Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2012

Periyasami s/o. Duraisami Novanagar … Appellant

Vs.

State represented through  the Inspector of Police, ‘Q’ Branch CID, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu. …

Respondent

WITH  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2013

Senthilkumar … Appellant  

Vs.   

State of Tamil Nadu … Respondent  

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

Page 2

1.  The present  appeals  filed   under  Section  19 of  the  

Terrorist  And  Disruptive  Activities  (Prevention)  Act,  1987  

(“the TADA”)  are directed against the judgment and order  

dated  27/06/2012  passed  by  the  Principal  Sessions  Judge  

and Designated Judge under the TADA,  for  Tiruchirapalli in  

Calendar Case No.45 of 1995 in Crime No.307 of 1992 of  

Vridhachalam  Railway  Police  Station.   The  appellant  in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.787 of 2013 is  Senthilkumar @ Kumar  

(‘A1-Senthilkumar’  for  convenience).   The  appellant  in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.1272  of  2012  is  Periyasami  (‘A2-

Periyasami’  for convenience).   

2. According  to  the  prosecution,  on  24/10/1992,  PW-10  

Ramasamy  was  driving  Quilon  Express  (Train  No.6105).  

When the train reached near Maruvathur Peria Odai Bridge  

No.276, he noticed some object over the railway track.  He  

immediately  applied  emergency  brake  and  stopped  the  

train.  PW-11 Rajendran Raja, who was the Assistant Driver  

stepped  down  from  the  train  along  with  the  guard  and  

proceeded to inspect the track.   They saw some boulders  

2

Page 3

placed on the track covered with green leaves.  At that time,  

they  heard  a  loud  noise  near  the  bridge  situated  at  a  

distance  of  1  K.M.   In  the  meantime,  PW-2  Ganapathy,  

Station  Master  3  of  Sillakudi  Station  received  information  

that Quilon Express had started from Kallagam Station after  

crossing  of  Pearl  City  Express,  but  had  not  reached  

Palanganatham.  He instructed PW-1 Antonisamy, PW-4 Hazi  

Salahudeen, PW-6 Thangaraj and PW-7 Ponnaian to find out  

the reason for the delay of the Quilon Express.  They found  

at the place of occurrence the rails bent upwards and the  

gravel  stones  and  the  sleepers  broken  and  dislocated.  

Under the bridge, they saw some papers containing slogans.  

They saw some slogans written on the bridge walls.  Some  

boulders were also found over the railway track covered with  

green leaves.   PW-8 Raja  Chidambaram,  SEP at  Kallagam  

Station also went in search of the train along the track and  

found the train on the northern side of Bridge No.276.  He  

found  boulders  placed  on  the  track  covered  with  green  

leaves.  The sleepers were found broken and dislocated and  

rails found bent upwards.   

3

Page 4

3. On information being received from the control  room  

about the bomb blast on the railway line, PW-29 Hyder Ali  

Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway, Vridhachalam rushed  

to the place of occurrence.  He received complaint [Ex-P1]  

dated 24/10/1992 from PW-1 Antonisamy and registered a  

case being Crime No.307 of 1992 against unknown persons  

under  Section  150  of  the  Indian  Railways  Act  and  under  

Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act and Sections 120-B  

and 124 of the IPC.  The printed version of First Information  

Report [Ex-P11] was forwarded to Judicial Magistrate No. V,  

Tiruchirappalli and a copy was forwarded to the Inspector of  

Police,  Railways,  Villupuram  for  necessary  action.  

Investigation was started.  It appears from the evidence of  

PW-40 Pattabiraman, the Inspector of Police of “Q” Branch  

CID, Tiruchirappalli that after he took over investigation, he  

interrogated  PW-15  Sevi  Periyasamy.   He  got  the  leads.  

Involvement  of  A1-Senthilkumar,  A2-Periyasami  and  other  

accused was disclosed.   A1-Senthilkumar  was arrested on  

17/12/1993. On his search, five gelatin sticks concealed in  

4

Page 5

his right side waist, five electric detonators concealed in his  

left side waist and two pen torch cells from his pocket were  

recovered.  They were seized under Mahazar [Ex-P5].   On  

19/12/1993, the confessional statement of A1-Senthilkumar  

was  recorded  by  PW-37  Ramanujam,  Superintendent  of  

Police, “Q” Branch CID under Section 15 of the TADA, after  

following  the  necessary  procedure.   A2-Periyasami  was  

arrested on 9/1/1994.  

4. Upon  completion  of  investigation,  PW-40  PI  

Pattabiraman filed a police report under Section 173 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against A1-

Senthilkumar,  A2-Periyasami,  absconding accused Rajaram  

@ Madhavan alleging that  A1-Senthilkumar,  A2-Periyasami  

along with absconding accused Rajaram @ Madhavan and  

deceased Lenin and Karalan @ Nagarajan are members of  

“Tamil  Nadu  Viduthalai  Padai”  and  “Thamizhaga  Makkal  

Viduthalai  Padai”,  the  main  object  of  which  was  to  strike  

terror in the people by planting bombs to cause derailment  

of  trains  and  to  cause  damage  to  Central  and  State  

5

Page 6

Government  properties  by such acts  and to  secede Tamil  

Nadu  from  the  Indian  Union.   It  was  alleged  that  A1-

Senthilkumar,  A2-Periyasami,  along  with  the  absconding  

accused  Rajaram  @  Madhavan  and  deceased  Lenin  and  

Karalan @ Nagarajan conspired together and A2-Periyasami  

introduced  witness  Sevi  Periyasamy   to  them  at  

Duraimangalam  and  they  manufactured  explosive  bombs  

and caused blast  of the rails of Bridge No.276 in between  

Kms.  292/6  and  7  situated  between  Kallakudi  

Pazhanganatham  and  Kallagam  railway  stations  on  

24/10/1992 at 2.45 hours with intention to endanger the life  

of passengers of Quilon Express which usually crosses the  

bridge  at  or  about  the  same  time  and  the  explosion  

damaged 20 wooden sleepers and rails to a length of 20 feet  

and portion of concrete structures.  The disaster was averted  

because  the  engine  driver  stopped  the  train  noticing  the  

boulders on the rails.  It was also alleged that on 17/12/1993  

A1-Senthilkumar  was  in  unathorised  possession  of  

detonators and gelatin sticks without any permit.  The report  

alleged  various  charges  under  the  TADA,  the  Explosive  

6

Page 7

Substances Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property  

Act and the Railways Act against the accused.  

5. As accused Rajaram @ Madhavan was absconding, the  

case against him was split.  Since it was reported that he  

had died, his case was disposed of as having abated.  

6. The trial court framed charge against A1-Senthilkumar  

for offences under Section 120(B) IPC read with Section 3(3)  

and Section 4(1) of the TADA, Sections 3(2) (ii), 4(1) and 5 of  

the TADA, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,  

Section 150(2) (b) of the Railways Act and Section 3 read  

with  Section  4  of  the  Prevention  of  Damage  to  Public  

Property Act. As against A2-Periyasami the trial court framed  

charge under Section 120(B) IPC read with Sections 3(3) and  

4(1) of the TADA, Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the TADA, Section  

3  of the Explosive Substances Act,  and Section 3 read with  

Section 4 of  the Prevention of  Damage to Public  Property  

Act.   

7

Page 8

7. A1-Senthilkumar and A2-Periyasami pleaded not guilty  

to  charges.   Two  defence  witnesses  were  examined  to  

establish that the police threatened them and asked them to  

produce  A1-Senthilkumar  thus  suggesting  that  A1-

Senthilkumar  was  falsely  implicated.   The  prosecution  

examined 41 witnesses.  

8. After perusing the  evidence, the trial court convicted  

A1-Senthilkumar under Section 120(B) IPC read with Sections  

3(3) and 4(1) of the TADA, Sections 3(2) (ii), 4(1) and 5 of  

the TADA, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,  

under  Section  150(2)  (b)  of  the  Railways  Act,  1989  and  

under  Section 3 read with  Section  4  of  the  Prevention  of  

Damage  to  Public  Property  Act  and  sentenced  him  to  

undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 150(2)  

(b) of the Railways Act; rigorous imprisonment for a period of  

5  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  and  in  default  to  

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  further  period  of  6  

months for  offence under Section 120(B) of  IPC read with  

Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the TADA; rigorous imprisonment  

8

Page 9

for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in  

default  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  further  

period of 6 months for offence under Section 3(2) (ii) of the  

TADA; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to  

pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  and  in  default  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a further period of 6 months for offence  

under Section  4(1) of the TADA; rigorous imprisonment for a  

period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default  

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6  

months for  offence under Section 5 of the TADA; rigorous  

imprisonment  for  a  period of  10 years and to pay fine of  

Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment  

for a further period of 6 months for offence under Section 3  

of the Explosive Substances Act; rigorous imprisonment for a  

period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default  

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6  

months  for  offence  under  Section  4  of  the  Explosive  

Substances Act and rigorous imprisonment for  a period of  

one  year  and to pay fine of  Rs.1,000/-  and in  default  to  

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  further  period  of  2  

9

Page 10

months for offence under Section 3  read with Section 4 of  

the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (Total fine  

Rs.7,000/-).    Substantive  sentences  were  to  run  

concurrently.  

9. The trial court convicted A2-Periyasami  under Section  

120(B) of the IPC read with Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the  

TADA, Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the TADA and under Section  

3  read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public  

Property  Act  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment  for  a  period  of  5  years  and  to  pay  fine  of  

Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment  

for a further period of 6 months for offence under Section  

120(B) of the IPC read with Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the  

TADA; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to  

pay  fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  and  in  default  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a further period of 6 months for offence  

under Section 3(3) of the TADA; rigorous imprisonment for a  

period of 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default  

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6  

10

Page 11

months for  offence under Section  4(1)  of  the TADA; and  

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one  year and to pay  

fine  of  Rs.1,000/-  and  in  default  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a further period of 2 months for offence  

under Section 3  read with Section 4 of the Prevention of  

Damage  to  Public  Property  Act  (Total  fine  Rs.4,000/-).  

Substantive sentences were to run concurrently.  Both the  

accused  have  challenged  the  said  judgment  in  these  

appeals.  

10. Mr. M.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for A1-Senthilkumar  

submitted  that  the  prosecution  case  entirely  rests  on the  

confessional  statement  of  A1-Senthilkumar.   The  said  

statement is not voluntarily made and is retracted by him.  It  

is, therefore, not safe to rest conviction on it.   Besides, it is  

not  corroborated.   Counsel  submitted  that  it  is  also  not  

properly recorded.  Counsel further submitted that reliance  

also  cannot  be  placed  on  the  evidence  of  PW-15  Sevi  

Periyasamy and his  wife  PW-14  Chandra  because  both  of  

them  have  turned  hostile.   The  prosecution  has  not  

11

Page 12

examined any independent witness.  The evidence on record  

shows that PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy is, in fact, involved in this  

crime.  There is no explanation as to why he has not been  

made  an  accused.   The  prosecution  case  has  therefore,  

become suspect.  Counsel submitted that no reliance can be  

placed on PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy who is himself an accused.  

Counsel submitted that in the circumstances, the conviction  

of A1-Senthilkumar deserves to be set aside.

11. Mr. Gowthaman, learned counsel for A2-Periyasami has  

submitted written submissions which we have perused.  He  

submitted  that  the  prosecution  has  not  proved  that  A2-

Periyasami  was  a  member  of  any  banned  organization.  

Relying on Pulin Das @ Panna Koch v.  State of Assam1,  

counsel submitted that conviction of A2-Periyasami cannot  

be  sustained.   Counsel  submitted  that  A2-Periyasami  was  

arrested  one  year  after  the  incident  because  there  was  

confusion  about  his  name.    Because  of  the  similarity  of  

name,  he is implicated in this case though he is in no way  

concerned  with  the  offence.   Counsel  submitted  that  no  1 (2008) 5 SCC 89

12

Page 13

reliance  can  be  placed  on  the  evidence  of  PW-15  Sevi  

Periyasamy,  because he himself is an accused.  He procured  

sulphur  for  the  preparation  of  bomb.    Counsel  further  

submitted that statement of  this witness is recorded under  

Section 164 of  the Code after  a  prolonged police custody  

hence, no  reliance can be placed on it.  In any case, it is  

uncontroverted  that  A2-Periyasami  had  asked  PW-15  Sevi  

Periyasamy to only provide food for the four persons who  

were  likely  to  come for  a  function.   Relying  on  Prakash  

Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto, etc.  v.  State of Gujarat2,  

counsel submitted that considering the role assigned to A2-

Periyasami,  his  conviction  must  be  set  aside.   There  is  

absolutely  no  evidence  on  record  to  establish  that  A2-

Periyasami had any prior knowledge  of the offence which  

was committed by the accused and, therefore, even if it is  

found that he had some contact with PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy  

it cannot be said that he was a part of the conspiracy.  In this  

connection,  he  relied  on  Vijayan,  etc.   v.   State  of  

Kerala3.  Counsel submitted that no witness has made any  

2 (2007) 4 SCC 266 3 (1999) 3 SCC 54

13

Page 14

specific  allegation  against  A2-Periyasami.   PW-15  Sevi  

Periyasamy turned hostile and A1-Senthilkumar retracted his  

confessional statement.   Therefore, there is no evidence on  

record to connect the accused with the crime.  He deserves  

to be acquitted. Counsel submitted that A2-Periyasami  has  

undergone two years  and nine  months  sentence and this  

fact may also be taken into consideration.

12. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Addl. Advocate General, for  

the State of Tamil Nadu on the other hand submitted that  

the validity of Section 15 of the TADA has been upheld by  

this  Court.   Therefore,  conviction  can  be  based  on  a  

confessional  statement  recorded  under  Section  15  of  the  

TADA.  If  a confessional  statement is  found to be truthful  

then,  despite  its  subsequent  retraction  or  its  denial  in  

statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, it can be  

relied upon.  In this connection, counsel relied on  State v.  

Nalini & Ors.4 and Yakub Abdul Razak Memon  v.  State  

of Maharashtra  5  .  Counsel submitted that in this case apart  4 (1999) 5 SCC 253 5 (2013) 3 SCALE 565

14

Page 15

from the confessional statement of A1-Senthilkumar, there is  

other  evidence  on  record  to  establish  complicity  of  the  

appellants.  In support of this submission, counsel took us  

through the evidence of PW-13 M. Paramasivam, the then  

Chief Permanent Inspector of Peralam and the evidence of  

PW-32  K.  Ramakrishnan,  the  then  Assistant  Director  of  

Forensic  Department.   Evidence  of  these  witnesses  show  

that the handwriting on the incriminating posters found at  

the scene of occurrence is that of A1-Senthilkumar.  Counsel  

also relied on the evidence of PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy who  

has turned hostile at a very late stage.  Counsel submitted  

that hostile witnesses’ evidence need not be totally ignored.  

Part of the evidence which is consistent can be relied upon.  

Counsel submitted that sufficient corroboration is available  

to the confessional statement of A1-Senthilkumar.  Counsel  

urged that since the involvement of the appellants is proved  

beyond doubt, the appeals be dismissed.  

13. The  prosecution’s  claim  that  on  24/10/1992  at  or  

around 2.45 a.m. there was a blast  at rails of Bridge No.276  

15

Page 16

in  between Kms.  292/6  and  7  situated  between  Kallakudi  

Pazhanganatham  and  Kallagam  Railway  Stations,  which  

damaged 20 wooden sleepers and rails to a length of 20 feet  

and a portion of concrete structures is  not disputed.   The  

engine driver of Quilon Express, which was to cross Bridge  

No.276, stopped the train as he saw boulders on the track.  

Thus, a great disaster was averted.  So far as the occurrence  

of the blast is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW-

1 to PW-13, who  are railway employees.  It is not necessary  

to  deal  with  their  evidence  because  there  is  no  serious  

challenge to that part of the prosecution story.

14. At the outset, we must deal with the submission that  

the  prosecution  has  not  examined  any  independent  

witnesses. It is common knowledge that when the terrorists  

unleash a way of terror, no independent witnesses are ready  

to come forward and depose against them.  Prosecution case  

cannot be rejected on this ground.  In any case, the evidence  

on  record  is  cogent  and  reliable  and,  therefore,  non-

examination  of  independent  witnesses  does  not  have any  

adverse impact on the prosecution case.  We may also note  

16

Page 17

that  the  evidence  of  defence  witnesses  does  not  inspire  

confidence and has rightly not been taken into consideration  

by  the  trial  court.   PW-14  Chandra  wife  of  PW-15  Sevi  

Periyasamy turned hostile. Some other formal witnesses also  

turned hostile. This, however, has not affected the core of  

prosecution case which is established by reliable evidence.  

We shall now deal with the evidence which, in our opinion,  

bears out the prosecution case.  

15. PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy appears to have given the leads  

to  the  investigating  agency  to  unearth  the  crime.   His  

statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code by  

the Judicial Magistrate Perambalur on 31/12/1993.  He stated  

that he is a member of Ambedkar Narpani Mandaram.  They  

had celebrated Ambedkar birthday function in 1991.  He met  

A2-Periyasami  in  that  function.   On  23/10/1992,  A2-

Periyasami came to his house and told him that one Lenin  

and 3 other persons will visit him, they will stay in the house  

till  night and that he should provide food to them.  Lenin  

came to his house at 1.30 p.m.  Lenin introduced him to the  

17

Page 18

other person who had come with him as Kumar.  Thereafter,  

two other persons came there.  They were introduced to him  

as Karalan and Rajaram.   He asked them as to for  what  

purpose they had come to his house.  They told him that  

they had come to participate in the function and they will  

stay in his house till night.  He put a cot in the cattle shed  

and asked them to sit.  He and his wife prepared food for  

them.  He saw both Lenin and Karalan removing the gelatin  

sticks.  They applied flour like powder over the same.  He  

suspected them.  He asked them as to what they were doing  

with gelatin sticks.  Karalan stated that he should not ask  

any  questions  about  what  they  were  doing.   Then  A1-

Senthilkumar  and Rajaram @ Madhavan wrote slogans on  

white colour paper with black ink such as “Veera Vanakkam”  

(royal  salute)  and  ‘Withdraw  the  cases  filed  against  the  

Tamilian leaders’.  Karalan then asked him to get two empty  

glass bottles.  He gave two bottles to them.  They broke the  

glass  bottles  into  powder.   Thereafter,  Karalan  gave  him  

Rs.12/- and asked him to purchase sulphur powder.  Since  

they threatened him, out of fear, he went to Perambalur and  

18

Page 19

purchased 100 gms. sulphur powder.  He came to his village  

and  handed  over  the  sulphur  powder  to  Karalan.   After  

taking food, they left keeping their goods in the cattle shed.  

After some time, all  of them returned with tin bottles and  

inserted  gelatin  sticks  in  tin  bottles.  They  left  the  house.  

When he asked them, where they were going, Lenin told him  

that he would come to know when he reads the newspaper  

on  the  next  day.   Next  day,  he  read the  newspaper  and  

came to know that the railway bridge situated at Kallakam  

Muthuvathur  village  had  been  destroyed  due  to  a  bomb  

blast.  He asked A2-Periyasami, who had caused the blast.  

A2-Periyasami told him that Lenin, Karalan and Rajaram @  

Madhavan were responsible for the blast and if he discloses  

this to anybody, his family would be killed.  Thereafter, he  

met A1-Senthilkumar at Thuraimangalam junction road.  A1-

Senthilkumar told him that he, Karalan, Lenin and Rajaram  

had destroyed the railway bridge.  He told A1-Senthilkumar  

that  he  cannot  give  him  shelter  in  his  house.   A1-

Senthilkumar went away telling him that if he discloses this  

to  anybody,  they  will  finish  his  family.   Therefore,  in  the  

19

Page 20

interest of his family, he did not disclose to anybody what he  

was  told.  Thereafter,  police  interrogated  him  and  he  

disclosed  the  facts  which  were  known  to  him.   He  also  

identified the photographs of Karalan, Rajaram and Lenin.  

16. He was examined in  the Court  on 13/9/1996 and on  

3/11/1997  when  he  reiterated  his  statement  given  under  

Section 164 of the Code.  He was recalled on 5/2/1998 when  

he stated that MO 5 series  (wall posters) were written by  

A1-Senthilkumar in his cattle shed.  He was again recalled on  

25/9/1998  when  he  acknowledged  that  on  31/12/1993  he  

had  given  statement  before  the  Judicial  Magistrate  at  

Perambalur.  He was again recalled on 19/9/2001.  On that  

day, he resiled from his earlier statement to some extent.  

He stated that he did not remember whether A2-Periyasami  

had personally informed him that four persons would come  

and he should feed them.  He, however, stated that the four  

persons did come and they informed him that they hail from  

the similar organization and he should provide food for them.  

He was again recalled on 28/9/2001.  On that day, he stated  

20

Page 21

that he saw Lenin when he came to his house and he came  

to know about Karalan when he visited his house.  He then  

stated that he was detained at Q Branch Police Station and  

he was told by the Investigating Officer that he would be set  

at  liberty  after  he  gave  his  statement  before  the  Judicial  

Magistrate.   He,  however,  denied  the  suggestion that  A1-

Senthilkumar did not meet him at his residence.  He stated  

that the person, who accompanied Lenin, informed him that  

his  name  was  A1-Senthilkumar.   He  stated  that  it  was  

incorrect to state that he was intimidated by the police from  

10/12/1992 to 30/12/1992.  He stated that he was tutored by  

the Investigating Officer to make the statement before the  

Judicial Magistrate.  He stated that he used to render help to  

any  Dalit  guest  and  he  would  not  have  given  food  and  

shelter to Lenin, if  he had knowledge that he belonged to  

that organization.  He then stated that he had not met A1-

Senthilkumar earlier and he was seeing him in the court for  

the first time.  Thus, it is apparent that on 28/9/2001, though  

he stuck to several assertions which he had made earlier, he  

resiled  from  his  statement  to  some  extent.   The  public  

21

Page 22

prosecutor,  therefore,  sought  permission  to  cross-examine  

him.   The  public  prosecutor  cross-examined  him.   In  the  

cross-examination, he stated that he gave this statement at  

the dictates of the Investigating Officer.   

17. PW-40  PI  Pattabiraman  stated  that  after  he  took  

custody of A1-Senthilkumar, he took his specimen signatures  

which  are  Ex-P/6  series.   He  further  stated  that  on  

19/12/1993,  he  took  A1-Senthilkumar  to  Chennai  and  

produced him before PW-37 Ramanujam, Superintendent of  

Police, Q Branch CID, Chennai and gave a written requisition  

for  recording  confessional  statement  of  A1-Senthilkumar  

under  Section  15  of  the  TADA.   On  20/12/1993,  at  1800  

hours  PW-37  Ramanujam  after  ascertaining  that  A1-

Senthilkumar  was  not  threatened  or  induced  to  give  his  

confessional statement, recorded his confessional statement  

and obtained his signature on each page.    

18. In  his  confessional  statement,  A1-Senthilkumar  has  

stated how he came in contact  with one Murugesan,  who  

was  running  an  association  to  spread  the  ideology  of  

22

Page 23

Ambedkar.  It is through Murugesan that he got acquainted  

with  the  activities  of  Tamil  Nadu  Liberation  Force  and  

associates of Murugesan like Lenin and Ravi.  He stated that  

in the house of Ravi, Murugesan, Lenin and others used to  

hold  secret  meetings;  they  used  to  say  that  Tamil  Nadu  

should secede from India and for that purpose, they have to  

fight with weapons.  He further stated that Lenin took him to  

the house of PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy.  Lenin told him that  

they had been sent by A2-Periyasami.   Within short time,  

Rajaram @ Madhavan and Karalan @ Nagarajan also came  

there.  Karalan brought a bag containing 40 gelatin sticks,  

one  long  green  colour  wire,  5  to  6  detonators  and  jute  

thread.  The bag brought by Rajaram @ Madhavan contained  

an empty tin of five litre capacity, two large drawing papers  

and two black and red colour sketch pens.  They had brought  

wall  papers  and  as  instructed  by  Lenin  and  Karalan  A1-

Senthilkumar  wrote  slogans  such  as  ‘Bravery  salute.  

Bravery  salute’,  ‘Let  the  liberation  struggle  of  Kashmiri  

people win’, ‘Withdraw the cases filed against Tamil leaders’,  

etc.  He further stated that in between, Lenin and Karalan  

23

Page 24

took out gelatin sticks wrapped in a paper and mixed in a  

dough.  They got two empty glass bottles from PW-15 Sevi  

Periyasamy, broke them into pieces and mixed that also in  

the  dough.   He  stated  that  Karalan  got  sulphur  powder  

through PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy and applied sulphur to the  

wire.  In the evening, they went near the lake area and Lenin  

told them that they are going to demolish the railway track  

so that panic would be created among the public.  Then they  

went ahead, had dinner in a hotel.  They came to PW-15 Sevi  

Periyasamy’s  house and took  all  articles  which  were kept  

there and left that place.  While leaving the place, Lenin told  

everyone  that  they  should  read  tomorrow’s  newspaper.  

From there, they went to Ariyalur by bus.  From there, they  

went by bus to Dalmiapuram.  They walked through a canal  

and  reached  a  railway  bridge.   Sitting  below  the  bridge,  

Karalan put the gelatin and sulphur in the tin.  He tied the  

detonator together and inserted the same in the tin which  

had  gelatin  mixture.   He  connected  the  wire  with  the  

detonator and, through the hole in the tin cover, he took out  

the wire and closed the tin.  Thereafter, all the four climbed  

24

Page 25

over  the  bridge.   Karalan  kept  the  bomb in  the  southern  

corner of the bridge in the middle of the rails.  They put a  

huge stone between the rails.   They kept the branches of  

trees over the rails.  They wrote slogans on the pillars.  They  

also kept posters prepared on drawing papers and notices at  

the scene of offence.  Karalan lit a wire with a match stick  

and they ran away.  Within a few seconds, there was a blast.  

He, thereafter, narrated how he went from place to place till  

he was arrested on 17/12/1993.   

19. The confessional statement of A1-Senthilkumar reveals  

that he had accompanied other accused to the house of PW-

15 Sevi Periyasamy, that he had actively participated in the  

activities of Karalan,  Lenin and Rajaram @ Madhavan and  

they had joined him in manufacturing explosive substances.  

His  confession  further  reveals  that  he  wrote  slogans  on  

papers and he was party to preparing, carrying and planting  

of bomb and causing of the blast. It must also be stated here  

that A1-Senthilkumar retracted his confessional  statement.  

We shall advert to that a little later.  

25

Page 26

20. Having referred to the relevant evidence, we shall now  

consider  whether  the prosecution has established its  case  

against  A1-Senthilkumar.   His  confessional  statement  is  a  

major piece of evidence against him.  The question is what is  

the evidentiary value of a confession recorded under Section  

15 of the TADA.    

21. In  Yakub  Abdul  Razak  Memon, after  referring  to  

several judgments of this Court on the evidentiary value of  

confession particularly judgment of this Court in Nalini, this  

Court  summed  up  the  position  of  law  on  the  evidentiary  

value  of  confession.   The  relevant  conclusions  could  be  

quoted.  

“105. To sum up, it can easily be inferred that the  position  of  law  on  the  evidentiary  value  of  confession is as under:-

(i) If  the  confessional  statement  is  properly   recorded satisfying the mandatory provision   of Section 15 of TADA and the Rules made  thereunder, and if the same is found by the  court  as having been made voluntarily  and   truthfully  then  the  said  confession  is   

26

Page 27

sufficient to base conviction on the maker of   the confession.

 (ii) Whether  such  confession  requires  

corroboration or not, is a matter for the court   to consider on the basis of the facts of each  case.

(iii) With regard to the use of such confession as   against a co-accused, it has to be held that   as  a  matter  of  caution,  a  general   corroboration  should  be  sought  for  but  in   cases  where  the  court  is  satisfied  that  the   probative  value  of  such  confession  is  such   that it does not require corroboration then it   may  base  conviction  on  the  basis  of  such   confession  of  the  co-accused  without   corroboration.  But this is an exception to the   general rule of requiring corroboration when   such confession is to be used against a co- accused.

(iv) The nature of corroboration required both in   regard to the use of confession against the   maker  as  also  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the   same against  a  co-accused  is  of  a  general   nature,  unless  the  court  comes  to  the  conclusion that such corroboration should be   on material facts also because of the facts of   a  particular  case.   The  degree  of   corroboration  so  required  is  that  which  is   necessary for a prudent man to believe in the   existence  of  facts  mentioned  in  the   confessional statement.

(v)  xxx xxx xxx xxx”  

27

Page 28

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  a  confessional  statement  

recorded  under  Section  15  of  the  TADA,  if  found  to  be  

voluntarily made and is truthful and properly recorded, can  

form the basis of conviction.    

22. We  have  already  stated  that  PW-40  PI  Pattabiraman  

produced  A1-Senthilkumar  before  PW-37  Ramanujam,  

Superintendent  of  Police  “Q”  Branch  CID,  Chennai  for  

recording his confessional statement.  On 22/12/1993, PW-37  

Ramanujam  recorded  confessional  statement  of  A1-

Senthilkumar after ascertaining that he was not threatened  

or  induced  to  give  his  confessional  statement.   PW-37  

Ramanujam obtained A1-Senthilkumar’s signatures on each  

page of the confessional statement.  A1-Senthilkumar signed  

on the said confessional statement acknowledging that he  

was giving the statement voluntarily  without any coercion  

and  compulsion  and  knowing  its  consequence.   We  have  

carefully read the evidence of PW-40 Pattabiraman and PW-

37  Ramanujam  and  the  confessional  statement  of  A1-

Senthilkumar, which is at Ex-P/24.  We are satisfied that the  

28

Page 29

confessional  statement  was  properly  recorded;  that  A1-

Senthilkumar  was  not  forced  or  coerced  into  giving  

statement; that the statement is given voluntarily and that it  

is truthful. In our opinion, therefore, it can form the basis of  

conviction.  

23.  We  must  now  come  to  the  retraction.  It  is  argued  

however that A1-Senthilkumar has retracted his confession  

and, hence,  it has no evidentiary value. It cannot be relied  

upon.  It is not possible to accept this submission. Retraction  

does not always dilute or reduce  or wipe out the evidentiary  

value of a confessional statement.  Quite often retraction is  

an afterthought.   It  could be the result  of  legal  advice or  

pressure exerted by those whose involvement may be likely  

to be disclosed or confirmed by the confessional statement  

of the accused.  Therefore, in each case, the court will have  

to examine whether the confession was voluntary and true  

and  whether  the  retraction  was  an  afterthought.   In  

Kalawati v.  State of Himachal6, this Court stated that the  

amount  of  credibility  to  be  attached  to  a  retracted  6 AIR 1953 SC 131

29

Page 30

confession would depend upon the facts and circumstances  

of each case.  Again in  State of Tamil Nadu  v.  Kutty7,  

this Court stated that a retracted confession may form legal  

basis  for  conviction  if  the  court  is  satisfied  that  the  

confession was true and was voluntarily made.   Following  

these judgments in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon, this Court  

held  that  where  the  original  confession  was  truthful  and  

voluntary, the court can rely upon such confession to convict  

the accused in spite of a subsequent retraction and its denial  

in statement under Section 313 of the Code.  The law is thus  

crystallized.  A retracted confessional statement is therefore  

not always worthless.  We have no hesitation in reiterating  

that A1-Senthilkumar’s confessional statement was recorded  

after following the correct procedure; that it was voluntary  

and  truthful;  that  A1-Senthilkumar  was  not  forced  or  

compelled to give his statement and that the retraction of  

the said statement is clearly an afterthought and should be  

ignored.    

7 AIR 2001 SC 2778

30

Page 31

24. In any case, there is sufficient corroboration available  

to the confessional statement of A1-Senthilkumar from the  

other evidence on record.  In this connection, it is necessary  

to turn to the evidence of PW-13 M. Paramasivam, who was  

working  as  Chief  Permanent  Inspector  at  Peralam  at  the  

relevant time.  He stated that on 24/10/1992, in the early  

morning at 3.00 a.m. when he got the news that a train had  

halted, he went to the place of occurrence.  He found that  

the train was reversed and kept at Kallagam Railway Station.  

He went to the southern part of the bridge and found that  

the fish plates and the concrete portion of the bridge were  

broken.  He got down from the bridge.  He saw wall posters  

(MO 5  series),  bit  notices  and  other  articles.   They  were  

taken  charge  of  under  Mahazar  [Ex-P/3].  PW-32  K.  

Ramakrishnan, who was working as the Assistant Director in  

the  Photography  Division  of  the  Forensic  Science  

Department,  Chennai, at the relevant time, stated that he  

had received the requisition of Inspector of Police, Q Branch,  

CID, Trichy.  He further sated that along with the requisition,  

he had received two disputed wall posters marked as MO 5  

31

Page 32

series and four disputed wall posters marked MO 22 series.  

For   comparison  of  the  disputed  handwriting  on  the  wall  

posters, he had received 30 wall posters and four full sheets  

containing specimen handwriting, which were marked Ex-P/6  

series.   He  compared  the  specimen  handwriting  with  the  

handwriting appearing on the wall papers [MO 5 series and  

MO 22 series] and found that the writings on MO 5 series and  

MO 22 series were of the person who wrote writings marked  

Ex-P/6 series.  Ex-P/6 series are the specimen handwritings  

of A1-Senthilkumar taken by PW-40 PI Pattabiraman.  Thus,  

evidence  of  PW-13  M.  Paramasivam  and  PW-32  K.  

Ramakrishnan  provides  necessary  independent  

corroboration  to  the  confessional  statement  of  A1-

Senthilkumar.  The fact that the incriminating wall posters  

found  at  the  scene  of  offence  bear  handwriting  of  A1-

Senthilkumar  is  a  clinching circumstance and goes a  long  

way in establishing his guilt.  

25.  So  far  as  evidence  of  PW-15  Sevi  Periyasamy  is  

concerned it is argued that he was himself involved in the  

32

Page 33

offence.   His  evidence  is  tainted  evidence  and,  hence,  it  

should not be relied upon.  It is not possible to accept this  

submission.  The evidence of this witness clearly indicates  

that  he did  not  know anything about  the activities  of  the  

accused.   He  is  an  active  worker  of  Ambedkar  Welfare  

Association.  He stated that he is a Dalit and he works for the  

cause of Dalits.  According to him, it is A2-Periyasami, who  

told him that four persons would be coming to him and he  

should  provide  food  to  them.   He  accordingly  gave them  

lunch.   When  they  were  busy  preparing  wall  posters  and  

manufacturing bombs, he asked them what they were doing  

and they told him that he should not ask them any question  

and he would come to know about it if he reads next day’s  

newspaper.   According to him, when A1-Senthilkumar met  

him,  he  asked  him  who  had  caused  the  blast.   A1-

Senthilkumar told him that blast was caused by him and his  

associates and if he informs anyone about it, all members of  

his family will be killed.  It is difficult therefore to come to a  

conclusion that PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy was involved in the  

offence. He appears to be a victim of circumstances.  He was  

33

Page 34

used  by  the  accused.   He  did  not  know  the  nature  of  

conspiracy  hatched  by  the  accused.    His  evidence,  

therefore, cannot be discarded as tainted evidence.  

26. It  was  submitted  that  the  evidence  of  PW-15  Sevi  

Periyasamy must be rejected because he  turned hostile.  It  

is  trite  that  evidence  of  a  hostile  witness  need  not  be  

completely discarded.  The prosecution can use that part of  

his  evidence  which  is  corroborated  by  other  evidence  on  

record [See Bhajju @ Karan Singh  v.  State of Madhya   

Pradesh8].    Moreover, in this case, the facts are peculiar.  

From  13/9/1996  when  PW-15  Sevi  Periyasamy  was  first  

examined  in  the  Court  till  25/9/1998,  he  supported  the  

prosecution.   When  after  five  years  he  was  recalled  on  

19/9/2001,  he resiled from his previous statement only to  

some extent.  On 28/9/2001, he confirmed some portion of  

his earlier statement but resiled to a large extent from his  

earlier  statement.   It  is  obvious  that  the  recording  of  his  

evidence was not continuous.  There was huge gap of five  

years  between  recording  of  his  examination  and  re- 8 (2012) 4 SCC 327

34

Page 35

examination.   It is also pertinent to note that on 13/9/1996,  

3/11/1997, 5/2/1998 and 25/9/1998, when he narrated the  

sequence of events and explained the role of the accused,  

he was not cross-examined at all.  It is clear from this that  

recording of his evidence was unduly prolonged, and in that  

period, an effort was made to win him over.  These facts will  

have to be taken into  consideration while  considering the  

evidentiary value of his evidence.  We are of the opinion that  

it would be safe to rely on that part of the evidence of this  

witness, which is corroborated by other evidence on record.  

27. We have extensively referred to the evidence of PW-15  

Sevi Periyasamy.   He stated how A1-Senthilkumar came to  

his house along with Lenin and how two other persons joined  

him.  He further stated how they prepared the dough with  

gelatin sticks and broken glass pieces. He has further gone  

on to say that they left the house telling him that he should  

not ask them anything about their activities and he should  

35

Page 36

read  the  next  day’s  newspaper  to  know  what  they  were  

doing.  He has further stated that after the blast, he met A1-

Senthilkumar at Perambalur-Thuraimangalam Junction Road  

and he told him that he,  Karalan,  Lenin and Rajaram had  

destroyed the railway bridge.  A1-Senthilkumar left the place  

telling him that if he discloses it to anyone, all members of  

his family will be killed.  This portion of his evidence finds  

sufficient corroboration from other evidence on record and,  

therefore, we are of the opinion that reliance can be placed  

on it.  Thus, A1-Senthilkumar’s involvement in the crime is  

proved to the hilt by his confessional statement recorded by  

PW-37 Ramanujam; by the evidence of PW-13 Paramsivam  

who stated that posters were seized from the place where  

blast  occurred;  by  the  evidence  of  PW-32  Ramakrishnan  

which indicates that those posters were in his handwriting  

and the statement of PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy which indicates  

his role.  The trial court, therefore, has rightly convicted him.  

36

Page 37

28. So  far  as  A2-Periyasami  is  concerned,  in  his  

confessional statement A1-Senthilkumar has only stated that  

Lenin took him to the house of PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy and  

others  joined  him  there  in  that  house.  When  he  reached  

there, Lenin informed PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy that they have  

been sent by A2-Periyasami.   Apart from this,  there is  no  

reference to A2-Periyasami in the confessional statement of  

A1-Senthilkumar.  PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy has stated that on  

22/12/1993  A2-Periyasami  came  to  him  and  stated  that  

Lenin and others will visit him and they will stay till night and  

food  should  be  provided  to  them.   It  appears  from  the  

confessional statement of A1-Senthilkumar and evidence of  

PW-15  Sevi  Periyasamy  that  A2-Periyasami  did  not  

participate in manufacturing of bombs, carrying them to the  

scene of offence, planting them under the railway bridge and  

causing the blast.   There is  a passing reference in PW-15  

Sevi  Periyasamy’s  evidence  that  after  the  blast  when  he  

asked A2-Periyasami about the blast, he told him that Lenin,  

Karalan and Rajaram were responsible for the blast and if he  

discloses this to anyone, all members of his family would be  

37

Page 38

killed.  This part of the statement of PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy  

is  not  corroborated  by  any  evidence  on  record.   Thus,  it  

would not be safe to rely on it.  We are, therefore, of the  

opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish  

its case against A2-Periyasami beyond reasonable doubt.  He  

must, therefore, get benefit of doubt.  In the circumstances,  

the impugned judgment and order so far as it convicts and  

sentences  A1-Senthilkumar  is  confirmed.   Conviction  and  

sentence of A1-Senthilkumar is  confirmed.   The impugned  

judgment and order so far as it convicts and sentences A2-

Periyasami is set aside. He is acquitted.  A2-Periyasami is on  

bail.  His bail bond stands discharged.   

29. In  the  result,  Criminal  Appeal  No.1272  of  2012  is  

allowed and Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2013 is dismissed.   

38

Page 39

…….……………………………..CJI. (P. Sathasivam)

……………………………………J. (Ranjana Prakash Desai)

……………………………………J. (Ranjan Gogoi)

New Delhi; April 11, 2014.  

39