2003 Supreme(SC) 527

2003(3) Supreme 777
Supreme Court of India
(From Designated Court at Rajasthan)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Jameel Ahmed & Anr. etc. —Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1308 of 2002
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 215 of 2003 and 1361 of 2002
Decided 30-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K.K. Sood, Additional Solicitor General, Sushil Kumar, U.R. Lalit, P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocates, Dr. R.B. Masodjkar, Hussain, Anil Kumar Jha, A.K. Sanghi, Subodh Lalit, K.L. Taneja, A.D.N. Rao, P. Parmeswaran and A. Mariarputham, Advocates.

Important Point
If the confessional statement is properly recorded, satisfying the mandatory provision of Section 15 of the TADA Act and the Rules made thereunder, and if the same is found by the Court as having been made voluntarily and truthful then the said confession is sufficient to base a conviction on the maker of the confession.

Headnote:(i) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987—Section 15—Confession—Admissible notwithstanding anything contained in Evidence Act or Code of Criminal Procedure—Conviction of maker of confession solely based on such confession—Sustainable if confessional statement properly recorded satisfying mandatory provision of Section 15 of TADA Act and Rules made thereunder and if found as having been made voluntarily and truthful—Acceptability of a confession made to a police officer without corroborative evidence—Whether such confession requires corroboration or not, is a matter for the court considering such confession on facts of each case. (Paras 28 & 35)

       (ii) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987—Section 15—Rule 15, TADA Rules—Confession—Admissibility against other accused—Probative value of a confession made by one accused involving other co-accused—Confessional statement of an accused recorded under Section 15 of TADA Act is a substantive piece of evidence even against his co-accused provided the concerned accused are tried together—Requirement of seeking corroboration in such cases.

       Held : In regard to the use of such confession as against a co-accused, it has to be held that as a matter of caution, a general corroboration should be sought for but in cases where the Court is satisfied that the probative value of such confession is such that it does not require corroboration then it may base a conviction on the basis of such confession of the co-accused without corroboration. But this is an exception to the general rule of requiring corroboration when such confession is to be used against a co-accused. The nature of corroboration required both in regard to the use of confession against the maker as also in regard to the use of the same against a co-accused is of general nature, unless the court comes to the conclusion that such corroboration should be on material facts also because of the facts of a particular case. The degree of corroboration so required is that which is necessary for a prudent man to believe in the existence of facts mentioned in the confessional statement. (Para 35)

       (iii) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987—Section 15—Rule 15(5) , TADA Rules—Confession—Requirement to send it to CMM or CJM as required under Rule 15(5) of Rules—Directory and not mandatory—Non-compliance of such procedure—Concerned Court should examine on facts of that case whether delay, if any, in sending confessional statement to concerned Designated Court has given rise to any doubt as to genuineness of confessional statement. (Paras 34 & 35)

       (iv) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987—Sections 3(3), 6 and 15—Rule 15, TADA Rules—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 120B—Explosives Act, 1884—Recovery of explosives from a truck occupied by three accused—Confession made by A1—Admission of guilt absent in contents of document—Can this document be treated as a confession under Section 15 of TADA which is otherwise an inadmissible document—(No).

       Held : While considering the contents of Ex. P-124 for the purpose of finding out whether the said statement amounts to a confession or not, the document in question will have to be considered on the basis of the statement found in itself and there is no scope for any external material being taken into consideration to draw an inference that what the accused stated in the so-called confessional statement could be an admission of a guilt. As stated above, in the instant case, we are not able to find any inculpatory statement in Ex. P-124 by itself so far as the maker of the statement, namely, A-1 is concerned and in the absence of which, in our opinion, this document cannot be construed as a confessional statement because at this stage we are not considering the fact whether the prosecution has established its case against A-1 from other evidence. We are at this stage only considering whether Ex. P-124 is confession or not for which we will have to look into the contents of Ex. P-124 only. (Para 40)

       (v) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987—Sections 3(3), 6 and 15—Conviction for recovery of explosives—Confession of co-accused A2—Contents of A2 are truthful and sufficient enough to accept prosecution case as against A2—Oral evidence of PW1 and PW24 also establishes involvement of A2 in the crime—Prosecution established guilt of A2 beyond all reasonable doubt—Conviction of A5 who supplied explosives confirmed—A6, father of A5 acquitted. (Paras 48 to 54)