Confession admissibility and unlawful possession of explosives shape mixed criminal liability findings on conspiracy and allied offences

Voluntary confessions recorded under a special statute were admissible even when typewritten, but the contents did not by themselves prove the alleged criminal conspiracy, so the conspiracy charge was not made out. The evidence also supported liability for unauthorised possession of explosive substances on the facts proved, although the broader TADA-based charge failed where the recovered articles did not meet the statutory requirement. On the evidence, A-1 was also found guilty of obstructing a public servant and attempting suicide, while the acquittal on attempted murder remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy and the allied offences under the TADA Act and the Explosive Substances Act were proved, including the admissibility and evidentiary value of the confessional statements recorded under the special statute; (ii) whether unauthorised possession of explosive substances was established so as to attract liability under the Explosive Substances Act; (iii) whether A-1 was guilty of offences under Sections 353 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy and the allied offences under the TADA Act and the Explosive Substances Act were proved, including the admissibility and evidentiary value of the confessional statements recorded under the special statute.

Analysis: The materials did not establish that the accused had met and agreed at the time and place alleged in the charge to commit terrorist acts or to manufacture explosives for such acts in India. The surrounding evidence of association and movement together was found insufficient to draw an inference of conspiracy. The confessions of A-2 and A-9 were held to be voluntarily made and admissible, and the recording by typewritten process was not invalid merely because the Superintendent of Police did not write them in his own handwriting. Even so, the contents of those confessions did not contain a clear and self-inculpatory admission proving the alleged conspiracy, and they could not by themselves sustain conviction.

Conclusion: The charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was not proved, and the acquittal on that count stood confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether unauthorised possession of explosive substances was established so as to attract liability under the Explosive Substances Act.

Analysis: The evidence established possession of explosive substances and bomb-making articles by A-1 and A-5 to A-9, and the Collector's consent for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act was valid. The Court held that Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 requires conscious, unauthorised possession of explosive substances in a notified area, without any further nexus to terrorist activity, but the articles recovered from some accused were only parts or empty cells and not explosive substances of the kind contemplated by that provision. As to the Explosive Substances Act, however, the nature of the articles, the circumstances of their clandestine possession, and the failure to show a lawful object brought the case within the lesser offence under Section 5.

Conclusion: The acquittal under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act was confirmed, but A-1 and A-5 to A-9 were held guilty under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Issue (iii): Whether A-1 was guilty of offences under Sections 353 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The evidence of the traffic constable and supporting witnesses established that A-1 attempted to dash the scooter against the constable and obstructed him in the discharge of duty, though the evidence was insufficient to prove an attempt to murder. The evidence also showed that A-1 attempted to swallow a cyanide capsule when apprehended, and that fact was corroborated by his own statement. Section 309 remained constitutionally valid in view of the later Constitution Bench ruling overruling the earlier view relied upon by the trial court.

Conclusion: A-1's acquittal under Section 353 was set aside and he was convicted for that offence; his acquittal under Section 309 was also set aside and he was convicted under that provision; his acquittal under Section 307 was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the conspiracy and major TADA and Explosive Substances Act acquittals were maintained, but limited convictions were recorded against A-1 and A-1 together with A-5 to A-9 for the offences proved on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Voluntary confessions recorded by a Superintendent of Police are not inadmissible merely because they are typewritten, and unauthorised possession of explosive substances in a notified area or under suspicious circumstances may attract the relevant statutory offence even without proof of a direct terrorist nexus where the statute does not require it.

---