TADA confession admissibility depends on strict safeguards and proved voluntariness; co-accused confessions need a joint trial.

A confession recorded under the TADA Act is admissible only if the statutory safeguards are strictly complied with and voluntariness is clearly proved; where the record does not establish the required warning, free atmosphere, and absence of duress, the confession cannot be acted upon and is inadmissible. Co-accused confessions cannot be used against an accused in the absence of a joint trial in the same case; where the accused is tried separately, that condition fails and the confessions are inadmissible against him. On these principles, the conviction was found unsustainable and the appeal resulted in acquittal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's confession recorded under the TADA Act was voluntary, truthful and admissible in evidence. (ii) Whether the confessions of the co-accused were admissible against the appellant in the absence of a joint trial.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's confession recorded under the TADA Act was voluntary, truthful and admissible in evidence.

Analysis: The confession had to satisfy the statutory safeguards governing recording under the TADA Act and the rules, and had to be shown to have been made in a free atmosphere without fear, duress or inducement. The materials on record did not show proper compliance with the mandatory safeguards, the warning required by the statute was not satisfactorily established, and the surrounding circumstances, including the appellant's earlier complaints of torture, cast serious doubt on voluntariness. A confession not proved to be voluntary cannot be acted upon.

Conclusion: The appellant's confession was held inadmissible and could not support conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the confessions of the co-accused were admissible against the appellant in the absence of a joint trial.

Analysis: The admissibility of a co-accused's confession as substantive evidence under the TADA Act was treated as contingent on the accused being charged and tried together in the same case. Since the appellant was tried separately after being absconding, the joint-trial condition was not satisfied. In the absence of joint trial, the co-accused confessions could not be used against the appellant.

Conclusion: The co-accused confessions were held inadmissible against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant was unsustainable in law and the appeal was allowed, resulting in acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession under the TADA Act is usable only when the statutory safeguards are scrupulously followed and voluntariness is proved; a co-accused's confession is admissible against another accused only when they are tried jointly in the same case.

---