Background of the Case
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the conviction of Farid Ahmad, a former police constable, under Section 3(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). The case dates back to 2001 when Ahmad, serving as a constable in Udhampur, was absent from duty between September 29 and November 11. Upon his return on November 15, authorities recovered photographs of militants from his possession. During interrogation, Ahmad confessed to developing these photographs on the instructions of militants operating in the Mahore area. The prosecution alleged that he actively assisted militants by providing shelter and logistical support. His confessional statement before the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Poonch, was pivotal in securing his conviction under POTA. The trial court sentenced him to three years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1,000, with an additional six months of imprisonment in case of default in payment.
Legal Challenge and Defense Arguments
Ahmad's counsel, Mr. Shafiq Ur Rehman, challenged the conviction on multiple grounds. He contended that the confession, recorded by the police, was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which generally prohibits the use of confessions made to police officers. He further argued that the mandatory safeguards under POTA were violated, as no proper warning was administered to Ahmad before recording the confession. Additionally, the defense highlighted that the confession was not recorded by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police but by his reader, rendering it legally invalid.
Court's Analysis and Observations
The High Court, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta, meticulously examined the legal framework governing confessions under POTA. They emphasized that for a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA to be admissible, it must be of sterling value and inspire the confidence of the court. The bench observed, "Before a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA is relied upon and accepted as admissible in evidence, it must be of sterling value inspiring confidence of the Court. As a matter of prudence, the Court relying upon such confession must insist on corroboration."
The court further noted that while POTA allows for confessions made to police officers of a certain rank to be admissible, such confessions must be approached with caution. The bench underscored the necessity of corroborative evidence to support the confession, ensuring that the conviction is not solely based on the accused's statement.
Reaffirmation of Legal Principles
This judgment reaffirms the established legal principle that a confession, especially under special statutes like POTA, cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless it is of exceptional quality and corroborated by other evidence. The court's insistence on corroboration aligns with the broader judicial perspective that while confessions can be a vital piece of evidence, they must be scrutinized rigorously to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Implications of the Judgment
The High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing the stringent provisions of anti-terrorism laws with the fundamental rights of the accused. By emphasizing the need for a confession to be of sterling value and corroborated, the court ensures that convictions under POTA are based on solid and reliable evidence, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness.
Conclusion
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court's judgment in upholding Farid Ahmad's conviction under POTA serves as a significant precedent in the interpretation of confessions under anti-terrorism laws. It highlights the judiciary's cautious approach in relying on confessional statements, ensuring that such admissions are thoroughly vetted and supported by corroborative evidence to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.