Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Raja @ Ayyappan, was convicted by the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) for conspiracy to blast a government building. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was part of an organization called 'Tamilar Pasarai' formed in 1988 with the object of achieving separate statehood for Tamil Nadu and that he participated in a conspiracy to blast the 'Namakkal Kavignar Maligai' building in Chennai. A bomb was discovered and defused on 22.09.1990. The appellant was arrested later in 2007 and his confession was recorded by a Superintendent of Police under Section 15 of TADA. The Designated Court convicted the appellant based on his own confession and the confessions of two co-accused. The Supreme Court examined whether the confession was voluntary and whether the confessions of co-accused were admissible. The Court noted that the guidelines laid down in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab for recording confessions under TADA were not followed, and the confession was not recorded in a free atmosphere. The Court also held that the confession of co-accused is not substantive evidence and is admissible only if there is a joint trial, which was not the case here. Additionally, the appellant had retracted his confession, making it a weak piece of evidence requiring corroboration, which was absent. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Confession - Voluntariness - Section 15, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Confession recorded by police officer must be voluntary and free from fear, duress, or inducement - Court held that the confession (Ex. P57) was not recorded in a free atmosphere and guidelines in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab were not scrupulously followed - Hence, confession is inadmissible (Paras 14-18). B) Criminal Law - Confession of Co-accused - Joint Trial - Section 15(1) proviso, TADA Act, 1987 read with Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Confession of co-accused is not substantive evidence and is admissible only if there is a joint trial - Since there was no joint trial of the appellant with the co-accused whose confessions (Ex. P26 and P27) were relied upon, those confessions are not admissible (Paras 19-20). C) Criminal Law - Retracted Confession - Corroboration - Even if confession is admissible, retracted confession is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction without independent corroboration - Court found no corroborative evidence on record - Hence, conviction unsustainable (Paras 21-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the confession of the appellant under Section 15 of TADA Act was voluntary and admissible, and whether the confession of co-accused is admissible without joint trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Law Points
- Confession must be voluntary
- Confession of co-accused requires joint trial
- TADA Act Section 15 is self-contained
- Guidelines in Kartar Singh must be followed
- Retracted confession is weak evidence
