Suku, the absconding accused 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 to Government established by law. The appellant herein and 13 other accused have enrolled themselves in the said organization and they entered into criminal conspiracy during June 1988 to commit an illegal act to blast the state government building. The bomb was noticed and it was subsequently defused. The co-accused were arrested and confession taken. The appellant was absconding, hence the proclamation order was issued by the trial court, and thereafter the case was split against the appellant. In the separate trial, the appellant voluntarily wished to give his confessional statement.
The law of confession is embodied in section 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872. A confession is a form of admission consisting of direct acknowledgment of guilt in a criminal charge. 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 a voluntary confession. Section 15(1) of the TADA Act is a self-contained scheme for recording the confession of an accused charged with an offense under the said Act. This provision of law is a departure from the provisions of sections 25-30 of the Evidence Act and it operates independently of the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code.
Section 30 of the Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of 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 Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, while considering the interplay between section 30 of Evidence Act and section 15 of the TADA Act held as per section 15 of the TADA Act, after the amendment of the year 1993, the confession of the co-accused, is also a substantive piece of evidence provided that there is a joint trial. Held, that since the trial of the other two accused persons was separate, their confession statements are not admissible in evidence and cannot be taken as evidence against the appellant.
(2020) 5 SCC 118- Raja alias Ayyappan v. State of Tamil Nadu