Holding

A confessional statement recorded in violation of the mandatory procedural requirements of TADA Rule 15 is not admissible, and convictions cannot be based solely on such a statement.

Summary

In a case of gruesome carnage in Bihar that left 35 dead, the Designated Court convicted several accused under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) and the Indian Penal Code based solely on a confessional statement of Bihari Manjhi recorded by a police inspector. The statement was taken at night in a jeep, was not forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as required by TADA Rule 15, and the police officers failed to identify the accused before the court. The appellants challenged the admissibility of the confession, arguing that the procedural safeguards mandated by TADA were not complied with. The Supreme Court held that the procedural requirements of Rule 15 are mandatory, and a confession recorded in violation of these rules cannot be treated as a valid confessional statement under Section 15 of TADA. Consequently, the Court found that the conviction could not rest on the tainted confession and set aside the Designated Court's judgment, acquitting the appellants and ordering their release. The decision underscores the necessity of strict compliance with evidentiary procedures to protect constitutional rights.

Issues considered

Whether a confessional statement recorded by a police officer without complying with TADA Rule 15 (including forwarding to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and identification of the accused) qualifies as a valid confessional statement under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
Whether such a non‑compliant confessional statement is admissible as evidence for conviction.
Whether a conviction based solely on a procedurally defective confessional statement violates the constitutional right to a fair trial.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302
TADA Rules, 1987s. Rule 15
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 15, s. 3(1)

Subjects

TADAconfessional statementprocedural complianceadmissibility of evidencefair trialconviction overturnedterrorism legislation

Judgment

BIHARI MANJHI AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR

APRIL 15, 2002

[M.B. SHAH, B.N. AGRAWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.) B

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 :

-
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Rules, 1987
Section 75/Rule 15-Recording of confessional statement made to Police C
officer-Reliability of-On facts, accused person triedfor gruesome carnage-
Designated Court convicting accused persons on the basis of confessional
statement of one of the accused-However, investigating officer not following
prescribed procedure under the Rule-Non-identification of accused before
the court by police officer who recorded the confession-As such recording of D
confessional statement by police officer and putting of signature by accused
doubtfal-Therefore, such confessional statement should not be relied upon.

Appellants-accused persons along with others were tried by the
Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 and Sections 302/149 Penal Code for gruesome carnage where 35 persons E
lost their lives, some houses/huts were burnt, number of persons were injured.
Court convicted the appellants-accused on the basis of confessional statement
ofone of the accused which was recorded by Police Inspect-0r in the presence
of Superintendent of Police. Hence the present appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court F
HELD: 1.1. On facts of the instant case, it Would be difficult to hold
that the confessional statement recorded by Police Inspector, who went there
for apprehending the accused can be considered to be confessional statement
recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act even though it was recorded in G
the presence of Superintendent of Police. (1176-C-DJ

1.2. The statement was recorded by the police officers in the presence
of the police party at night time between 26th and 27th February, 1992 in
the light of the jeep as there was no other light available. It was not sent to

1173
H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A the Chief Judicial Magistrate as required under the TADA Rules but was
produced for the first time before the Designated Court on 21.3.1997 which
was allegedly kept in the police diary. Designated Court holding that the
procedure prescribed under Rule 15 was directory, would not mean that
Investigating Officer is not required to follow the said procedure. He has to
follow the said procedure. If there is delay in sending the statement, the Court
B would consider its evidentiary value by weighing other evidence brought on
record by the prosecution. Further, the Superintendent of Police, in whose
presence the statement was recorded, as well as Police Inspector who recorded
the statement have not identified the accused whose statement was recorded,
before the Court which throws a serious doubt with regard to the confessional
C statement being recorded by Police Inspector and putting of signatures by
the accused on the same. There is no other evidence so far as co-accused
appellants are concerned despite the fact that accused are residents of same
village where occurrence took place and no other prosecution witnesses have
identified them as the persons present at the scene of offence nor there is any
recovery alleged to have been made from them or at their instance. Thus the
D confessional statement ought not to have been relied upon by the Court for
convicting the appellants-accused. (1176-E-H; 1177-A-B-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
752 of 2001.

E From the Judgment and Order dated ·g .6.200 I of the Designated Court
at Gaya in G.R.C. No. 430 of 1992.

WITH

Crl. A.No. 765 of 200 I. .....
F
A. Sharan, Rajiv Datta, Irshad Ahmed, Amit Kumar, Madhu Sharan, S.
Chandra Shekhar, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Rajiv Singh and
Sartaj Ali Khan, for Rajesh Prasad Singh for the Appellants.

H.L. Agrawal and Kumar Rajesh Singh for B.B. Singh for the
G Respondent.
.
.....

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. In gruesome carnage, 35 persons lost their lives, some houses/
huts were burnt, number of persons were injured and in that case charge-
H sheet was submitted against 119 persons. Out of them, 13 were tried by the
•
BIHARI MANJHI v. STATE OF BIHAR [SHAH, J.) 1175

Designated Court of Sessions Judge, Gaya in G.R. Case No. 430 of I 992, A
Tekari Police Station Case No.19 of 1992 under the provisions of Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as
"TADA Act") and under Section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as "!PC") . After recording the evidence, by judgment and order
dated 8.6.200 I, the Designated Court
B
(a) acquitted A-I Nanhe Yadav@Dina Yadav, A-IO Nanhak Teti,
A-11 Naresh Chamar and A-12 Ramashish Mahto;
(b) convicted A-5 Veer Kuer Paswan, A-8 Krishna Machi, A-9
Dharmendra Singh @ Dharu Singh, A-13 Nanhe Lal Machi
and sentenced to death; c
(c) convicted A-2 Bihari Manjhi, A-4 Ramautar Dusadh@ Lakhan
Dusadh, A-6 Rajendra Paswan, A-7 Wakil Yadav and imposed
life imprisonment;
(d) convicted A-3 Ravindra Singh and imposed RI for ten years.
He has not filed any appeal. D
- A-2 Bihari Manjhi, A-4 Ramautar Dusadh @ Lakhan Dusadh, A-7
Wakil Yadav have filed Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2001; A-6 Rajendra
Paswan has filed Criminal Appeal No. 765 of2001; A-5 Veer Kuer Paswan,
A-8 Krishna Machi, A-9 Dharmendra Singh @ Dharu Singh, A-13 Nanhe
Lal Machi have preferred Criminal Appeal No.761 of2001 and also there is E
a Death Reference Case No.I of 2001 against A-5 Veer Kuer Paswan, A-8
Krishna Machi, A-9 Dharmendra Singh @ Dharu Singh, A-13 Nanhe Lal
Machi.

By this judgment and order, we are disposing of Criminal Appeal No.752
of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2001 separately because in our F
view, judgment and order passed by the Designated Court against the appellants
herein cannot be sustained for the reasons stated below.

The Designated Court convicted the aforesaid four accused only on the
basis of the confessional statement Ex.2 dated 27.2.1992 of A-2 Bihari Manjhi. G

- The said statement admittedly was recorded by Pl Suresh Chandra Sharma in
presence of Sri Sunil Kumar, S.P. Gaya, and Birendra Kumar Singh O/C
Bodh Gaya Police Station. The Designated Court held that the confessional
statement of Bihari Manjhi was recorded by the Superintendent of Police and
in his inculpatory statement he has named A-4, A-6 and A-7 as participants
and since confessional statement is admissible, there is no reason to disbelieve H
() ...
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A the same and, therefore, the participation of all accused in the carnage is well
proved. Thereafter, the Court observed that A-6 was named as participant by
PW6 and PW7 and this gets corroboration from their statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Police. No doubt, the learned Judge hastened to
add that as the witnesses were terrorised, they have evaded either to name or
B to identify them in the court but on the basis of the confessional statement
he held them guilty and convicted them under Section 3(1) of the TADA Act
and also for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced
them to suffer life imprisonment. The Court also negatived the submission
made by the. learned counsel for the accused that in the statement recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Bihari Manjhi A-2 has denied to have
C made any such statement before Superintendent of Police, by holding that on )
each page of confessional statement there is signature of A-2 Bihari Manjhi
and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Superintendent
of Police.

In our view, in the facts of the present case, it would be difficult to hold
D that the confessional statement recorded by Police Inspector, who went there
for apprehending the accused, can be considered to be confessional statement
recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act even though it was recorded in
presence of Superintendent of Police. So-called statement was recorded by
the police officers in presence of the police party at night time at about 2.30
E a.m. between 26th and 27th February, 1992 in the light of the jeep as there
was no other light available.
. .
· Further, admittedly, the statement was not sent to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate as required under Rule 15 of the TADA Rules. The statement was
produced for the first time before the Designated Court on 21.3 .1997 which
F was allegedly kept in the police diary. Dealing with this contention, the
Designated Court held that the procedure prescribed under the Rules was
directory. In our view, even though this Court has held the procedure prescribed
under Rule 15 as directory, that would not mean that Investigating Officer is
not required to follow the said procedure. He has to follow the said procedure.
G If there is delay in sending the statement, the Court would consider its
evidentiary value by weighing other evidence brought on record by the
prosecution. It is to be stated that in our country under Constitution, there is
separation of jlidiciary from executive and if lapses on the part of the
Investigating Off~cer are condoned and such statements are used for convicting
the accused then the liberty of the citizens would not be safe. It appears that
H instead of collecting any material or evidence for connecting these accused
BIHARI MANJHI v. STATE OF BJHAR [SHAH, J.) JI 77
with the crime, investigating agency has adopted unjustified method. A
Further, PW2 Sunil Kumar, Superintendent of Police, in whose presence
the statement was recorded, as well as PW! 7 Suresh Chander Sharma who
recorded the said statement have not identified "A-2" Bihari Manjhi before
the Court. This would throw a serious doubt with regard to the said confessional
statement being recorded by PW! 7 and putting of signatures by A-2 Bihari B
Manjhi on the same. There is no other evidence so far as co-accused appellants
are concerned despite the fact that accused are residents of same village
where occurrence took place and no other prosecution witnesses have identified
them as the persons present at the scene of offence nor there is any recovery
alleged to have been made from them or at their instance. In the aforesaid
circumstances and for the infirmities, we are in agreement with the submission C
of learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants that the said
confessional statement ought not to have been relied upon by the court for
convicting the accused-appellants.

In the result, Criminal Appeal No.752 of 2001 filed by A-2 Bihari D

- Manjhi, A-4 Ramautar Dusadh @ Lakhan Dusadh, A-7 Wakil Yadav and
. Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 200 I filed by A-6 Rajendra Paswan are allowed
and the judgment and order convicting the appellants is set aside and they are
acquitted of the offences for which they were charged and it is ordered that
they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

N.J. Appeals allowed.

-