IMPORTANT POINT
A confession made u/s 15 of TADA Act is an exception to Sections 25 & 26 of Evidence Act that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible. In the present case confession of appellant u/s 15 is true and voluntary and is recorded as per Section 15. Thus appellant could be convicted solely on the basis of his conviction. But here corroboration is available from evidence of approver and evidence of identifier so his conviction under Sections 3 & 4 of TADA Act r/w 302/34 IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act for Bomb Blast in Train is correct and life imprisonment awarded calls for no interference.

Headnote:TADA Act, 1987-Sections 324 r/w Section 120 IPC, Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1984-Conviction of appellant under with one Nishan Singh by designated Court-Appeal u/s 19 by appellant to S.C.-Conviction relating to Train Bomb blast on 8-11-1996 at 10.45 resulting in death of 12 and injuries to 65 persons in which life imprisonment was given-Conviction based on confession u/s 15 of appellant, later retracted when statement was made u/s 313 Cr.P.C.-Corroborated by evidence of approver, Kulvinder Singh (PW1) and that of his co-accused Nishan Singh, involving the appellant and evidence of identifier Deepali (PW3)-Value of confession u/s 15 (See Paras 12 to 17)-Whether confession of appellant is truthful and voluntary and according to Section 15? (Yes)-Result-Does not need corroboration and can be convicted on its basis-Corroboration still available-Result-His conviction and sentence cannot be interfered-Appeal dismissed -Case law discussed-(Evidence Act, 1872-Ch. II of Part I Sections 25, 26-Cr.P.C. 1973-Section 313).
       Held : There can be no doubt that a free and voluntary confession deserves the highest credit. It is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt. Having examined the record, we are satisfied that the confession made by the appellant is voluntary and truthful and was recorded, as already noticed, by due observance of all the safeguards provided under Section 15 and the appellant could be convicted solely on the basis of his confession. (Para 18)
       It is not on the testimony of the approver alone that the conviction has been based. Assuming the contentions of learned counsel to be correct without going into it, it deserves to be noticed, as already observed, the conviction herein can be based on the confession made by the appellant himself without anything more. We would, therefore, keep out of consideration the approver s evidence. (Para 20)
       The version given by the appellant in his confessional statement finds sufficient corroboration from the testimony of PW-3. (Para 21)
       It is true that PW-3 must have seen the appellant as deposed by her only when he was sitting in the train opposite her but what is to be kept in mind is that the memory and power to recapitulate differs from person to person as also from situation to situation. Here the situation is that after she noticed the manner of handling the bag by the appellant and leaving the bag behind while getting down from the train and the blast taking place soon thereafter wherein she suffered the injuries as above and lost her husband. Under these circumstances, the criticism to her identification of the appellant is without any substance so also the criticism to her testimony on the basis of minor contradictions. The identification made by PW-3, on the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted on the ground of delay of few months. Further, as noticed earlier as well, even if corroboration was to be required, though not necessary in the present case in view of the confessional statement of the accused, then too, it would be sufficient if there is a general corroboration of the important incidents and not that the corroborative evidence itself should be sufficient for conviction. We see no reason to discard the confessional statement of Nishan Singh and of the evidence of PW-3 and of course the confessional statement of the appellant and as such the conviction deserves to be maintained. Looking from any angle, the conviction of the appellant does not deserve to be disturbed. (Paras 22 and 23)
       Held finally : In view of the discussions noticed above, we find no illegality in the judgment under appeal. As such the appeal stands dismissed. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-In this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Designated Court, only one of the accused viz. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu is the appellant. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant and one Nishan Singh have been convicted for offence under Section 3 and 4 of the TADA Act read with Section 120 IPC, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1984. They have been sentenced to these offences and in default suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of six months each. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default suffer RI for six months and for the other two offences RI for a period of five years each with a similar fine and RI in default in payment of fine. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The impugned judgment further directs the release of the approver Kulvinder Singh @ Kinda and acquits accused Hardeep Singh of all the offences for which he was charged. No appeal has been preferred by Nishan Singh. We are, thus, concerned in this appeal with the case of the prosecution against Ravinder Singh @ Bittu only.

3. The number of incidents as projected by the prosecution before the designated court were seven, i.e., (1) Hatching of conspiracy in September, 1991 by the appellant, Nishan Singh, Hardeep Singh, approver and deceased Pradhan Singh; (2) commission of robbery at Sharma Petrol Pump on 22nd October, 1991; (3) commission of robbery at Mohadi Petrol Pump on 25th October, 1991; (4) Firing on police jeep on 25th October, 1991 and killing of three police personnel; (5) Preparation of Bomb; (6) Train Bomb blast on November 8, 1991 at 10.45 p.m. resulting in death of 12 and injuries to 65 persons; and (7) Encounter with the police and firing by the accused and police on 2nd December, 1991 resulting in death of Pradhan Singh and arrest of accused Nishan Singh.

4. The designated court has held that the appellant committed the robbery on 22nd October and 25th October, 1991; fired on police jeep resulting in killing of three police personnel; is guilty of the bomb blast resulting in deaths and injuries as above and escaped in the encounter which resulted in death of Pradhan Singh and arrest of Nishan Singh. No separate finding has been given on hatching of conspiracy. Further the appellant has neither been held to be guilty of preparation of bomb for which only Pradhan Singh has been held guilty nor for firing on police in encounter on 2nd December, 1991.

Brief Prosecution Version :

5. Pradhan Singh with the appellant and Nishan Singh came to Maharashtra and they along with Hardeep Singh went to the house of Kulvinder Singh, the approver, in September, 1991 and planned some activities. The first incident is of forcible taking of jeep No. MGR-9097 and going on it to Chandrapur. On 22nd October, 1991 at 9.15 p.m., they committed dacoity at Sharma Petrol Pump at Bharanj by showing to the staff a pistol and AK-47 and looted a sum of Rs. 2,500/-. On 25th October, 1991 at about 11.45 p.m., they looted Mohadi Petrol Pump and took away Rs. 17,142/-. After looting the petrol pump, while they were going towards Nasik, their jeep was chased by the police which had received message through control room and as a result of firing from the jeep on police the driver Sanap, ASI Pardeshi and PC Pardhi were killed. On 8th November, 1991 the appellant kept a bomb in VT Ambarnath local train and as a result of its blast, 12 people lost their lives and 65 were injured. Deepali (PW-3) identified the appellant as a person who was sitting in front of her and was inserting his hand in a cloth bag which was under his seat. He

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 583

Cases Referred (6)