IMPORTANT POINT
Confessions given by accused arrested under TADA Act has to be voluntary and all precautions provided for in Section 15 of the Act and Rule 15 have to be strictly adhered to.

Headnote:(i) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 5-165 persons were charge-sheeted regarding an incident where in police party in a car and lorry were attacked with bombs and fire-arms and Superintendent of Police and six other police officials were killed-Trial Court convicted 7 accused-Appeal-Appellant A34 was named in FIR-PW 33 who claimed to have seen appellant blocking the road by boulders did not identify appellant during trial-No other material to connect accused with crime-Conviction could not be sustained. (Para 8)
       (ii) TADA Act, 1987-Section 5-Appellant was arrested on 25-3-1994 after the incident had taken place on 14-8-1992 where police officials were killed in an attack-Accused was found in possession of country made gun, gun powder and pellets-Appeal against conviction-Prosecution has to prove by cogent evidence the possession of specified arms and ammunition in a notified area-Vital discrepancy as to place at which possession of gun was taken-Confusion about weapon whether it was MO 37 or MO 112 by witnesses during trial-Conviction could not be sustained. (Paras 9 to 11)
       (iii) TADA Act, 1987-Sections 3, 4, 5 and 15-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 143, 120(B), 302, 307 and 149-Attack on police party where in Superintendent of police and six other police officials were killed-165 person were charge-sheeted out of which 7 were convicted-Appeal-Appellants A-10, A-25 and A-27 were not named in FIR but were mentioned in altered FIR-No provision in law to register altered FIR-Conviction based on confessions recorded by Superintendent of Police PW 108 and witnesses identifying accused during trial-Confessions were recorded immediately after arrest of accused-PW 108 gave five minutes time to accused to think over before recording their statement-Confessions were filed with charge-sheet-Trial Court itself rejected other confessions while accepting confessions made by appellants-Maker of confession did not know language of recording officer and recording officer did not know language known to accused-Interpretor taken for recording it was the investigating officer-Confession has to be voluntary and all precautions provided for in Section 15 and Rule 15 of the Act have to be strictly adhered to-No evidence of any question or attempt made by officer to satisfy that confession was being made voluntarily-Such confession could not be relied upon-Evidence of identity of accused by witnesses also found not reliable-Conviction was liable to be set aside. (Paras 12 to 26)
       (iv) TADA Act, 1987-Section 15 r/w Rule 15-Confession by accused-Confession has to be voluntary and all precautions provided for in the provisions have to be strictly adhered to.
       Held : It is the duty of the recording officer to ensure that the confession is made voluntarily and out of free will by the accused without any pressure. Except omnibus statement about the general practice which was being followed by PW-108, there is no evidence of any question or attempt being made by the officer to satisfy himself that the confession was being made voluntarily. This factor becomes, on the facts and circumstances of the case, very important since immediately after the arrest, the accused was produced and the person actively associated with the recording of statement was none other than the Investigating Officer who by nature of things is interested in the success of the prosecution case. Recording of confessional statement is not a mechanical exercise. A duty has been cast and considerable amount of confidence has been reposed on a senior officer under Section 15 of the TADA Act in giving him the duty to record the confession and making such a confession before a police officer admissible in evidence. It is also not in evidence that no person other than the concerned inspector was available to act as an interpretor. PW-108 was aware that the accused produced before him for recording confession was arrested a few hours prior to the recording of his statement. A perusal of the testimony of PW-108 does not show his awareness about the requirements to be complied with before recording of the confessional statement. It also appears that 59 confessions were recorded in routine one after another. The witness stated that within one or two minutes of the recording of confessional statement of one accused, the other accused used to be produced for recording of confession. Having regard to these factors, it is neither possible nor safe to base the conviction of A-25 only on the confessional statement. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

The Designated Court, Mysore, under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, "the TADA Act"), trying Special Cases Nos. 44/94, 11/97 and 3/98, convicted and sentenced the appellants in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 29th September, 2001. These appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the TADA Act by five appellants.

2. Appellant No.1 Simon was accused No. 10 (A-10), appellant No.2 Kaliappa was accused No. 25 (A-25), appellant No. 3 Bilavendra was accused No. 27 (A-27), appellant No. 4 Shekara was accused No. 34 (A-34) and appellant No. 5 Rama @ Ravana was accused No. 79 (A-79) in the cases before the Special Judge of the Designated Court at Mysore.

3. Accused Nos. 10, 25 and 27 have been convicted for offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA Act, under Sections 120 (B), 148, 143, 307, 149 and 302 I.P.C. and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act. On each of them, life imprisonment has been imposed. Accused No. 34 has been convicted for offence under Sections 143, 120(B), 302, 307 and 149 I.P.C. and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act. He has also been ordered to undergo life imprisonment. Accused No. 79 has been convicted for offence under Section 5 of the TADA Act besides Section 25 of the Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment of five years has been imposed on him.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Kamalanaika, who was a police informer, informed Sub-Inspector Shakil Ahmed that Veerappan and his gang can be found in a particular place selling tusks. This was informed by Shakil Ahmed to Harikrishna, Superintendent of Police. Harikrishna, along with Shakil Ahmed, informant Kamalanaika and three other persons, started from Rampura, then in Mysore District, on 14th August, 1992 for the place which was intimated by the informant. The three other persons in the car were PC Nagaraju, PW-34, Safiulla, PW-35 and Vrishabendra. According to the instructions of Harikrishna, Superintendent of Police, 22 persons followed his car in a lorry. At about 1.00 PM on 14th August, 1992, on Ramapura Dinnahalli Road, 25 Kms. from Rampura, the car and the lorry were attacked with bombs and firearms. The result was that seven people- three occupants of the car and four occupants of the lorry - died. The persons in the car who died were Superintendent of Police Harikrishna, PSI Shakil Ahmed and informant Kamalanaika. The four persons in the lorry who died were Benagonda, Kallappa, Appachu and Sundara. The prosecution examined various witnesses. Out of the three saviors from the car, PW-34 and PW-35 were produced as prosecution witnesses. Out of those who were in the lorry, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses including PW-31 Mandappa, PW-32 Haumanthappa and PW-33 Devendrappa. PW-32 identified accused No. 10 Simon, accused No. 25 Kaliappa and accused No. 27 Bilavendra when they appeared in court. Simon was identified in court by both PW-31 and PW-32. Kaliappa and Balavendra were identified by PW-31 only. Accused Shekara (A-34) and accused Rama @ Ravana (A-79) were not identified by any of the witnesses. PW-33 Devendrappa is the complainant on whose complaint the FIR was recorded on the date of the incident itself, namely, 14th August, 1992, at about 5.45 PM.

5. The case was filed against 165 persons. Out of them, 76 were arrested and prosecuted. The prosecution had relied upon 59 confessions that had been recorded. The trial court, however, rejected all the confessions except one that was made by Kaliappa (A-25). The trial court, on consideration of the evidence, convicted 7 accused of which 5 are in appeal before us.

6. Mr. Gonsalves, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the other two accused, namely, accused No. 36, Devojinaik, and accused No. 115, Gulapu, have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment but they had already undergone the sentence and, therefore, no appeal was preferre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1040

IMPORTANT POINTConfessions given by accused arrested under TADA Act has to be voluntary and all precautions provided for in Section 15 of the Act and Rule 15 have to be strictly adhered to.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Confessions given by accused arrested under TADA Act has to be voluntary and all precautions provided for in Section 15 of the Act and Rule 15 have to be strictly adhered to.