AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 2373 ::AIR 2020 SC (Criminal) 939 ::AIROnline 2020 SC 444 ::2020 (2) SCC (Cri) 863 ::(2020) 6 Scale 193 ::2020 (5) SCC 118 ::2020 SCC OnLine SC 346 ::2020 (6) Mh LJ (Cri) 9 ::2020 (3) Cg LJ 90 ::2020 (3) All Cri LR 352 ::2020 (2) Mad LJ (Cri) 568 ::2020 (2) JLJR 321 ::2020 (2) Crimes 22

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta , JJ

(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987) , S.15(1)— Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules (1987) , R.15(3)— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.30— Confession by terrorist - Admissibility - No contemporary records to show that accused was warned as required under S.15 of TADA Act and R.15(3) of TADA Rules - Nothing on record to prove the voluntariness of statement - Confession cannot be said to be voluntary. 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 Ss. 25 to 30 of the Evidence Act. S. 15 of the TADA Act operates independently of the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code. It is necessary to notice that complying with S. 15 of TADA Act and R. 15 of TADA Rules is not an empty formality or a mere technicality as these provisions serve a statutory purpose to ensure a fair trial as guaranteed under 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. In law, it is not ....