IMPORTANT POINT
If an innocent boy is killed only because the demand for ransom amount was not met by the family members, such killing cannot but send a shock wave and bring about terror in the minds of the people of the locality to constitute terrorist activity within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the TADA.

Headnote:(i) Terrorist and Disruptive Activi- ties (Prevention) Act-Section 3(2)(1) -Terrorist activity Section 3(1)-Not confined to unlawful activity or crime committed against individual or individuals-Intention to strike terror-It is impact of crime and its fall out on society and potentiality of such crime in producing fear in minds of people or a section of people which makes a crime a terrorist activity-Brutal murder of a young school boy after subjecting him to various physical and mental torture only because demand for ransom amount not met by family members-Conviction for offences u/s 3(1) sustainable.
       Held : A crime even if perpetrated with extreme brutality may not constitute terrorist activity within the meaning of Section 3(1) of TADA. For constituting terrorrist activity under Section 3(1) of TADA, the activity must be intended to strike terror in people or a section of the people or bring about other consequences referred to in said Section 3(1). Terrorist Activity is not confined to unlawful activity or crime committed against individual or individuals but it aims at bringing about terror in the minds of people or section of people disturbing public order, public peace and tranquility, social and communal harmony disturbing or distablising public administration and threatening security and integrity of the country. In the instant case, the intention to strike terror in the minds of the people can be reasonably inferred because Birju declared such intention in no uncertain term by indicating that Vaibhav should be killed in order to send the message to the people in the locality that if the demand of Birju and his associates was not met, extreme consequence of killing of innocent person would be resorted to. In order to send such message to the society, it was decided that Vaibhav would be killed and Vaibhav was killed for giving effect to the intended threat to the people. If an innocent boy is killed only because the demand for ransom amount was not met by the family members, such killing cannot but send a shock wave and bring about terror in the minds of the people of the locality. It is the impact of the crime and its fall out on the society and the potentiality of such crime in producing fear in the minds of the people or a section of the people which makes a crime a terrorist activity under Section 3(1) of TADA. In our view, in the facts of the case, the learned designated judge has rightly convicted the accused for offences under Section 3(1) of TADA besides convicting each of them under Section 120B and Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC. We may, however, indicate mere that in any event, for the offence of murder the accused have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It will be of little consequences so far as sentence part is concerned, it the conviction under Section 3(2)(1) of TADA is not made. (Para 24)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120-B and 302 r/ws 120B-TADA-Sections 3(1) & 3(2)-Convictions under-Appeal-A young school boy brutally murdered after subjecting him to various physical and mental torture with utmost cruelty-Deceased was taken from his home by accused No. 3, G-Accused 3 was a friend of deceased and was on visiting terms with him-He induced deceased to come with him-He had conspired that deceased would be held for ransom to extort money from his family-He had taken active role in holding deceased tightly when other accused started pulling belt fastened around the neck of deceased-Accused B was a dreaded criminal-Convictions recorded are legally sustainable-Award of sentence of life imprisonment against accused justified.
       Held that it was Birju who had master minded the crime and had taken the leading role in committing the crime. Although other accused who faced the trial in the absence of Birju, since absconding, are also guilty of the offences under Sections 120B and 302 read with 120B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(l) of TADA, in the facts of the case, it does not appear to us that their offence in murdering Vaibhav can be held to be an offence for murder in the rarest of rare cases. The learned designated court has, therefore, rightly passed the sentence of life imprisonment against the accused. (Para 25)
       Further held that Birju did not cause any enquiry as to who was the boy but he definitely caused the enquiry as to whether or not the boy brought by Girdhari was a member of the katyare family. This fact coupled with subsequent events and the role played by Girdhari in threatening Vaibhav with serious consequences if he would not listen to the dictates of Birju and his associates and his overt act in slapping Praveen and asking him to remain quiet and also trying his hands so that he could not go out of the Mithun Farm and thereafter connecting the residential telephone of Vaibhav from the telephone at Mithun Farm so that the demand for ransom could be made. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-These appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as TADA) against convictions and sentences passed by the learned Judge. Designated Court, Nasik in Special Case No. 1 of 1993 by Judgment dated September 21, 1994. Five accused including the three appellants were tried for offences under Sections 143, 364, 368, 385, 302 read with Section 120B and Section 140 IPC and Section 3(2)(1) of TADA.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on September 15, 1992, the complainant Kantilal Katyare returned to his house at about 8.15 P.M. He was then informed by his wife that his grandson Vaibhav had gone with the accused No. 3 Girdhari who is the appellant in Cri. Appeal No. 319 of 1995 on a scooter to bring the price of casio piano since sold by Vaibhav but Vaibhav had not returned. Suspecting something Foul, Vaibhav s father had gone in search of Vaibhav. At about 9.30 P.M. Vaibhav s father Vijay informed the complainant on phone that Vaibhav could not be traced. He had, therefore, gone to the Deolali Camp police station. The complainant had also informed the police on phone to search Vaibhav. At about 11.15 P.M. a person talked to the complainant on phone in Hindi informing the complainant that Vaibhav was in their custody and if the amount of Rs. two lacs would be paid. Vaibhav would be released. Vaibhav also talked to the complainant on phone stating that the said persons were severely beating him and would kill him. So he should pay the amount as demanded by them. On enquiry by the complainant, Vaibhav told that he was talking from Deolali Camp. Vaibha also informed that he was tied with a rope and a revolver was pointed on his head and the said persons were not allowing him to give their phone number or addresses. Vaibhav requested the complainant to save him. The complainant thereafter requested the person who talked to him earlier, not to beat Vaibhav and he also informed that he was prepared to comply with their demand and they would take away the amount or the complainant would himself come with the amount at the place to be named by them.

3. It is the prosecution case that immediately thereafter, the complainant went to the Nasik Road police station and informed the matter to the police. Along with police he had also come to Deolali Camp and they had also gone to the house of Girdhari accused No. 3. But they were informed by the family members of Girdhari that since morning, Girdhari had gone to Bombay. They also searched the houses of the friends of Vaibhav but Vaibhav could not be found.

4. Vijay also searched for Vaibhav but without any success. At about 4.30 A.M. on September 16,1992, a complaint was lodged expressing apprehensions that at about 7.00 P.M. on September 15, 1992, Vaibhav had been kidnapped by Girdhari under the pretext of realising the price of casio but later on the accused had demanded ransom of Rs. two lacs. At about 6.00 A.M. on September 16, 1992, the police had come to the complainant s house and informed him that Vaibhav had been brought to Sytoo hospital. Thereafter, the complainant had gone to the hospital where they found the dead body of Vaibhav. He was wearing only an under pant and several injuries including swelling on the neck of the dead body of Vaibhav, were noticed. The complainant was informed that Girdhari, Birju and their colleagues had kidnapped Vaibhav and had taken him to the premises known as Mithun Farm near Deolali Camp and they had killed Vaibhav as the ransom of Rs. two lacs had not been paid to them. According, a supplementary complaint was recorded as part of the complaint Ex. 21 and Crime No. 323 of 1992 was registered by the police.

5.The investigation had been carried out by Mr. Pote Police Inspector (Crime) Ex. 76, Police Inspector Mr. Sarnaik Ex. 93, Mr. Marathe, Police Inspector (Crime) Ex. 95 and Mr. Chaudhari Police Inspector (Crime) Nasik Ex. 98. The investigations ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1517

Cases Referred (2)