The confession was indeed made by the appellant and the details given in the confession and the meticulous planning that went behind committing murder of the deceased which has been reflected in the confession, not only render it voluntary, but truthful also. This confession is not only a good, voluntary and truthful confession but a reliable one also and the trial court has committed no mistake whatsoever in relying upon the said confession. Once the confession made u/s. 15 of the TADA Act is accepted, there is no necessity of any other evidence being required. The way the appellant himself has worked for the success of the conspiracy, the way he has handled the guns and accompanied two other assailants to the house of the deceased and the manner in which the plan was executed convinces that the order is absolutely correct. [Paras 32 and 33] [950-D-H; 951-A-C] 2.6. The whole cross-examination does not dent the case of the prosecution and it can be inferred that the criticism against the confession that it was not recorded in the language of the accused is not justified. There is absolutely no effort made by the defence to establish that the statement was not made in the language of the accused persons. The confession also cannot be foiled on the ground that the original confessional statement was not on record as the original confession was very much available on the record. [Para 21] [940-D-F] 2.7. The failure to examine two-persons (`GS' and `GQ) as witnesses, would be of no consequence looking at the overall evidence of the witnesses, more particularly, all those who were present at the spot. It cannot be gathered that `GS' was present at the time of incident. Insofar as the evidence of `GQ' is concerned, it was pointed out by PW-17 that said person was already dead at the time of trial. [Para 22] [940-G-H; 941-A-B] 3. It is not correct to say that the confession u/s. 15 of TADA Act could have been used only against the TADA Act offences and it cannot be used for a Non-TADA offence like Section 302 of the RPC and it could not even be read in order to prove the said offence. The facts relating to Section 3(3) of the TADA Act and the facts relating to Section 302 of RPC are completely inter-mixed in this matter. They are the part of the same transaction. A plain reading of the confession clearly goes to show that the accused was guilty of conspiring or attempting to commit or advocating, abetting, advising or inciting or knowingly facilitating the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act.