IMPORTANT POINT
If confession of a co-accused in a case under TADA Act is acceptable to the Court even without corroboration then it can be the basis of conviction of another accused so implicated in that confession.

JUDGMENT

Santosh Hegde, J.-This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short the TADA Act ) is filed against the judgment of the Judge, Designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer in TADA Special Case No.8 of 1992. The appellant herein was accused No.4 in the said case and has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 120 IPC, Sections 3 and 6(1) of the TADA Act, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B IPC and had been sentenced to a maximum sentence of 5 years RI under the main count and has also been imposed sentence and fine under various other charges with a direction that all the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently.

2. In view of the fact that we are of the opinion that almost all the contentions raised in the above appeal and argued before us are covered against the appellant by our judgment in Jameel Ahmed & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [2003 (4) Scale 402], we do not think it is necessary to elaborately deal with the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that before the TADA court, the appellant herein who is arrayed as accused No.4 along with 8 other accused persons was charged for various offences like Section 3(3) of the TADA Act, Section 120-B read with sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 9B and 9C of the said Explosive Act. Of the said 9 accused, 3 had pleaded guilty before the TADA court and their case was separately dealt with ending in their conviction based on their plea of guilt, while 6 others were tried and found guilty of various offences mentioned hereinabove; out of which 4 accused, namely, Gyani Pratap Singh A-l, Didar Singh A-2, Jameel Ahmed A-5, Ismail Bhai A-6 challenged their conviction in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308/2002, 215/2003 and 1361/2002, while the present appellant herein and another convicted accused Kulwant Singh A-3 had then not challenged their conviction by the TADA court. In this appeal, Sukhwant Singh @ Balwinder Singh @ Ballu, who was A-4 before the TADA court has challenged the very same judgment. In our earlier judgment reported in 2003 (4) Scale 402, we held thus :

(i) 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:

(ii) Whether such confession requires corroboration or not, is a matter for the court considering such confession on facts of each case.

(iii) 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.

(iv) 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.

(v) The requirement of sub-rule 5 of Rule 15 of the TADA Rules which contemplates a confessional statement being sent to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate who, in turn, will have to send the same to the Designated Court is not man