Voluntary TADA confessions and corroboration can sustain murder convictions, while proved intimidation may support extortion conviction.

A confession under Section 15 of TADA is admissible when it is voluntary, properly recorded and substantially compliant with statutory safeguards; absence of the exact memorandum form or a further certification by the Magistrate does not by itself make it inadmissible. On that basis, the confessions of A5 and A6, corroborated by surrounding evidence, supported conviction for murder and allied offences. The evidence also showed A3 had procured intimidation to induce delivery of property, justifying conviction for extortion under Section 384 read with Section 34 IPC despite failure of the larger conspiracy charge. The acquittals of A1 and A2 were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were voluntary, legally recorded and admissible in evidence against the makers and co-accused; (ii) whether the evidence proved the participation of A5 and A6 in the conspiracy and murder, warranting their conviction; (iii) whether A3 was liable for the lesser offence of extortion under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the acquittal of A1 and A2 could stand.

Issue (i): Whether the confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were voluntary, legally recorded and admissible in evidence against the makers and co-accused.

Analysis: Section 15 of the Act makes a confession to a police officer admissible if it is voluntarily made and properly recorded. The absence of the exact memorandum form under Rule 15(3) of the TADA Rules does not by itself render the confession inadmissible when the statutory safeguards have been substantially complied with and the recording officer testifies to voluntariness. The Magistrate under Rule 15(5) is not required to re-record the confession or independently certify voluntariness in the manner suggested by the trial court. The confessions were recorded after questioning the accused, time was given for reflection, and the record did not show coercion or inducement.

Conclusion: The confessional statements of A5 and A6 were held to be voluntary, legally recorded and admissible, and could be relied upon against them and, with corroboration, against the connected accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence proved the participation of A5 and A6 in the conspiracy and murder, warranting their conviction.

Analysis: The confessions were not treated as standing alone; they found general corroboration from the surrounding evidence, including the presence of the accused near the place of occurrence, recovery of weapons, identification in the parade, and the established links with the criminal network. Retracted confessions, if voluntary and credible, remain good evidence. The trial court was found to have discarded the confessions on technical and speculative grounds, and the evidence was sufficient to connect A5 and A6 with the murderous conspiracy and the offence of murder and allied offences under the IPC, Arms Act and TADA.

Conclusion: A5 and A6 were convicted for the offences charged, and sentenced to life imprisonment for the major offence of murder without separate sentences for the other offences.

Issue (iii): Whether A3 was liable for the lesser offence of extortion under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the acquittal of A1 and A2 could stand.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that A1 and A2 were parties to the murder conspiracy, and their acquittal was maintained. As regards A3, the prosecution proved that he procured the services of A4 to pressure the Jain brothers into parting with their property, thereby putting them in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Even though the major charge of conspiracy to murder was not made out against him, the proved facts constituted the cognate minor offence of extortion, for which conviction under Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was permissible.

Conclusion: A3 was convicted for extortion under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while the acquittal of A1 and A2 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reversing the acquittal of A3, A5 and A6, while leaving undisturbed the acquittal of A1 and A2; the final effect was conviction of A3 for extortion and conviction of A5 and A6 for murder and allied offences.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 is admissible when substantially compliant with the statutory safeguards and proved voluntary, and such a confession may be relied upon with general corroboration to convict the maker and connected accused.

---