Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two criminal appeals arising from a Sessions Trial before the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karnal at Kurukshetra. The case concerned an alleged conspiracy to murder Peer Gobind Nath to gain control of Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple, involving recruitment of terrorists from Bhinderwala Tiger Force. All six accused, including Baba Peer Paras Nath, Baldev Nath, Kashmir Singh, Jaswant Kaur, Kaka alias Charanjit Singh, and Sukhpal Singh alias Khushpal Singh, had made confessional statements before the Superintendent of Police under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), which they later retracted. The Designated Court convicted Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath under Section 307 read with Sections 34 and 109 IPC, sentencing them to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine. Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur were convicted under the same IPC provisions and additionally under Section 3(3) TADA, receiving three years and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether a Section 15 TADA confessional statement could be used against co-accused who were not charged with any TADA offence but were tried in the same case. The appellants in the first appeal, represented by U.R. Lalit, argued that Section 15 TADA limits admissibility to trials for TADA offences, and since they faced only IPC charges, the confessions were inadmissible. The State conceded this position, but the complainant's counsel contended that joint trial alone sufficed for admissibility. The Court rejected the complainant's argument, holding that Section 15 TADA expressly restricts admissibility to offences under TADA or its rules, and the observation in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (JT 1994 (2) SC 423) paragraph 277 was not a binding decision on that point. Accordingly, the first appeal was allowed. For the second appeal, the Court found that apart from the retracted confessions, there was independent corroborative evidence: part of the money paid to engage the terrorists was recovered from the appellants' house, the Bhinderwala Tiger Force letter pad and motorcycle were recovered from the place of occurrence. The Court held that retracted confessions can lend support to other evidence, and the overt acts of receiving money to create terror and communal disharmony justified conviction under Section 3(3) TADA. The second appeal was dismissed, and no sentence reduction was possible because the minimum statutory sentence under Section 3(3) TADA is five years. The final decision was partly in favor of the accused and partly in favor of the prosecution.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Confessional Statements - Admissibility Under TADA Section 15 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15; Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 30 - Confessional statement recorded under Section 15 TADA is admissible only in the trial of a person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an offence under TADA or rules framed thereunder; it is not admissible against an accused who is not charged under TADA even if tried in the same case. Court held that the observation in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab para 277 was not a decision on admissibility against non-TADA accused, and accordingly set aside the conviction of the appellants not charged under TADA. Held that Section 15 TADA does not permit use of such confession against a non-TADA accused. (Paras not mentioned) B) Criminal Law - Retracted Confession - Evidentiary Value - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 30; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - A retracted confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction but may lend support to other independent evidence. The court found corroboration in recovery of part of the paid money from the appellants' house, recovery of 'Bhinderwala Tiger Force' letter pad and motorcycle from the place of occurrence, and upheld conviction under Section 3(3) TADA. Held that the confessional statements, though retracted, supported the other evidence of complicity. (Paras not mentioned) C) Criminal Law - TADA Offences - Acts Creating Terror and Disharmony - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 3(3) - The appellants admitted in confessional statements that they accepted money to engage assailants to murder the complainant and to create terror and disharmony between Hindus and Sikhs and to propagate 'Bhinderwala Tiger Force'. The court held these overt acts justified conviction under Section 3(3) TADA, and as minimum sentence is five years, no reduction was possible. Held that conviction and sentence under Section 3(3) TADA were justified. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA is admissible against a co-accused who is not charged with an offence under TADA but is tried in the same case; whether the retracted confessional statements, when corroborated, can sustain conviction under Section 3(3) TADA.
Final Decision
Crl.A. No. 297 of 1996 allowed; conviction and sentence of Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath under Section 307/34/109 IPC set aside; bail bonds discharged. Crl.A. No. 637 of 1996 dismissed; conviction and sentence of Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur under Section 307/34/109 IPC and Section 3(3) TADA confirmed; sentences to run concurrently; no reduction as minimum sentence under Section 3(3) TADA is five years.
Law Points
- Confessional statement under Section 15 TADA admissible only in trial for TADA offence
- not admissible against co-accused not charged under TADA even if tried jointly
- observation in Kartar Singh case does not decide that issue
- retracted confession can lend support to independent evidence
- overt acts creating terror and communal disharmony justify conviction under Section 3(3) TADA
- minimum sentence under Section 3(3) TADA is five years.
