AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 3258 ::1998 AIR SCW 3182 ::1998 ADSC 7 225 ::(1999) 2 MahLR 114 ::(1998) 4 CurCriR 7 ::1998 CriLR(SC&MP) 645 ::1998 (7) SCC 337 ::1998 SCC (Cri) 1625 ::(1998) 4 RecCriR 433 ::(1998) 5 Scale 282 ::1999 AllMR(CRI) 1 95 ::(1998) 2 AndhLT(Cri) 337 ::1998 CriLR(SC MAH GUJ) 645 ::1999 CalCriLR 9 ::(1999) 1 APLJ 3 ::(1999) 1 EastCriC 78 ::(1999) 1 Raj LW 113 ::(1998) 4 Crimes 1 ::1998 Bom LR 3 456 ::(1998) 7 Supreme 378 ::(1998) 37 AllCriC 613 ::(1998) SC Cr R 926 ::(1998) 6 JT 371 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. K. Mukherjee, S. S. M. Quadri , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.114— Presumption - Can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. (Para 5) (B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.30— Confession - Admissibility - Accused making confessional statement was discharged and not facing trial - His statement cannot be used against co-accused. (Para 6) (C) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987) , S.14— Framing of charge - Taking into consideration the confessional statement of accused who was discharged, for framing charges against co-accused - Not proper. At the stage of framing of charges the Court is required to confine its attention to only those materials collected during investigation which can be legally translated into evidence and not upon further evidence (dehors those materials) that the prosecution may, adduce in the trial, which would commence only after the charges are framed and the accused denies the charges. The Designated Court was, therefore, not at all justified in taking into consideration the confessional statement of accused for framing charges against co-accused.(Para 6 ....