RAJA @ AYYAPPAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1112 · Decided: 01-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
RAJA @ AYYAPPAN
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1120 of 2010)
APRIL 01, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 –
s.15 – Conviction of appellant on the basis of confession – Plea
of appellant that the alleged confession was not recorded in a free
atmosphere and prescribed procedure under the Act and rules were
not followed while recording confession and, therefore, the
confession was not admissible in evidence as it was not voluntary
– Held: In the instant case, confession was recorded by the
Superintendent of Police (PW-28) – In the evidence of PW-28, there
was nothing to show that the appellant-accused was warned as
required u/s.15 of the Act and r.15(3) of TADA Rules – Complying
with these rules is not an empty formality or a mere technicality as
these provisions serve a statutory purpose to ensure a fair trial as
guaranteed u/Art.21 of the Constitution of India – The entire
proceedings on record should reflect application of mind into
various surrounding circumstances including questions and
answers elicited from the accused – Mere recording in a certificate
will only amount to technical observance of the rule but that will
not prove the voluntariness of the statement – It is evident that from
out of the questions put by PW-28 and the answers elicited and
the manner in which the appellant has made the statement are all
the foundations upon which it is to be found out as to whether the
statement was made voluntarily or not – PW-28 merely explained
to him that he had been produced only to record the statement –
He did not explain to the appellant that he had been produced to
record the confession –  Thus, there is nothing on record to prove
the voluntariness of the statement – Confessional statement of
appellant rejected – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.164 –
Constitution of India – Art.21 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
Rules – r.15(3).
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1112
1112
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1113
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: s.15
– Confessional statement of co-accused made in separate trial –
Admissibility of, in case of appellant – Held: Not admissible – s.15
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 – 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 – Since the trial of the other two
accused persons was separate, their confessional statements  were
not admissible in evidence and the same cannot be taken as
evidence against the appellant – Designated Court was not justified
in convicting the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is well-settled that a confession which is not
free from doubt about its voluntariness, is not admissible in
evidence. A confession caused by inducement, threat or promise
cannot be termed as voluntary confession.  Whether a confession
is voluntary or not is essentially a question of fact. [Para 16]
[1121-B]
Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor 1939 PC 47 ;
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC
600 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 – relied on.
1.2 Section 15(1) of the TADA Act is a self-contained
scheme for recording the confession of an accused charged with
an offence under the said Act. This provision of law is a
departure from the provisions of Sections 25 to 30 of the
Evidence Act. Section 15 of the TADA Act operates
independently of the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure
Code.  In Kartar Singh, a Constitution Bench of this Court, while
upholding the validity of the said provision, issued certain
guidelines to be followed while recording confession. These
guidelines were 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. [Para 17]
[1121-H; 1122-A-B]
RAJA @ AYYAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
2.1 The appellant (DW-1) in his evidence stated that he
was arrested on 19.05.2007 and was allegedly torture

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.