ORDER By the judgment and order dated 10th October, 2000 the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Bhiwani at Sirsa convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 3(3) and 3(4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA Act") and sentenced them to suffer R.I. for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for each of the offence. The appellants accused have filed this appeal challenging the said judgment and order. 2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that except the so-called confessional statements made by the accused to the police officer, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime. He further pointed out that the accused were in the police custody and they were not informed that they would be produced before the Judicial Magistrate after recording their confessional statements and subsequently sent to the judicial custody. He has submitted that the so-called confessional statements were neither voluntary nor truthful and the accused were falsely implicated because of political enmity. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that one Mange Ram lodged an FIR on 19.5.1992 to the effect that at midnight at 11.30 p.m., he along with one Inderpal went at his liquor shop and there he found that the liquor shop has been put on fire and the doors were lying open. He saw that his three servants were found lying dead inside the liquor shop. Near the gate, the driver of the jeep was also found dead on a cot. After leaving Inderpal at the site, he met Gurjant Singh, Sarpanch of the village who informed him that at about 11.30 p.m. five terrorists armed with AK-47 rifles arrived in a jeep and have done this disruptive activity. On his complaint, an FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. During the investigation on 8-6-1992, the appellants were arrested. On 10.6.1992, their confessional statements were recorded by PW 5 V. Kamraja, Superintendent of Police, Sirsa to the effect that they met terrorists on the way while they were returning after purchasing medicine. Thereafter, the three terrorists came to their house and stayed there on many occasions. They were given food and they were keeping their arms in their house. On 10.6.1992, their confessional statements were recorded by PW 5 V. Kamraja, Superintendent of Police, Sirsa to the effect that they met terrorists on the way while they were returning after purchasing medicine. Thereafter, the three terrorists came to their house and stayed there on many occasions. They were given food and they were keeping their arms in their house. On 8th May, the three terrorists came at their house with revolver and rifles and stated that Theka liquor should be shut and those who were working there should be killed, for that purpose, they took their red colour jeep. On 13th May, 1992, just to deceive the police, her mother lodged the false FIR that the jeep had been borrowed by his friend and he has not returned. On the basis of the said statement, appellants are convicted on the ground that they have rendered assistance to the terrorists by providing their jeep bearing No. PBO-3A-717 and also harboured the accused by providing them residential facility. 4. It is admitted on record that none of the terrorists was prosecuted as it is alleged that all had died during the encounter with the police on different dates. However, it has come on record that one terrorist Lakhbir Singh was arrested and he had made some confessional statement, but subsequently, he also died in encounter with the police. After framing the charge and recording the evidence the learned Judge relied upon the confessional statement made by the appellants and convicted them as stated above. 5. In our view, there is much substance in what has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants. In the present case, admittedly, apart from the so-called confessional statements, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. The jeep belonging to the accused was not found by the Investigating Officer. There is nothing on record to establish that terrorist used the said jeep for committing the offence. As per the FIR lodged by the mother of the appellant No. 1, someone knocked at the door in the morning at about 4.00 a.m. on 14th May, 1992 and called her son Sandeep to open the door. There is nothing on record to establish that terrorist used the said jeep for committing the offence. As per the FIR lodged by the mother of the appellant No. 1, someone knocked at the door in the morning at about 4.00 a.m. on 14th May, 1992 and called her son Sandeep to open the door. When she enquired about the person who was knocking the door they replied that door may be opened as they wanted the jeep for going to see a relative who was ill and they informed that they were the friends of Sandeep. On their request, the keys of the jeep were handed over but thereafter they never turned up. On the FIR there is endorsement by the PSO to the effect that the above information does not apparently attract the offence of G.H.; even though the circumstances are sufficient. It is also stated by him that the investigation be made and action will be taken according to the warranting circumstances and that for the search of the jeep all SHOs and officers had been informed by wireless. In view of the aforesaid FIR, it would be difficult to hold that accused willingly handed over the jeep to the terrorists for committing terrorist activity. FIR was lodged on 14.5.1992 and the incident had taken place on 19.5.1992 at about 11.30 p.m. With regard to the stay of the terrorists at the house of accused the prosecution has examined PW 3 Gurmail Singh who has specifically stated that he never saw any terrorists coming and going to the house of the accused. No doubt he has been treated hostile. But apart from this evidence, there is nothing on record which would corroborate the so-called confessional statement that the accused harboured the terrorists or willingly handed over their jeep to them. There is nothing on record to indicate when terrorists first contacted the accused and on how many occasions they took harbour at their house. Further it is admitted position as stated by PW 5 Ratbir Singh, SHO that on 9th June, 1992, accused were arrested and remanded to the police custody. They were produced before the S.P., Sirsa for recording their confessional statements and they remained in custody of the police even after recording their confessional statements. To the same effect, there is evidence of PW 6 V. Kamraja who recorded the confessional statements. They were produced before the S.P., Sirsa for recording their confessional statements and they remained in custody of the police even after recording their confessional statements. To the same effect, there is evidence of PW 6 V. Kamraja who recorded the confessional statements. He has also admitted that after recording their confessional statements, they were not produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and that with regard to the torture to the accused in the police custody, he has asked the question to them, but it was not recorded by him in proceedings. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any statement or they were tortured by the police or that they were not produced before him. Considering the aforesaid facts, it would not be just, reasonable or safe without their being any corroborative evidence to solely rely upon to so-called confessional statements made by the accused who were in police custody before and after recording their confessional statements. In such a situation, it would be difficult to hold that the said confessional statements are truthful. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court Sirsa is quashed and set aside. The appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (N.K.R.) Appeal allowed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(5) Supreme 515 : 2001 (3) Crimes 435 00024