2010 (7) Supreme 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
State of Maharashtra — Appellant
versus
Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2008
Decided on : 5-10-2010
AIR 1954 SC 616; AIR 1960 SC 360; 1989 Supp (2) SCC 770 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 306 and 307 – If the pardoned accomplice suppresses anything material and essential within his knowledge concerning the commission of crime or fails or refuses to comply with the condition on which the tender was made, the protection given to him is lifted on a certificate by the Public Prosecutor u/s 308. (Para 13)
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114, illustration (b) – Court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars. (Para 18)
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 133 – An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person – Therefore conviction on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal. (Para 20)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 315 r/w Article 20(3), Constitution of India – An accused cannot be compelled to give evidence except on his own request in writing. (Paras 22 and 23)
(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 306 and 3097 r/w section 308 – On forfeiture of pardon, an accomplice is relegated to the position of an accused and his evidence is rendered useless for the purposes of the trial of the co-accused – He cannot be compelled to be a witness – There is no question of such person being further examined for the prosecution and, therefore, no occasion arises for the defence to cross examine him. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
The question which arises in this criminal appeal is whether, the accused has a right to cross examine an accomplice who has been tendered in evidence by the prosecution as approver but later on pardon tendered to him was withdrawn on a certificate of the Public Prosecutor and he (approver) has not been further examined by the prosecution as its witness.
Finding of the Court:
Designated Court seriously erred in treating the respondent no. 3 hostile witness.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
R.M. Lodha, J. —
The question which this Court has to arrive at a conclusion in this criminal appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( for short ‘TADA Act’), is whether, the accused has a right to cross examine an accomplice who has been tendered in evidence by the prosecution as approver but later on pardon tendered to him was withdrawn on a certificate of the Public Prosecutor under Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) and he (approver) has not been further examined by the prosecution as its witness.
2. The aforesaid question arises in this way. A certain Pradeep Jain (builder) was allegedly eliminated by hired gangsters on March 7, 1995 and his brother Sunil Jain was attempted to be killed on that day for not succumbing to the pressure of parting with their landed property situate in Mumbai A crime being CR No. 145 of 1995 was registered with D.N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. After completion of investigation, initially few persons were arrested and they were charge sheeted and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B, 23, 114 IPC, Sections 3, 25(1B)(a), 5, 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(i), 3(2(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5, 6 of TADA Act by the Judge, Designated Court, Mumbai. The present respondents could not be tried as they were absconding. The Judge, Designated Court, vide judgment dated August 5, 1997 acquitted the accused who were tried. The State of Maharashtra carried appeal in the matter before this Court and vide judgment dated July 11, 2001, this Court partly set aside the judgment of the Judge, Designated Court, Mumbai and convicted some of the accused who were tried.
3. On September 18, 2002 Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari (respondent No. 1) and one Monika Bedi were arrested in Portugal. They were extradited and brought to India. The extradition was granted for respondent no. 1 in respect of Pradeep Jain murder case, Bombay Bomb Blast case and Ajit Diwani murder case. On November 11, 2005, as soon as the respondent no. 1 was brought to India, he was arrested by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Bombay Bomb Blast case and later on he was taken into custody by Anti Terrorist Squad, Mumbai in connection with Pradeep Jain murder case. The respondent no.1 was charged along with Mohd. Naeem Abdul Rahim Khan (respondent no. 2), Riyaz Ahmed Siddique (respondent no. 3), Mohd. Hassan Mehendi Hassan (respondent no. 4) and Virendrakumar Biharilal Jhamb (respondent no. 5), having conspired in Dubai with few others to murder Pradeep Jain and that in pursuance of this conspiracy, Pradeep Jain was murdered on March 7, 1995. On April 28, 2006, the police submitted charge sheet against the present respondent nos. 1 to 5 and accordingly TADA Special Case No. 1 of 2006 began before the Court of Designated Bombay Blast Cases, Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘Designated Court’) .
4. On July 3, 2006, the respondent no. 3 (Riyaz Ahmed Siddique) addressed a letter to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Terrorist Squad (I.O.) expressing his desire to disclose truly and fully the facts pertaining to conspiracy which had taken place at Dubai in connection with the murder of Pradeep Jain.
5. On July 7, 2006 the Investigating Officer made an application under Section 307 Cr.P.C. before the Designated Court that the respondent no. 3 may be tendered pardon on his readiness and willingness to disclose true and correct facts about the conspiracy hatched by them for the murder of Pradeep Jain.
6. On July 18, 2006 the Designated Court tendered pardon to the respondent no. 3 under Section 307 Cr.P.C. and permitted the prosecution to examine him as witness in the trial. In that order, the Designated Court noted that the approver is supposed to depose true and correct facts pertaining to the crime and that he (approver) has accepted the pardon with that condition.
7. On September 18, 2008, t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.