1. Conviction under TADA, Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 302/120-B IPC based on confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of TADA. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1295
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : M.B.Shah
Mohd.Ayubdhar
Versus
State Of Nct Of Delhi
Case No. : 736 , 739 of 1999
Date of Decision : 11/2/99
Important Points
A confessional statement under Section 15 of TADA is invalid and cannot sustain a conviction if mandatory warnings are not given, the recording procedure is irregular, or the statement fails to specifically implicate the accused in the alleged crime.
Subject
Criminal Law - TADA and Evidence
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) - Section 15 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 120-B - Explosive Substances Act - Conviction based solely on confessional statement - Validity of statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA - Mandatory warning not given to accused - Irregularity in recording procedure - Destruction of original recording - Statement not indicating involvement in specific incident - Conviction under Sections 302/120-B IPC cannot be sustained. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of TADA, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 302/120-B of the IPC. The convictions were based entirely on confessional statements recorded under Section 15(2) of TADA, with no other corroborative evidence. The appellants did not challenge the convictions under TADA and the Explosive Substances Act, having already served those sentences, but assailed the conviction and life imprisonment imposed under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC.
Findings of Court:
The court found the confessional statement unreliable due to several infirmities: the recording officer failed to provide the mandatory warning that the accused was not bound to make the statement; the initial recording was destroyed without a valid explanation; and the procedure of recording a statement made in Hindi into English, then translating it back to Hindi for signature, was irregular. Furthermore, the contents of the statement did not indicate the involvement of the appellants in the specific incident that formed the basis of the charges under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC.
Issues: Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA, lacking mandatory warnings and procedural regularity, and not specifically admitting to the crime, can be the sole basis for conviction under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: A confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA is unsustainable if mandatory procedural safeguards are ignored, specifically the requirement to warn the accused that they are not bound to make the statement, and if the recording process is irregular or the contents fail to specifically link the accused to the offence charged.
Result: Conviction under Sections 302/120-B set aside and appellants acquitted of the said charge.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of TADA, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 302/120-B of the IPC. The convictions were based entirely on confessional statements recorded under Section 15(2) of TADA, with no other corroborative evidence. The appellants did not challenge the convictions under TADA and the Explosive Substances Act, having already served those sentences, but assailed the conviction and life imprisonment imposed under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC.
Findings of Court:
The court found the confessional statement unreliable due to several infirmities: the recording officer failed to provide the mandatory warning that the accused was not bound to make the statement; the initial recording was destroyed without a valid explanation; and the procedure of recording a statement made in Hindi into English, then translating it back to Hindi for signature, was irregular. Furthermore, the contents of the statement did not indicate the involvement of the appellants in the specific incident that formed the basis of the charges under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC.
Issues: Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA, lacking mandatory warnings and procedural regularity, and not specifically admitting to the crime, can be the sole basis for conviction under Sections 302/120-B of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: A confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA is unsustainable if mandatory procedural safeguards are ignored, specifically the requirement to warn the accused that they are not bound to make the statement, and if the recording process is irregular or the contents fail to specifically link the accused to the offence charged.
Result: Conviction under Sections 302/120-B set aside and appellants acquitted of the said charge.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenge the reliability of the confessional statement and lack of linkage to the murder; prosecution argues the conviction is justified by the totality of circumstances. (Para 1 )
3. The confessional statement is unreliable due to the unexplained destruction of the original recording, absence of mandatory warnings, and irregular recording and translation procedures. (Para 2 )
4. A confessional statement under Section 15 TADA is unsustainable if mandatory procedural safeguards are violated and the statement fails to link the accused to the specific offence. (Para 2 )
5. Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/120-B IPC set aside; appellants acquitted of these charges and set at liberty. (Para 2 )
6. What procedural lapses render a confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA unreliable?
Procedural lapses include the unexplained destruction of the original recording, failure to warn the accused that they are not bound to make the statement, and irregular recording and translation procedures. (Para 2 )
7. Can a conviction be sustained if the confessional statement does not indicate involvement in the specific incident?
No, if the confessional statement does not indicate the involvement of the accused in the specific incident that forms the basis of the charge, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Para 2 )
(1) THE two appellants have been convicted under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well as under Sections 302/120-B IPC. For their conviction under different provisions of TADA, they have been sentenced to imprisonment for five years and six years respectively and for their conviction under Sections 302/120-B, they have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. From the records, it transpires that Appellant 1 Mohd. Ayubdhar was arrested in a hotel on 6-5-1991 and it is alleged by the prosecution that explosive substance was recovered from him. For this incident, FIR No. 178 of 1991 was made and investigation proceeded with. On the same day, that is on 6-5- 1991, sometime later the other accused also was arrested and certain explosive substances were recovered from him and the FIR that was registered in respect of him was FIR No. 179 of 1991. Besides this, two FIRs, one in respect of an incident of explosion that had occurred outside Delite Cinema on 25-1-1991 when a case had been registered which was FIR No. 30 of 1991 and another incident that happened inside the toilet of Jubilee Cinema on 27-1-1991, as a result of which one person died and FIR was registered which was FIR No. 34 of 1991. The charges under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA and possession of explosive substance is based upon the two FIRs in relation to the incident dated 6-5-1991, namely, FIR No. 178 and FIR No. 179 of 1991. The charge under Sections 302/120-B is in relation to the incident that occurred on 27-1-1991 in respect of FIR No. 34 of 1991. The conviction of the two appellants is based solely on their statement recorded under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of TADA. There appears to be no other corroborative evidence to the said confessional statement. Though Mr Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants attacked the validity of the confessional statement on several grounds but since the appellants have already undergone the sentences awarded for their conviction under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, he did not assail the conviction based thereunder. We, therefore, need not examine the legality of the conviction of the appellants under those sections and sentences passed thereunder. He, however, seriously contended that the conviction under Sections 302/120-B cannot be sustained and therefore, the sentences imposed thereunder of imprisonment for life cannot be sustained. It is in this respect, he contended that not only is the confessional statement infirm but also the learned officer who recorded the statement under Section 15 in his evidence has categorically admitted several ingredients which had not been followed by him which means the confessional statement is not reliable and therefore, according to him the learned Designated Judge committed serious error in passing the conviction of the charge under Sections 302/120-B as against the two appellants. Mr Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants further contended that even the contents of the confessional statement on being examined, could nowhere indicate that the appellant confessed their involvement in relation to the incident that happened in the toilet of Jubilee Cinema on 27-1-1991 and as such the conviction under Sections 302/120-B cannot be sustained. Mr A.S. Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the prosecution, on the other hand, contended that taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the material on record, the Designated Judge was justified in recording the conviction of the two appellants under Sections 320/120-B and the same need not be interfered with.
(2) FROM the impugned judgment of the learned Designated Judge as well as the contentions raised, it is crystal clear that the conviction is solely based upon the confessional statement recorded by the officer concerned under Section 15 of the Act. Looking at the e
