JUDGMENT

This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (the TADA) against the judgment and order dated 9th March, 1992 of the Designated Court Ajmer.

2. Before the Designated Court the respondents were charged with various offences, Mahendra Singh was charged under Sections 307, read with 149, 148 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7/25(1) (a) 27 (2) of the Indian Arms Act and Section 3(2) (ii), Section 3(3) of the TADA, Malkiyat Singh was charged under Section 307, read with Sections 149, 148, 353 read with Section 149, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (3) of the TADA. Gurdev Singh, Sadhu Ram, Jasveer Singh, Kulwant Singh, Kewal Singh, Kaur Singh and Bhan Singh were charged under Section 3(3) of the TADA and accused Kartar Singh was charged under Section 7/25(i) (a) of the Arms Act. The Designated Court on appreciation of the evidence, recorded before it, came to the conclusion that the charges were not proved against the respondents and as such acquitted them.

3.The main evidence before the Designated Court was the confessional statement, stated to have been made by the respondents. It was contended before the Designated Court that the statements were not voluntary; there was no corroboration by any independent evidence; the confessions were not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 15(i) of TADA which is almost identical to Section 164 and Section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further argued before the Designated Court that all the confessions were retracted soon after they were alleged to have been made.

4. Apart from that it was also argued before the Designated Court that material witnesses were not examined and the alleged recovery memos of arms and ammunition were of no consequence because the same could not be said to be in possession of the accused. The site plans regarding the places of occurrences where the two alleged encounters took place were also not prepared in accordance with the rules and the names of some of the accused persons were not even mentioned in the first information report.

5. So far as the confessional statements were concerned. the learned Designated Court reached the following conclusions :

"i. That they appear to have been pre-recorded and got typed by some person other than the District Suptd. of Police Sri Ganganagar (PW-6).

ii. That Supdt. of Police (PW-6) has simply made the endorsement (outlined above) and put his signatures and office seal in a mechanical manner without complying the mandatory provisions of Sec. 15 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the 1987 Rules framed under the said Act.

iii. That the facts and circumstances surrounding the recording and making of confession cast great doubts on their veracity and voluntariness and no reliance can be placed on them.

iv. That these statements cannot be extended to show that the matter of any of these depositions in fact admitted any offence or in any manner substantially admitted all facts constituting any of the offences charged against them individually or collectively.

v. That none of the aforesaid statements Exp. 12 to Exp. 19 can be made basis for holding any of these accused persons guilty even as accomplices; there being no corroboration in material respect of any of the offences charged against them by any independent evidence.

vi. These alleged confessions Exp. 12 to Exp. 19 being devoid of voluntariness and truthfulness cannot be made basis for convicting any of the accused, Even otherwise they having been retracted as early as on 2-11-1988 by accused Mahendra Singh and on 26-9-88 by rest of the seven aforesaid accused persons and being uncorroborated by any independent evidence led by the prosecution cannot be made use of in any manner to support the conviction of any of the accused facing trial in this case."

6. As regards the other evidence, after thorough analysis, the Designated Court reached the following conclusions :

"i. That the accused p