TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether conviction under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 required a prior conviction of any accused under Section 3(2) of that Act; (ii) Whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were inadmissible or unreliable because they were recorded by police officers, not followed by immediate production before a Magistrate, or not recorded in strict conformity with the guidelines indicated in Kartar Singh; (iii) Whether the prosecution had adduced sufficient corroborative evidence to connect the appellants with the conspiracy and the recovery of arms, ammunition and explosives.
Issue (i): Whether conviction under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 required a prior conviction of any accused under Section 3(2) of that Act.
Analysis: Section 3(3) penalises conspiracy, attempt, abetment, advice, incitement and knowing facilitation of a terrorist act or preparatory act. These are independent offences and are not dependent upon a separate conviction for the completed terrorist act under Section 3(2). The statutory scheme also enlarges the concept of abetment under Section 2(1)(a), making preparatory and facilitative conduct itself punishable. The existence of a completed terrorist act conviction is therefore not a necessary precondition for liability under Section 3(3).
Conclusion: Conviction under Section 3(3) was sustainable even though no conviction was recorded under Section 3(2).
Issue (ii): Whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were inadmissible or unreliable because they were recorded by police officers, not followed by immediate production before a Magistrate, or not recorded in strict conformity with the guidelines indicated in Kartar Singh.
Analysis: Section 15 creates a special evidentiary regime and lifts the ordinary bar against police confessions found in Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A confession recorded by a duly authorised officer is admissible if the Court is satisfied that it was voluntary and truthful. The record showed that the accused were warned of the consequences, were given time to think, and were found to have made the statements voluntarily; no complaint of coercion was made when they were produced before the Magistrate. The absence of immediate production before a Magistrate and the non-incorporation of the suggested Kartar Singh guidelines did not, by themselves, render the confessions inadmissible. The confessions could also be used against co-accused under the statutory scheme, read with the principle recognised in Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Conclusion: The confessional statements were admissible and could be relied upon as substantive evidence.
Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution had adduced sufficient corroborative evidence to connect the appellants with the conspiracy and the recovery of arms, ammunition and explosives.
Analysis: The confessions were substantially corroborated by independent evidence. The prosecution proved the recovery of a large cache of arms and explosives from the Ahmedabad premises, the hiring and occupation of those premises by the principal accused under assumed names, the movements of the accused between India and abroad, their stays in hotels under false identities, and their association with one another at Aligarh, Ahmedabad, Bombay and Madras. Hotel registers, travel manifests, property records, recovery memos and testimony of independent witnesses supported the prosecution version. The Court also held that the evidentiary burden in conspiracy and terrorism cases cannot demand mathematical certainty, and that proof may rest on a chain of circumstances sufficient for a prudent person to infer guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion: The prosecution established the guilt of A1 and A2 fully, and the involvement of A3, A4 and A20 with sufficient corroboration, though their sentences on the Section 3(3) charge were reduced.
Final Conclusion: The convictions of A1 and A2 were maintained in full, while the convictions of A3, A4 and A20 were also sustained with modification of sentence on the Section 3(3) charge to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Their convictions under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A confessional statement recorded under the special TADA procedure is admissible and may sustain conviction when it is voluntary and is corroborated by independent circumstances; liability under the conspiracy clause does not depend on a conviction for the completed terrorist act.
TaxTMI 
