New Delhi: A Supreme Court of India bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran today revisited its 2012 judgement in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra and reaffirmed that the confession of Kasab – who was hanged for the 2008 Mumbai terror attack – was voluntary.The occasion for the bench to revisit the judgement arose when the state of Meghalaya, in an appeal against an acquittal in a kidnapping and murder case, relied on it to argue that the confession in this case too was voluntary and must be accepted.In the Meghalaya case, a trial court had found the evidence insufficient and acquitted the accused. The Meghalaya High Court, on an appeal by the state, reversed the acquittal and found the appellant guilty of murder and causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court relied on the confessional statement of one of the accused, who had subsequently retracted it. However, the prosecution had argued that a voluntary confession, even if retracted, could still be the basis for bringing home a conviction. The High Court had found no evidence of kidnapping, while it had upheld the conviction.The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the confessions by the accused did not bring out any inculpating circumstances against them. It found the prosecution’s reliance on the judgement in the Kasab case inappropriate. The bench pointed out that in the Kasab case, the confession was argued to be not voluntary, but a tutored statement to suit the prosecution’s case. It was argued by the defence in that case that the language, tone and tenor of the confession, coupled with its inordinate length and the unnecessary details contained therein, made it highly suspect.Also read: Shoddy Drafting Has Left the Government’s New Criminal Bills With Glaring ErrorsHowever, the bench recalled that the Supreme Court had examined the facts leading to the confession in the Kasab case, and had found that confession had been voluntary. Justice Chandran, who authored the latest judgement, wrote about the Kasab conviction:Though some of the statements made were vague, that was found to be no reason to eschew the confession altogether. It was categorically found from the statement that it was not made under any influence or under duress and that the tone and tenor indicated that it was truthful and voluntary, especially since the statement indicated that the confession was not made out of a feeling of weakness or a sense of resignation or out of remorse, but on the other hand, was made more out of pride and to project himself to be a role model.The Supreme Court also recalled noticing in the course of the Kasab trial, after 58 prosecution witnesses had been examined, that the accused had requested to make a statement, which, though not so detailed, had almost similar contents as the confessional statement.Examined in the light of the above findings in the Kasab case, the present bench found the confessional statements in the Meghalaya case, juxtaposed with the deposition of Prosecution Witness 32 — the magistrate who recorded the confession under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — to be highly suspect. In particular, the bench could not reconcile the discrepancy between the date of signature of Accused No. 2 and that of the magistrate.Besides, the language of the confessional statement of Accused No. 2 was in Khasi, while the magistrate’s testimony recorded it to be in English. The bench also found that when the accused were produced before the magistrate to record their confessions, they were never asked whether they required the assistance of a lawyer.Also read: Covering 26/11: Memories From Ground ReportersReturning to the Kasab case, the bench pointed out that he had initially refused representation by an Indian lawyer and had sought the services of a Pakistani lawyer. The court had then dealt with the question of legal assistance at the pre-trial stage on a conspectus of Article 22(1) of the constitution and Section 304 of the CrPC, read with Article 39A.The court had, in the Kasab case, directed all magistrates in the country to faithfully discharge their duty and obligation to make the accused fully aware that it was their right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner and, if they had no means to engage a lawyer of their choice, one would be provided to them at the expense of the state. The court had made it clear that any failure to fully discharge this obligation would amount to dereliction of duty and would make the magistrate concerned liable to departmental proceedings.The bench found that in the case from Meghalaya, the magistrate did not offer any such legal assistance to the accused at the time of their production before her while recording the confession.The bench also found no evidence to prove that the accused were last seen with the deceased, or to connect the recoveries and seizures with the crime. The bench ruled that it could not base a conviction on a confession without corroboration of the statements made from other valid evidence.The Supreme Court thus reversed the conviction of the high court and restored the acquittal pronounced by the trial court. The bench, having already granted bail to the accused on the conclusion of the hearing, directed their immediate release after cancelling the bail bonds.