Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (supra), held that mere retraction of confession may not be sufficient to make the confessional statement irrelevant for the purpose of the proceedings in a criminal or quasi-criminal case, but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the Court is obligated to take into consideration the pros and cons of both the confession and retraction made by the accused. The issue is what would be effect of a retracted statement for the purpose of levy of penalty under Section FEMA, 1973. In that case, on or about 25-10-1994, the office premises of the appellant was searched. Recovery of Indian currency amounting to Rs. 2,65,000/- was made. He was thereafter detained. On the next two succeeding dates, i.e., on 26-10-1994 and 27-10-1994, he allegedly made two statements before the Authorities under the Act, disclosing that all the transactions in the name of M/s. Sun Enterprises, Ahmedabad and M/s. Suraj Enterprises, Bombay relating to import of goods had been made by him and no import of goods had taken place in the name of the said firms. He is stated to have confessed that he was responsible for remittance of the foreign exchange worth US Dollars 11,400 and US Dollars 22,830. In view of the said purported confession, he was arrested for alleged violation of the provisions of Section 8(3) and Section 9(1)(a) of the Act. The statements were retracted on 28.10.1994 before the ld.C.M.M. The relevant portions in the case of Vinod Solanki are reproduced below:-

34.?A person accused of commission of an offence is not expected to prove to the hilt that confession had been obtained from him by any inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the confession is voluntary in nature and not obtained as an outcome of threat, etc. if the same is to be relied upon solely for the purpose of securing a conviction. With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the voluntary nature of statement or otherwise of a confession which has since been retracted, the Court must bear in mind the attending circumstances which would include the time of retraction, the nature thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made and other relevant factors. Law does not say that the accused has to prove that retraction of confession made by him was because of threat, coercion, etc. but the requirement is that it may appear to the court as such.
35.?In the instant case, the Investigating Officers did not examine themselves. The authorities under the Act as also the Tribunal did not arrive at a finding upon application of their mind to the retraction and rejected the same upon assigning cogent and valid reasons therefor. Whereas mere retraction of a confession may not be sufficient to make the confessional statement irrelevant for the purpose of a proceeding in a criminal case or a quasi criminal case but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the court is obligated to take into consideration the pros and cons of both the confession and retraction made by the accused. It is one thing to say that a retracted confession is used as a corroborative piece of evidence to record a finding of guilt but it is another thing to say that such a finding is arrived at only on the basis of such confession although retracted at a later stage.
15. The statements contained in the confessions of the co-accused persons stand on a different footing. In cases where such confessions are relied upon by the prosecution against and accused person, the court cannot begin with the examination of the said statements. The stage to consider the said confessional statements arrives only after the other evidence is considered and found to be satisfactory. The difference in the approach which the court has to adopt in dealing with these two types of evidence is thus clear, well understood and well established. It, however, appears that in Ram Prakash case, some observations have been made which do not seem to recognize the distinction between the evidence of an accomplice and the statements contained in the confession made by an accused person. An examination of the reported decisions of the various High Courts in India, said Imam, J., who spoke for the Court in that case, indicates that the preponderance of opinion is in favour of the view that the retracted confession of an accused person may be taken into consideration against a co-accused by virtue of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, its value was extremely weak and there could be no conviction without the fullest and strongest corroboration on material particulars. The last portion of this observation has been interpreted by the High Courts in the present case as supporting the view that like the evidence of an accomplice, a confessional statement of a co-accused person can be acted upon if it is corroborated in material particulars. In our opinion, the context in which the said observation was made by this Court shows that this Court did not intend to lay down any such proposition. In fact, the other evidence against the Appellant Ram Prakash was of such a strong character that this Court agreed with the conclusion of the High Court and held that the said evidence was satisfactory and in that connection, the confessional statement of the co-accused person was considered. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was in error in this case in taking the view that the decision in Ram Prakash was intended to strike a discordent note from the well-established principles in regard to the admissibility and the effect of confessional statements made by the co-accused persons.