Value of Retraction of Confession, made before ED officials (PMLA)

In the case of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail vs. Spl.Director, Enforcement Directorate ((220) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) ; MANU/SC/4019/2007) the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the light of the case Francis Stanly @ Stalin v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvanthapuram MANU/SC/8783/2006 emphasized that confession only if found to be voluntary and free from pressure, can be accepted. A confession purported to have been made before an authority would require a closure scrutiny. It is furthermore now well-settled that the court must seek corroboration of the purported confession from independent sources.

In the case of Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 2009(233)ELT157(S.C.) / MANU/SC/8446/2008 / [2009]92SCL157(SC) / 2008(16)SCALE31 / (2008)16SCC537MANU/SC/8446/2008, the issue before the court was with respect to “burden of proof”. In the above case the Supreme Court of India has opined:

  • that confessional statement of Appellant was acceptable in evidence.
  • Appellant had not brought out anything to displace his confessional statement to prove its untruthfulness or involuntary nature.
  • The burden was on person retracting confessional statement to lead some evidence as to why confessional statement could be rejected. No evidence on that count was led.
  • Furthermore, mere retraction of confession could not be sufficient to make confessional statement irrelevant for purpose of proceeding in a criminal case or a quasi criminal case.

Therefore, mere retraction of confession shall not be sufficient to make confessional statement irrelevant for purpose of proceeding in a criminal case.

 

By

Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate

Supreme Court of India

Mobile: +91 9810081079

Email: vpdalmia@gmail.com

 

and

Adeem Ahmed

LL.B. 5th Year, Amity Law School Noida, India

adeemahmedlegal@gmail.com

Connect With Us Social Media