2011 Supreme(SC) 98

2011 (1) Supreme 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Manjit Singh @ Mange — Appellant
versus
CBI, through its S.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1778 of 2008
with
Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. through SP, CBI — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1826 of 2008
with
K.K. Saini — Appellant
versus
State of UP, through S.P., CBI, — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1844 of 2008
with
State of U.P. through S.P., CBI — Appellant
versus
Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1336 of 2009
with
State of U.P. through S.P.,CBI — Appellant
versus
K.K. Saini and Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1347-1348 of 2009
Decided on : 25-1-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
Scope and ambit of section 15 TADA Act discussed.
Similarity in confessional statements of co-accused would not vitiate the probative value of such confessional statements.
Retraction of confessional statement.
Intent to create terror – essential for attracting section 3(1), TADA Act.

Headnote:(a) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Sections 11 and 12 – While trying offence(s) under the Act, Designated Court can try, convict and sentence the accused for offence punishable under the provisions of any other law connected with such offence, if so charged. (Para 16)

        (b) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Confessions of an accused can be used against him as well as other co-accused, even if they are acquitted for offences under the TADA Act. (Paras 17 and 33)

        (c) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Section 15 excludes the application of the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure to cases tried under the Act. (Para 37)

        (d) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked only if the language is ambiguous – Language of sections 12 and 15 being clear and unambiguous there is no need to interpret the same differently. (Para 38)

        (e) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Confessional statement made by a person under Section 15 shall be admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the accused who makes the confession. (Para 48)

        (f) Interpretation of statute – Non-obstante clause – The non obstante clause is used to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions – To attract the applicability of a non obstante clause, the whole of the Section, the scheme, the objects and reasons for the enactment of the Act must be kept in mind. (Para 53)

        (g) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20A – Investigation done by CBI – Its Superintendent of Police could authorize recording of information about commission of the offence under the Act – ‘Prior approval’ by the SP of CBI would adequately satisfy the requirements u/s 20A(1) particularly when no prejudice caused to the accused as a result of the authorization being granted by the SP of the CBI. (Paras 54 and 56)

        (h) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Cumulative effect of the circumstances must be to negate the possibility of innocence of the accused in any manner. (Para 66)

        (i) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Merely because of similarity in the confessional statements of both the accused, it cannot be said they are neither normal nor unnatural – Such similarity would not vitiate the probative value of such confessional statement. (Para 71)

        (j) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – A confessional statement given under section 15 shall not be discarded merely for the reason that the same has been retracted. (Para 72)

        (k) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20A(1) – Appellant not alleging before CMM of having been made to sign on blank paper – Neither made complaint of any torture – Allegation before Supreme Court rejected. (Para 75)

        (l) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – A voluntary and truthful confessional statement requires no corroboration. (Para 75)

        (m) Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Hostile witness – Evidence of a hostile witness need not be totally discarded – Its admissibility should be tested in the light of the surrounding circumstances and other evidence. (Para 80)

        (n) Indian Penal Code, 180 – Section 302 r/w section 34 – Conviction can be made on the basis of confessional statement of the accused persons corroborated by other evidence and circumstances. (Para 82)

        (o) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 3(1) – Section 3(1) can be invoked only when the offence was committed with the intent to awe the government or to achieve one or the other ends mentioned therein – There is distinction between the incidence of terror as a consequence of a particular act and causing terror being the sole intent – Instantly prosecution not successfully establishing that the particular murder was committed with the intention to cause terror – Section 3(1) not attracted. (Paras 85 and 88)

       Facts of the case:

        1. These appeals seek to assail conviction and sentence under TADA Act.

        2. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the Designated Curt u/s 302 read with Section 34 and 120B IPC; and sections 3(2) and 3(3) read with section 3(1) of the TADA Act.

       Finding of the Court:

        Babloo was the mastermind of the whole incident and Mange and K.K. Saini committed the offence at the behest of Babloo.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.