NDLI: Raja @ Ayyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	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).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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 325
Petitioner	Raja @ Ayyappan
Respondent	State Of Tamil Nadu
SCR	[2020] 4 S.C.R. 1112
Judgement Date	2020-04-01
Case Number	1120

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Raja @ Ayyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sivarasan @raghu @sivarasa and Ors.

Bharatbhai @ Jim! Premchandbhai Vs. State of Gujarat

Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Ganesh Gogoi Vs. State of Assam

Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana

Balbir Singh Vs. State

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam

Bihari Manjhi and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Raja @ Ayyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Raja @ Ayyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sivarasan @raghu @sivarasa and Ors.

Bharatbhai @ Jim! Premchandbhai Vs. State of Gujarat

Sahib Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Ganesh Gogoi Vs. State of Assam

Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Paras Ram Vs. State of Haryana

Balbir Singh Vs. State

Arup Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam

Bihari Manjhi and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar

Raja @ Ayyappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu