TADA confession procedure and corroboration: direct court transmission and injured witness evidence upheld absent prejudice.

A confession recorded under TADA was treated as valid where it was forwarded directly to the designated court, because the intermediate transmission through the Chief Judicial Magistrate was held to be a directory safeguard and no prejudice or tampering was shown. Omission to ask a separate Section 313 CrPC question on the confessional statements did not vitiate the trial, since the substance of the incriminating material had been put to the accused and an effective opportunity to was given. Conviction was sustained on the basis of an injured witness's reliable testimony, corroborated in material particulars by proved confessions, with the challenge of fabrication and lack of corroboration rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement under Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987, of forwarding a confession through the Chief Judicial Magistrate was mandatory or merely directory, and whether direct transmission to the designated court vitiated the trial. (ii) Whether omission to put a specific question under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the confessional statements caused prejudice to the accused. (iii) Whether the conviction could safely rest on the testimony of an injured related witness along with the confessional statements, despite the challenge that the confessions were fabricated and required corroboration.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement under Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987, of forwarding a confession through the Chief Judicial Magistrate was mandatory or merely directory, and whether direct transmission to the designated court vitiated the trial.

Analysis: The confessional statements were recorded by the Superintendent of Police and were sent directly to the designated court on the same day. The core object of the rule was secured because the confessions reached the designated court promptly and there was no material suggesting tampering or prejudice. The forwarding through the Chief Judicial Magistrate was treated as a procedural safeguard, while the essential requirement was the transmission of the report to the designated court. Non-compliance with the intermediate channel was therefore only a procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The requirement was held to be directory and the direct transmission did not vitiate the trial.

Issue (ii): Whether omission to put a specific question under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding the confessional statements caused prejudice to the accused.

Analysis: The entire gist of the confessional statements had been specifically put to the accused during examination under Section 313, and it was also pointed out that the Superintendent of Police had proved those statements. The allegation that the incriminating material had not been drawn to the attention of the accused was therefore factually incorrect. Since the accused had an effective opportunity to meet the substance of the confessional evidence, no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: No prejudice was caused and the trial was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the conviction could safely rest on the testimony of an injured related witness along with the confessional statements, despite the challenge that the confessions were fabricated and required corroboration.

Analysis: The injured witness had natural presence at the scene and his testimony carried intrinsic reliability. A related or interested witness is not incompetent to depose, and such evidence is to be weighed with caution rather than discarded outright. The confession was proved by the recording officer and was corroborated in material particulars by the injured witness. The plea that the confessions were fabricated, or that they were unreliable because recorded in Hindi, was rejected in light of the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. The rule of prudence regarding corroboration of a retracted confession was satisfied on the facts.

Conclusion: The conviction based on the injured witness and the proved confessional statements was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the convictions and sentences were sustained, and the appellants remained liable to undergo the sentence awarded by the designated court.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded by a police officer under TADA is not excluded merely because it was forwarded directly to the designated court instead of through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, if the omission causes no prejudice and the confession is otherwise proved and corroborated in material particulars.

---