TADA intent and murder conspiracy: Supreme Court set aside terrorist charges, but upheld proved conspiracy and tailored sentences.

TADA liability required proof of the specific statutory intent to overawe Government, strike terror, alienate a section of the people, or disturb harmony; the evidence of a politically motivated assassination did not establish that intent, so the TADA convictions were set aside. Criminal conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC was proved against only those accused against whom confessional, eyewitness, documentary and circumstantial evidence showed a meeting of minds and participation in the common design. The Court held that a confession recorded under Section 15 of TADA remained admissible in the connected IPC trial. Applying the rarest of rare doctrine, it confirmed death for the principal conspirators and life imprisonment for the remaining proved conspirators.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were liable for offences under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 on the facts proved. (ii) Whether the evidence established a criminal conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and what sentence was warranted for the proved conspirators.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were liable for offences under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 on the facts proved.

Analysis: The statutory offences under Section 3 and Section 4 of the TADA Act required proof of a terrorist act or disruptive activity committed with the requisite intent to overawe the Government, strike terror in the people, alienate any section of the people, or adversely affect harmony. The evidence showed a politically motivated assassination directed at Rajiv Gandhi, but not the specific statutory intent demanded by TADA. The Court held that mere catastrophic consequences, however grave, could not substitute for proof of the particular intent contemplated by the Act. The materials also did not establish disruptive activity within the meaning of Section 4, nor did the confessional and circumstantial evidence show the necessary statutory foundation for Section 5.

Conclusion: The TADA convictions were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established a criminal conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and what sentence was warranted for the proved conspirators.

Analysis: Criminal conspiracy was proved through a chain of confessional statements, corroborative eyewitness testimony, documentary material, conduct before and after the assassination, and the surrounding circumstances showing a meeting of minds to eliminate Rajiv Gandhi. The Court held that confession under Section 15 of TADA remained admissible in the joint trial for the IPC offence, and that the agreement, not merely the completed murder, constituted the essence of the conspiracy. On sentence, the Court applied the "rarest of rare" doctrine and held that the assassination of a former Prime Minister in a politically motivated, pre-planned and exceptionally brutal attack, causing multiple deaths and injuries, warranted the ultimate penalty for the principal conspirators. Some accused were found to have joined only after the murder or to have merely harboured offenders, and their conspiracy convictions were not sustained.

Conclusion: Conviction under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustained only against the identified conspirators, with death confirmed for the principal offenders and life imprisonment imposed for the remaining proved conspirators as ordered.

Final Conclusion: The judgment substantially exonerated the appellants from TADA liability, while affirming conspiracy convictions only against those against whom the agreement to murder was proved and calibrating punishment by the degree of participation and the gravity of the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under TADA requires proof of the precise statutory intent for a terrorist or disruptive act, whereas a murder conspiracy may be proved by a chain of direct and circumstantial evidence showing agreement, participation, and conduct in furtherance of the common design; a confession recorded under Section 15 of TADA remains admissible in the joint trial for the connected IPC offence.

---