Appellants acquitted due to procedural errors and lack of evidence in crime case.

Hardeep Singh Sohal, etc. Versus State of Punjab Through C.B.I.

Hardeep Singh Sohal, etc. Versus State of Punjab Through C.B.I. - 2004 AIR 4783, 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 783, 2004 (11) SCC 612, 2004 (8) JT 87, 2004 (8) ... Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the confession made by Balwinder Singh.
2. Admissibility of extra-judicial confessions.
3. Compliance with the procedural safeguards under the TADA Act.
4. Sufficiency of evidence to prove conspiracy and involvement of the appellants in the crime.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Confession Made by Balwinder Singh:
The confession of Balwinder Singh recorded by PW-34 Sham Lal Gakhar, an IPS officer, was a pivotal piece of evidence. However, the court found that the confession was inadmissible because Balwinder Singh was not tried along with the appellants. According to the amended Section 15 of the TADA Act, a confession made by a co-accused is admissible only if the co-accused is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused. Since Balwinder Singh was declared a proclaimed offender and was not tried with the appellants, his confession could not be used against them.

2. Admissibility of Extra-Judicial Confessions:
The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions made by Balwinder Singh to PW-32 Sawinder Kaur and PW-42 (the wife of the deceased). However, these confessions were also found inadmissible because Balwinder Singh was not tried along with the appellants. The court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions can only be considered under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act if the confessor is tried along with the accused.

3. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards under the TADA Act:
The court scrutinized the compliance with procedural safeguards under the TADA Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987. It was found that the confession recorded by PW-34 did not comply with Rule 15, which mandates that the confession must be signed by the person making it, and the police officer must certify that the confession was made voluntarily. The absence of such a certificate rendered the confession inadmissible. The court cited previous rulings, including Bharatbhai @ Jimi Premchandbhai vs. State of Gujarat and S.N. Dube vs. N.B. Bhoir, to support its decision that non-compliance with Rule 15 makes the confession inadmissible.

4. Sufficiency of Evidence to Prove Conspiracy and Involvement of the Appellants:
The prosecution attempted to prove the conspiracy and involvement of the appellants through the motive and the testimonies of PW-32 and PW-42. However, the court found that motive alone is insufficient to prove guilt. There was no reliable evidence under Section 10 of the Evidence Act to establish that the appellants had a common intention to kill Dr. Megh Raj Goyal. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide admissible evidence to support the charges against the appellants.

Conclusion:
The court held that the appellants were to be acquitted due to the inadmissibility of the confessions and the lack of other reliable evidence. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith.