Confession Must Be of Sterling Value & Corroborated: J&K High Court Upholds Conviction Under Prevention Of Terrorism Act

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed the conviction of a former police constable under Section 3(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), emphasizing that a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA must be of sterling value and corroborated before it can be relied upon.Shedding light on the mandate of Sec 32 of POTA Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Puneet Gupta observed, “.. that before a confession recorded under Section 32 of POTA is relied upon and accepted 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 for corroboration”These observations came while dismissing the appeal of Farid Ahmad against his conviction and directed him to surrender within ten days.The case dates back to 2001 when the appellant, Ahmad was serving as a constable in Udhampur. He remained absent from duty between September 29, 2001, and November 11, 2001, and rejoined on November 15, 2001. During this period, police recovered photographs of militants from his possession. Upon interrogation, Ahmad revealed that he had developed these photographs on the instructions of militants operating in the Mahore area.The prosecution alleged that Ahmad was actively assisting militants by providing them shelter and logistical support. His alleged confessional statement before the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Poonch, was the key evidence in securing his conviction under POTA. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000, with an additional six months of imprisonment in case of default in payment.Ahmad's counsel, Mr. Shafiq Ur Rehman, challenged the conviction on several grounds, primarily attacking the admissibility of the confession under Section 32 of POTA. He argued that the confession was recorded by the police, which is generally inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that no proper warning was administered to the appellant before recording the confession, violating the mandatory safeguards under POTA.Additionally, since the confession was not recorded by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police but by his reader, making it legally invalid, he argued. The High Court meticulously examined the legal framework governing confessions under POTA and referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in People's Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 32 of POTA. However, the Court reiterated the crucial safeguard emphasized by the Supreme Court—that a confession under POTA must inspire judicial confidence and be corroborated.The Bench further noted that Ahmad's confession was recorded with procedural safeguard as he was duly warned about the implications of his statement and his statement was recorded in Urdu, his preferred language.The Court also dismissed allegations of coercion, observing that Ahmad had ample opportunity to retract his confession before the Chief Judicial Magistrate but failed to do so.“The Statement of Chief Judicial Magistrate was also recorded during trial, in which Mr. S.K.Bhagat, the then CJM, Poonch has clearly stated that the appellant was produced before him on 31.12.2001 along with recorded confessional statement, the appellant did not complain of any torture for extracting confessional statement from him. PW-S.K.Bhagat has also proved the certificate issued by him in this regard i.e. EXPW-SK”, highlighted the court. Addressing the defense's contention that the confession was recorded by the SSP's reader, the Court held that since the recording was done under the direct supervision and instructions of the SSP, Poonch, it did not vitiate its evidentiary value.Additionally, the seizure of photographs and negatives corroborated Ahmad's involvement, further strengthening the prosecution's case.Finding no infirmity in the trial court's reasoning, the High Court upheld Ahmad's conviction and dismissed the appeal. The Court ordered him to surrender before the trial court within ten days, failing which coercive measures would be taken.Case Title: Farid Ahmad Vs State of J&K Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 14Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Confession Must Be of Sterling Value & Corroborated: J&K High Court Upholds Conviction Under Prevention Of Terrorism Act

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags