1993 Bomb Blast Case: Confession recorded under TADA Act, with statutory requirements and under given conditions, then it can be admitted against its maker, co- accused, abettor or conspirator
Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2004
Bench: Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla; Justice Uday Umesh Lalit
Case Brief: The present appeal is an appeal under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, and the appellants here challenging the judgement and final order which was passed by Designated Court, Ajmer. In the facts of the case, there was a bomb blast in various trains during night intervening 5th and 6th December, 1993 and originally there were 16 accused persons, out of them one who had earlier escaped from custody, later arrested, as such being tried separately and one other was also a juvenile as such was tried separately. Now, in this appeal, the appellants are accused no. 1 to 5, 7 to 11 and 13 to 16 are contesting. After considering the confessional statement and other prosecution evidence, the Designated Court found that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no. 1 to 5 and 7 to 16 had conspired and caused terrorist acts by causing bomb blasts in six trains. Moreover, the accused no. 1 to 5 and 7 to 14 and 16 were found guilty of the offence punishable under section 3(3) of the Act while Accused no. 15 was found guilty of the offence punishable under section 3(3) of the Act read with section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As such the Designated Court convicted and sentenced the accused for the various offences through its decision.
Thus, this bench decided to consider the validity of the confessions in this case. The most important confession is considered in this case, was of Accused no. 1 whose confession in this case was not recorded, but was recorded in Bombay Bomb Blast Case. Moreover, this bench considered the confession of Accused no. 1 certainly if it was to otherwise admissible in Law. Also this bench found that the registration of crime under the provisions of concerned Act was valid and proper. And it is well settled position that the confessions recorded under Section 15 (1) of the Act as per statutory requirements and conditions under Rule 15 of TADA Rules, then it is admissible against maker, co- accused, abettor or conspirator, subject to some conditions. Bench also found that with the documentary evidence on record the confession of Accused no. 1 proved against him and in favour of prosecution. Also, the confessions of Accused 1, 3, 4 and 16 proved to the role of Accused 5. Confession of accused 4 shown fifth accused presence in meeting as to bomb blasts and other confessions were also proved and establishing the guilt of accused persons. Thus, the conviction and sentence of Accused no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15 and 16 affirmed. Their appeals were dismissed. However, the appeals for Accused no. 8, 9, 10 and 13 were allowed and their conviction and sentence were set aside. The appeals disposed of accordingly.
Read the Judgement: Mohd.Jalees Ansari & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation