Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant Raju Bhadre and learned counsel for the other applicant Rahul Dubey have submitted that the confessional statements have been retracted by accused persons in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the MCOC Act and, therefore, at this stage, a serious doubt has arisen about the facts said to be stated in the confessional statements. Thus, they urge that the confessional statements should not be considered at all. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that even retracted confessions can be considered appropriately and if they are to be disbelieved, that can be done only on merits of the case when the trial is concluded and not at this stage. He submits that now it is well-settled law that confessional statements constitute substantive piece of evidence. He places reliance on Gulab Jethanand Khemnani v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 (2) Mh. L. (Cri) 538; State of T.N. v. Kutty alias Lakshmi Narasimhan reported in (2001) 6 SCC 550 and Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gaful & anr v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 14 SCC 641.

15. Sofar as the law that a confessional statement recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act forms a substantive piece of evidence is concerned, there can be no two opinions about it. This has been well- settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Farooq (supra). Equally is the settled position of law about the treatment to be given to a retracted confessional statement. In case of State of T. N. v. V. Kutty (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a confession is retracted, it is not necessary that the court must presume that it is tainted. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is a duty imposed upon the Court to evaluate the evidence concerning the confession by looking at all aspects and find out whether the confession was voluntary and true, which could be possible only on merits of the case and not at the stage when the confessional statements are considered for the purpose of grant of bail or otherwise. This law has been followed by the learned single Judge of this Hon'ble Court (as the Hon'ble Judge then was) in the case of Gulab (supra).

16. In the present case, it is not in dispute that applicant Raju Bhadre retracted his confession made under Section 18 of the MCOC at the first available opportunity when he was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in compliance with the requirement of sub- section (4) of Section 18 of the MCOC Act. But, the law being that even a retracted confessional statement can be relied upon in a given set of facts and circumstances, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of T. N. v. Kutty, at this stage, merely because the confession has been retracted by the accused Raju Bhadre, it would not be permissible for this Court to straightaway ignore these statements as it would be something to be determined on merits of the case. Till that happens, this Court would like to accept these statements as they are, which I have already done. Same would be applicable to other confessional statements. As such, I find no substance in the argument of learned Senior Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari and learned counsel Shri Sirpurkar that the confessional statements need to be left out of consideration.