TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act, 1908 and all the sentences imposed were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that during June 1988, the absconding Accused, Ilango @ Kumaran @ Ravi @ Santhosh and Suku @ Sukumaran @ Kumar, had formed an organization at Trichy under the name 'Tamilar Pasarai', with the object of achieving separate Statehood for Tamil Nadu and to blast Central and State Government buildings with bombs with a view to overawe the Government established by law. The Appellant herein and 13 other Accused have enrolled themselves in the said organization and they entered into a criminal conspiracy during June 1988 to commit an illegal act and to blast the State Government building in the Secretariat by name 'Namakkal Kavignar Maligai' and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, Suku and Shanmuga Sundaram had undergone a course in electronics at Tamil Nadu Advanced Technical Institute, Trichy, and learnt the mechanism for devising electronic timer, to be used in the time bombs to be manufactured by them. 3. The further case of the prosecution is that during September 1990, the above said Suku had brought electronic printed circuit board, integ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... After completion of the investigation, the police on 03.09.1993, filed the charge-sheet against the Accused Nos. 1 to 14 and the unknown Accused, Under Section 120-B read with Section 3(3), 4(1) of the TADA Act and Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 7 read with Section 35(1)(A), Section 3 read with Section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Special Judge in the aforesaid case. 8. It was the further case of the prosecution that on 24.05.2007, PW-28, Superintendent of Police, Ashok Kumar, 'Q' Branch, CID Head Quarters, Chennai, came to know about the arrest of the Appellant-Accused by the DSP 'Q' Branch Thanjavur, in connection with the Mannarkudi P.S. Cr. No. 954/94 and as the Appellant was involved in the subject case, the investigating officer was informed to take necessary steps for the same. Accordingly, PW-26 took steps for the police custody of the Appellant from 25.07.2007 to 27.07.2007. During the police custody, the Appellant voluntarily wished to give his confessional statement and as such he was produced before PW-28, Superintendent of Police, on 26.07.2007 with a requisition, Ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, he submits that the conviction of the Appellant by the Designated Court is unsustainable in law. 11. On the other hand, Shri Jayant Muth Raj, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent-State, has supported the impugned judgment of the Designated Court. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned senior Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 13. The Designated Court has convicted the Appellant on the basis of the confession of the Appellant made on 27.02.2007 (Ex. P-57) and the confession statement of the two other co-Accused (Ex. P-26 and P-27). 14. Therefore, the first question for consideration is whether the Appellant has made the confession (Ex. P-57) voluntarily and truthfully. 15. The law of confession is embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The confession is a form of admission consisting of direct acknowledgment of guilt in a criminal charge. In this connection, it is relevant to notice the observations of Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor 1939 PC 47 which is as under: ..... a confession must either admit in terms of an offence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Kartar Singh (supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court while upholding the validity of the said provision has issued certain guidelines to be followed while recording confession. These guidelines have been issued to ensure that the confession obtained in the pre-indictment interrogation by a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police is not tainted with any vice but is in strict conformity with the well-recognised and accepted aesthetic principles and fundamental fairness. These guidelines are: (1) The confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere in the same language in which the person is examined and as narrated by him; (2) The person from whom a confession has been recorded Under Section 15(1) of the Act, should be produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the confession is required to be sent Under Rule 15(5) along with the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical device without unreasonable delay; (3) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate should scr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade voluntarily and truthfully then the said confession is sufficient to base a conviction on the maker of the confession. (ii) Whether such confession requires corroboration or not, is a matter for the court considering such confession on facts of each case. (iii) In regard to the use of such confession as against a co-Accused, it has to be held that as a matter of caution, a general corroboration should be sought for but in cases where the court is satisfied that the probative value of such confession is such that it does not require corroboration then it may base a conviction on the basis of such confession of the co-Accused without corroboration. But this is an exception to the general Rule of requiring corroboration when such confession is to be used against a co-Accused. (iv) The nature of corroboration required both in regard to the use of confession against the maker as also in regard to the use of the same against a co-Accused is of a general nature, unless the court comes to the conclusion that such corroboration should be on material facts also because of the facts of a particular case. The degree of corroboration so required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he answers were elicited, there is no record to show that the Appellant-Accused was warned as required Under Section 15 of the TADA Act and Rule 15(3) of the TADA Rules. During his cross-examination PW-28 has stated that he gave warning to the Accused which was not supported by any contemporary record, namely, Ex. P-56 dated 26.06.2007. As it is seen in Ex. P-57, only two questions were asked to the Appellant and answers elicited, which do not reflect any warning as required under the TADA Act and the TADA Rules. The evidence of PW-28 is that he gave the same warning which he had given on 26.07.2007. There are no contemporary records to show that the warning was made on 26.07.2007 or 27.07.2007. The second question asked on 27.07.2007 (per Ex. P-57) assumes much importance. In this question PW-28 has only explained to the Accused that he had been produced only to record his statement. He did not explain to the Accused that he had been produced to record the confession. 21. It was contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent, that the footnote appended to Ex. P-56 would satisfy Section 15 of TADA Act and Rule 15 of TADA Rules. It is necessary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant was absconding, hence the proclamation order was issued by the trial court and thereafter the case was split against the Appellant. A separate trial was conducted against the Appellant and the impugned judgment convicting the Appellant-Accused has been passed by the Designated Court. 26. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Appellant, is that the Appellant cannot take the advantage of his own wrong to thwart the object and purpose of Section 15 of the TADA Act. 27. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the confession statements of the two co-Accused are not at all admissible in evidence because there was no joint trial of those two co-Accused with the Appellant. Therefore, Ex. P-26 and Ex. P-27 are not admissible in evidence. 28. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co-Accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co-Accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co-Accused. The Constitution Bench of this Court in K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under: 30. ...Therefore we notice that the accepted principle in law is that a confessional statement of an Accused recorded Under Section 15 of the TADA Act is a substantive piece of evidence even against his co-Accused provided the Accused concerned are tried together. 31. In the instant case, no doubt, the Appellant was absconding. That is why, joint trial of the Appellant with the other two Accused persons could not be held. As noticed above, Section 15 of the TADA Act specifically provides that the confession recorded shall be admissible in trial of a co-Accused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the Accused who makes the confession. We are of the view, that if for any reason, a joint trial is not held, the confession of a co-Accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another Accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case. We are of the further opinion that if we are to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the Respondent-State, it is as good as re-writing the scope of Section 15 of the TADA Act as amended in the year 1993. 32. In Ananta Dixit v. The State 1984 Crl. L.J. 1126 the....