced by the State. The accused have been convicted
only for the offences where there was satisfactory evidence against them. As
regards acquittal of other accused, we find no merit in the contentions raised
by the State. Accordingly, these appeals are liable to be dismissed.

D 18. In the result, all the appeals are without any merits and are dismissed.

B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.