https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169749 Strict compliance with statutory safeguards is required for confessions recorded under a special anti-terror law; where those safeguards were breached, the confessions of Afzal and Shaukat were treated as unsafe, while intercepted conversations and call records remained admissible because interception illegality did not by itself bar proof and the records were otherwise established. The Court also explained Section 27 discovery and Section 8 conduct evidence. On the remaining circumstantial evidence, a complete chain supported Afzal's role in conspiracy, abetment of waging war, murder-related offences and explosives offences, while the evidence against Shaukat, Gilani and Afsan Guru was insufficient for most charges, leaving Shaukat liable only for withholding information about offences against the State. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169749 Strict compliance with statutory safeguards is required for confessions recorded under a special anti-terror law; where those safeguards were breached, the confessions of Afzal and Shaukat were treated as unsafe, while intercepted conversations and call records remained admissible because interception illegality did not by itself bar proof and the records were otherwise established. The Court also explained Section 27 discovery and Section 8 conduct evidence. On the remaining circumstantial evidence, a complete chain supported Afzal's role in conspiracy, abetment of waging war, murder-related offences and explosives offences, while the evidence against Shaukat, Gilani and Afsan Guru was insufficient for most charges, leaving Shaukat liable only for withholding information about offences against the State. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169749