(1) BOTH these appeals are directed against the decision dated 20/2/1996 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Designated court, Karnal at Kurukshetra in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1995. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1996 namely Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath were tried with the appellants Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur in the other Criminal Appeal No. 637 of 1996 and also with two other accused, Kaka alias Charanjit Singh and Sukhpal Singh alias Khushpal Singh.

(2) IT appears that the appellants Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath Chela were charged for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur were charged for offence under Section 307 read with S. 34 and 109 Indian Penal Code and also offences under S. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA).

(3) IT may be stated here that confessional statements were made by all the six accused persons before the Superintendent of Police under Section 15 of TADA but later on, the accused retracted with confessional statements. The prosecution case in short is that the appellants Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev wanted to kill the complainant Peer Gobind Nath in order to take control of Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple at Railway Road, Kurukshetra and for the said purpose through the appellant Jaswant Kaur they had approached two terrorists Puran Singh and Karnail Singh (since deceased) on payment of money and the appellants Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur and Kala alias Charanjit Singh and Sukhpal Singh alias Khushpal Singh, in order to execute the said plan contacted the said two terrorists on 19-6-1992. At about 7.30 p.m. the complainant along with Om Parkash, Dr Narinder Prakash and Arun were sitting in a room in the temple. At that time, two young Sikhs came inside the room and on the asking by one of them as to who was Peer Gobind Nath, Peer Gobind Nath had stated that he was the same person. The said two accused then produced a letterhead and asked him to read the writing on it. On the letterhead, it was printed in Punjabi as well as in English "Bhinderwala Tiger Force (of Khalistan)". The contents in the letterhead were written in Punjabi. The said persons disclosed that they were terrorists and also added that they had come to kill him and so saying one of the two terrorists fired a shot from his pistol at Gobind Nath but the shot did not hit him because he had bent his neck. In the meantime, the above-named three persons, who were sitting with the complainant raised an alarm that terrorists had come and they should be caught. The complainant and his companions also succeeded in apprehending the terrorist who had fired the shot but the other terrorist could manage to go out of the room. But a number of persons, who had come by that time, succeeded in apprehending the other one.

(4) IT appears that since the appellants Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath were not charged for any offences under TADA, the confessional statements made by them were not relied upon against them but the learned Designated court placed reliance on the confessional statements made by the other accused in the said trial by placing reliance on the observation of this court made in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab. In para 255 of the decision, this court has observed to the following object:

"AS the Act now stands after its amendment consequent upon the deletion of Section 21(1(c), a confession made by a person before a police officer can be made admissible in the trial of such person not only as against the person but also against the co-accused, abettor or conspirator provided that the co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused, namely, the maker of the confession. The present position is in conformity with Section 30 of the E