Rettracted confession under TADA upheld as reliable with corroboration, while a co-accused was acquitted for lack of proof.
A confession recorded under section 15 of TADA can sustain conviction if it is voluntary, truthful and properly recorded. The Court found the first appellant's confession complied with statutory procedure, treated the retraction as an afterthought, and relied on independent corroboration from handwriting evidence and a witness account to affirm the conviction. By contrast, the material against the second appellant did not prove involvement in the manufacture, carriage, planting or explosion of the device beyond reasonable doubt, and the uncorroborated implicating evidence was unsafe to accept. His conviction was therefore not sustained and he was given the benefit of doubt.
Issues: (i) Whether the confessional statement recorded under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 could be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the first appellant despite retraction; (ii) Whether the evidence on record proved the second appellant's involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue (i): Whether the confessional statement recorded under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 could be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the first appellant despite retraction.
Analysis: A confession recorded under section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 can form the basis of conviction if it is properly recorded, voluntary and truthful. The statement of the first appellant was found to have been recorded after due compliance with the statutory procedure and the retraction was treated as an afterthought. The confession was also supported by independent corroboration, including the handwriting evidence relating to the posters recovered from the scene and the evidence of the witness who described the events leading to the blast.
Conclusion: The confession was admissible and sufficient, with corroboration, to uphold the conviction of the first appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the evidence on record proved the second appellant's involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
Analysis: The material against the second appellant was limited and did not establish participation in the manufacture, carriage, planting or explosion of the device. The references to him were not corroborated by reliable independent evidence, and the Court found that it would not be safe to rely on the uncorroborated portion of the witness statement implicating him. On the overall evidence, the prosecution failed to eliminate reasonable doubt.
Conclusion: The second appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and his conviction could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The conviction of the first appellant was affirmed, while the second appellant was acquitted for want of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded under section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, if found to be voluntary, truthful and properly recorded, may itself sustain conviction, and a retracted confession remains usable where the court is satisfied of its genuineness and finds corroboration sufficient on the facts of the case.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
