State of J&K v. Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid and Another
Background
On Republic Day 1995, three bomb blasts planted near the dais and outside the Maulana Azad Memorial Stadium in Jammu, timed to coincide with the Governor's address to a 40,000-strong gathering, killed eight people and injured eighteen. After a CBI investigation, two men, Ghulam Nabi Guide and Wasim Ahmed Malik (arrested years later, in 2009), were tried under TADA; the evidence against them rested almost entirely on confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the Act. The trial court acquitted both, holding that Ghulam Nabi's confession was invalid because it was recorded in Hindi rather than Urdu, and that nothing besides that confession implicated Wasim Ahmed Malik. The State appealed both acquittals to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Rule 15 of the TADA Rules uses the word "invariably," which the Court read as directory, not mandatory, and found the confession was properly recorded in Hindi because that was the language actually used for communication between Ghulam Nabi and the recording officer, nothing suggested he hadn't understood it. The Court therefore held Ghulam Nabi's confession valid and, since a validly recorded TADA confession is substantive evidence capable of founding a conviction on its own, set aside his acquittal and convicted him, directing he be produced for a separate hearing on sentence. However, as to Wasim Ahmed Malik, the only evidence was the confession of his co-accused Ghulam Nabi, and the Court applied the established rule of prudence that a co-accused's confession should not be relied on without independent corroboration, finding none, it affirmed Wasim Ahmed Malik's acquittal. The appeal was thus partly allowed: Ghulam Nabi's acquittal was reversed and he was convicted, while Wasim Ahmed Malik's acquittal was confirmed.
Lesson Learnt
A confession recorded by police under a special terrorism law can by itself be enough to convict the person who made it, but when that same confession is used against a co-accused, courts require independent corroborating evidence before relying on it, and a technical objection about the language a confession was recorded in will not succeed unless the accused genuinely did not understand what was being recorded.