Akshardham Case: SC Acquits All Over Void POTA Confessions

Confessions Recorded Without POTA Safeguards and a Mechanical Sanction Cannot Sustain a Terror Conviction: Supreme Court

Published: 6 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

In the Akshardham temple attack case, the Supreme Court acquitted all six accused, three of whom had been sentenced to death. The sanction under Section 50 of POTA was void for non-application of mind, the confessions were recorded without the Section 32 safeguards, accomplice statements came a year late, and Urdu letters said to be found on the attackers' bloodied bodies were spotless (paras 77, 90, 97, 102-103). No independent evidence remained (paras 121, 135).

Key holdings

A sanction under Section 50 of POTA granted without application of mind to the investigation material is void (para 77).

The safeguards in Sections 32 and 52 of POTA for recording confessions must be strictly followed, not treated as a mechanical formality (paras 87-90).

After a confession is recorded, sending the accused to judicial custody is the rule, not dependent on a complaint of torture (para 88).

Accomplice statements recorded more than a year late cannot corroborate confessions in the absence of independent evidence (para 97).

Concurrent findings resting on inadmissible evidence and overlooked defence evidence warrant interference under Article 136 (paras 129-134).

Brief Facts

On 24.09.2002 two armed men attacked the Akshardham temple at Gandhinagar; 33 people were killed and about 86 injured before NSG commandos killed both attackers the next morning (paras 5-6). The investigation made no headway for about a year until it was transferred to the Crime Branch, which arrested five accused on 29.08.2003 and a sixth on 12.09.2003, alleging a conspiracy hatched in Saudi Arabia, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Jammu and Kashmir (paras 8-9). The Special Court (POTA) convicted all six, sentencing three to death, and the Gujarat High Court affirmed in 2010 (paras 2-3).

Court's Findings

The Home Minister granted sanction under Section 50 of POTA without the investigation material or any independent assessment, so the sanction was void for non-application of mind (paras 74-77). POTA makes confessions to police admissible, but the safeguards in Sections 32 and 52 are not a mechanical formality: the accused, confessing 11 months after the attack, were given too little time, the Chief Judicial Magistrate's endorsements were perfunctory, and they were not sent to judicial custody, so the confessions were inadmissible (paras 85-90). Accomplice statements recorded more than a year later could not corroborate them (paras 91-97). The two Urdu letters said to be found in the attackers' trouser pockets were clean and untorn though the clothes were soaked in blood and riddled with bullets, and the handwriting opinion linking them to A-4 was unreliable (paras 98-107). Nothing independent connected A-6, the confessions were retracted with allegations of torture, and the conspiracy charge failed (paras 108-128). The concurrent findings justified interference under Article 136 (paras 129-134).

Legal Principle

In a terror prosecution, sanction must reflect the sanctioning authority's own application of mind to the investigation material, and a confession to a police officer is admissible only if every statutory safeguard is strictly followed. Without independent corroboration, retracted confessions and belated accomplice statements cannot sustain a conviction (paras 77, 87, 97, 121).

Precedents Relied Upon

Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 744
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 36, 75
Sanction to prosecute under TADA is a condition precedent to taking cognizance; it is permission to prosecute a particular person, granted by the sanctioning authority on application of mind.
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 75
Consent given by the State Government merely on a fax message, without proper application of mind, is not valid.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 76
The validity of a sanction depends on the sanctioning authority applying its own independent mind to the facts and the material collected in the investigation, free from pressure.

View all precedents (16)

State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 47, 88, 89
The safeguards in Sections 32 and 52 of POTA are an integral part of the scheme admitting confessions to police; their breach can be fatal, and sending the confession-maker to judicial custody is the rule.
Haroom Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 832
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 91
An accomplice is a competent witness, but the court may presume him unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 159
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 95
The confession of an accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense against a co-accused.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Swarnalatha & Ors. (2009) 8 SCC 383
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 61, 96
Unexplained delay in recording the statements of witnesses casts doubt on their evidence.
Ram Lakhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 268
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 99
In a grave charge it is not proper to rely on a witness who never figured in the investigation and was not named in the chargesheet.
Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 49, 114
A confession is not substantive evidence against a co-accused; the court must first weigh the other evidence and may use the confession only to lend assurance to it.
Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 120
No conviction may rest on an uncorroborated retracted confession, and a co-accused’s retracted confession cannot corroborate it.
K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2005) 12 SCC 631
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 122
Criminal conspiracy requires a meeting of minds of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means; the agreement may be inferred by necessary implication.
Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2003) 3 SCC 641
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 123
States the elements of a criminal conspiracy: an object, a plan, an agreement between two or more persons and, where required, an overt act.
Ganga Kumar Shrivastav v. State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 129
Sets out when this Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact in criminal appeals under Article 136.
Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 130
In a death-sentence case this Court may examine the material first-hand and reach its own conclusions on facts and law, unbound by the findings below.
Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 351
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 64, 133
The evidence of defence witnesses cannot be termed tainted because they are examined by the defence; they are entitled to equal treatment and respect with prosecution witnesses.
State of Haryana v. Ram Singh (2002) 2 SCC 426
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 64, 133
The evidence of defence witnesses cannot be termed tainted because they are examined by the defence; they are entitled to equal treatment and respect with prosecution witnesses.

Confessions Recorded Without POTA Safeguards and a Mechanical Sanction Cannot Sustain a Terror Conviction: Supreme Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Daily Wagers Treated as Permanent Cannot Be Denied the 1 July Increment on Retirement: Supreme Court

Courts Cannot Read Equivalence Into Recruitment Rules: Supreme Court Holds NIOS Certificate Fails ‘10+2 System’ Requirement

Tax Follows the Form at Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Rules Drink-Mix Powder Is Not a Beverage