ARTICLE
8 February 2019

Value Of "Retraction Of Confession" Made Before ED Officials (PMLA)

VA
Vaish Associates Advocates

Contributor

Established in 1971, Vaish Associates, Advocates is one of the best-known full-service law firms in India. Since its inception, it continues to serve a diverse clientele, including domestic and overseas corporations, multinational companies and individuals. Presently, the Firm has its operations in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru.
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, ...
India Criminal Law

Article by Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate
Supreme Court of India & High court of Delhi
Mobile: +91 9810081079  Email: vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com
and
Adeem Ahmed
LL.B. 5th Year, Amity Law School Noida, India  adeemahmedlegal@gmail.com

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.

© 2018, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More