Veerappan Cases - II: Confessions and corroborative evidence

By Mukund Padmanabhan

MYSORE, OCT. 1. ``I hold that no reliance can be placed on these confessional statements,'' the Mysore special court judge, Mr. Krishnappa, ruled in one of the `Veerappan associates' cases. It is a refrain that runs through the judgments and constitutes an important reason why as many as 109 accused were acquitted and only 14 convicted.

In most cases apparently, the confessional statements, self- incriminatory and inculpatory of others, were not supported with corroborative evidence. In the few cases which resulted in life sentences, the existence of some corroborative material - often in the form of eye-witness accounts - was present.

Part of the problem related to the manner in which the confessional statements were made to the police. The court agreed with the prosecution that such statements may be used as substantive evidence if they were recorded in compliance with the law under Section 15 of TADA. But in the Ramapura police station case, for instance, it held that the confessional statements were recorded by violating the mandatory provisions of law. ``Therefore, they cannot be used for convicting the accused against whom there is absolutely no corroborative evidence.''

In this and other cases, the court felt that the confessional statements were not recorded under Section 15(2) and Rule 15(3) of the TADA Act and Rules. In doing so, the court has taken note of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in the Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab case which, among other things, stressed the importance of following duly laid down procedures and ensuring voluntariness when assessing confessions under TADA.

In the Ramapura police station case, the court felt that the confessional statements were recorded in a ``series'' and did not show the ``time given for reflection''. Another reason why its suspicion was aroused was that some of the accused had furnished self-incriminatory statements stating they were members of Veerappan's gang even though they were not charged with substantive offences. Finally, the Court felt it would have been more appropriate if the confessional statements were recorded through police officials who were not members of the STF, which was directly involved in the operations against Veerappan.

Not surprisingly, in the few cases which resulted in conviction - particularly those in which life sentences were served - the confessional statements were backed by corroborative evidence, often in the form of eye-witness accounts.

The judgment of the special court has put an end to a situation in which over a hundred people spent around eight years in jail. But the last judicial word on the subject has not been heard yet. Those convicted, particularly the seven sentenced to life and who will remain in prison, will go on appeal to the Supreme Court. Although there has been no formal decision, it won't be surprising if the Karnataka Government - which ironically attempted to withdraw the cases against the accused during the Rajkumar kidnap - appeals against the acquittals.

Meanwhile, there is a strong feeling among human rights groups that the injustice meted to the undertrials who served many years in prison only to be acquitted must be redressed. Mr. Mathew Philip, executive director of Sichrem, one of six organisations which coordinated with each other vis-a-vis the Veerappan cases, said, ``These people must be given compensation for what has been done to them. We will shortly decide on the best way to achieve this end.''

Among the possible steps are moving the courts or appealing to the National Human Rights Commission. But rights activists agree that as the case is likely to go on appeal to the Supreme Court, any compensation can be determined only after the apex body's ruling.

Meanwhile, the judgment has evoked a mixture of dismay and relief. Dismay that sheer neglect and apathy had resulted in people languishing in jail for years before being declared innocent, and relief that their travails are finally over.

(Concluded)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Crackers and decibels