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 a confession recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 could be used against co-accused when the confessor was not charged and tried together with them; (ii) Whether the confession was inadmissible for non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 and whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Issue (i): Whether a confession recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 could be used against co-accused when the confessor was not charged and tried together with them.
Analysis: The amended statutory scheme permitted use of such confession against a co-accused, abettor, or conspirator only when the confessor and the co-accused were charged and tried in the same case together. The confession of the absconding accused could not be treated as admissible against the appellants because he was not tried with them. Reliance on the general rule regarding co-accused confession could not override the specific statutory condition introduced by the amendment.
Conclusion: The confession was not admissible against the appellants on this ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the confession was inadmissible for non-compliance with Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 and whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Analysis: Rule 15 required the recording officer to certify the voluntariness of the confession and to append the prescribed memorandum, along with other safeguards. Those mandatory requirements were not complied with, rendering the recorded confession inadmissible. The extra-judicial confessions stood on the same footing. Once the confessional material was excluded, only motive remained, and motive by itself could not establish guilt. No other admissible evidence connected the appellants with the crime.
Conclusion: The confession was inadmissible and the conviction could not be sustained on the remaining evidence.
Final Conclusion: The convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted because the confessional evidence was legally unusable and the prosecution failed to prove the charges by admissible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 is usable against a co-accused only if the confessor is charged and tried together with that accused, and strict compliance with the mandatory recording safeguards under Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 is essential for admissibility.
TaxTMI 
