IMPORTANT POINTS
Provisions of section 15, TADA Act and Rule 15, TADA Rules are mandatory.
The defect of not appending memorandum as required by section 15, TADA Act is curable in accordance with section 463, Cr.P.C.
A dying declaration, if reliable and materially corroborating confessional statements of others, can be relied upon even though incomplete.

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.—

1. All the above appeals were filed before this Court under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the TADA Act”) against the order dated 21.10.2002 of the Designated Court at Ahmedabad in TADA Case Nos. 8/1993, 144/1993, 2/1996, 4/1996 & 38/1996 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., Sections 25(1)(c) and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act and sentenced them under different counts of punishment including life imprisonment.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are as follows:

According to the prosecution, on 03.8.1992, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and conspired together along with the absconding accused Sharifkhan, Resulkhan, Aminkhan Mojkhan and Imtiyaz and launched an attack on the deceased Hansraj Shivgopal Trivedi and other persons who were with him. In pursuance of the same, nine persons were killed and three persons were injured by indiscriminate firing resorted to by the appellants/accused with revolvers and automatic guns. Accused Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 20 went to Radhika Gymkhana near Gauri Cinema, Odhav on 03.08.1992 in a Maruti Fronti Car. Accused No. 1, Liyakathu-ssein and absconding accused Sharifkhan fired on Hansraj and other seven persons resulting in their death. Both of them also resorted to indiscriminate firing on the witnesses Vrujlal and Mohan Meghnath which caused serious injuries to them.

Accused No. 25 - Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Shaikh, who was the gang leader, was accompanied by Accused Nos.26 - Sabbirhussein Husseinmiya Shaikh, and 27 - Tajammulhasan Alihasan Ansari, with a view to get rid of Hansraj. The complaint was given by Laxmansinh Madansinh Bhadoria on 3.8.1992 in the Odhav Police Station bearing 1-CR No. 254 of 1992. On the strength of the complaint, various offences were registered against the accused persons. The accused persons were arrested by the police and after submission of charge-sheet, necessary charges were framed by the Trial Court. On 21.12.1992, after conducting the trial in which 62 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 139 documents were exhibited including the confessional statements of various accused, the Designated Judge convicted the accused under various sections of the I.P.C., Arms Act and TADA Act. In addition to the sentence, the Designated Judge also directed the accused persons to pay fine separately. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad, the appellants filed the above appeals before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal learned counsel, appearing for the appellants/accused, Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior counsel appearing for the State and perused the relevant materials including oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Designated Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly contended that the conviction based on confessional statements of the appellants without any corroborative evidence is not sustainable. It was also pointed out that even those alleged confessional statements of the accused are not admissible as not fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Rule 15(3)(b) of TADA Rules. They also pointed out that without a certificate by the competent person in clear categorical terms about his satisfaction or belief as to the voluntary nature of the confession recorded by him would be fatal to the admissibility and the same cannot be cured by placing any other material. It was further submitted that no contemporaneous record to support the confessions were produced. They also pointed out that the alleged confessions were not sent to the Magistrate within a reasonable time and the same is in violation of Rule 15(5) of TADA Rules. According to them, some conf