2001 (1) TMI 964 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction upheld under TADA Act; Confessional statements admissible; Evidence corroborated; Appeals dismissed/modified

LAL SINGH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

The Court upheld the conviction under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act without the need for a prior conviction under Section 3(2), emphasizing the independent ... - Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 3(3) of TADA Act without conviction under Section 3(2).2. Admissibility of confessional statements.3. Evidence connecting the accused with the crime and corroborating confessional statements.Summary of Judgment:1. Conviction under Section 3(3) of TADA Act without conviction under Section 3(2):The appellants contended that their conviction u/s 3(3) of TADA Act is illegal as none of the accused is convicted u/s 3(2). The Court held that Section 3(3) does not require a prior conviction under Section 3(2). Section 3(3) covers acts of conspiracy, abetment, advocacy, advice, incitement, or facilitation of terrorist acts, which are independently punishable.2. Admissibility of Confessional Statements:The appellants argued that their confessional statements were inadmissible as they were recorded by investigating officers, the accused were not produced before a Judicial Magistrate immediately, and guidelines from Kartar Singh's case were not followed. The Court ruled that confessional statements are admissible under Section 15 of TADA Act, even if recorded by investigating officers, provided they are voluntary and truthful. The Court noted that the guidelines from Kartar Singh's case were not incorporated into the Act or Rules, and non-compliance does not render the statements inadmissible.3. Evidence Connecting the Accused with the Crime and Corroborating Confessional Statements:The Court examined various pieces of evidence to corroborate the confessional statements:- Recovery of Arms and Ammunition: Large quantities of arms, ammunition, and explosives were recovered from premises linked to A1 Lal Singh based on his interrogation.- Stay at Various Locations: Evidence showed that A1 and A4 stayed together in different hotels at Ahmedabad and Madras, and A1 and A2 stayed at Aligarh.- Travel Records: Air flight manifests and hotel records corroborated the movements of A1, A2, and A4.- Role of Other Accused: Evidence against A3, A4, and A20 showed their involvement in the conspiracy, including financial transactions and providing logistical support.Conclusion:- A1 Lal Singh: Conviction and sentence confirmed.- A2 Mohd. Sharief: Conviction and sentence confirmed.- A3 Tahir Jamal, A4 Mohd. Saquib Nachan, A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar: Conviction under Section 3(3) confirmed but sentence reduced to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. Conviction and sentence under Section 120B IPC maintained.Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1409-1411 of 1999 dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1997, Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1997, and Criminal Appeal Nos. 407-409 of 1997 allowed to the extent of modifying the sentence for A3, A4, and A20.