SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam, CJI., Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.
Periyasami S/o. Duraisami Novanagar – Appellant
Vs.
State represented through Inspector of Police, 'Q' Branch CID, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2012]
Senthilkumar – Appellant
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2013]
Decided On : 11-04-2014
(b) Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Confessional statement properly recorded without any coercion – Given voluntarily and is truthful – Conviction can be based on it. (Para 22)
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24 – Confessional statement – Retraction – Voluntary and truthful confessional statement recorded properly – Does not always lose evidentiary value on retraction – Instantly, sufficient corroboration available on record. (Para 23, 24)
AIR 1953 SC 131; AIR 2001 SC 2778; 2013 (3) SCALE 565 – Relied upon
(1999) 5 SCC 253 – Referred
(d) Criminal Trial – Hostile witness – Evidence of a hostile witness – Need not be completely discarded – The portion corroborated by other evidence on record can be used by prosecution. (Para 26)
(2012) 4 SCC 327 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal Trial – Co-accused – A2 Periyasamy a co-accused was not member of any banned organisation – He did not take any part in the crime – He was not part of conspiracy – Prosecution not able to prove its case against A2 beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction not proper. (Para 28)
(2008) 5 SCC 89; (2007) 4 SCC 266; (1999) 3 SCC 54 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Senthilkumar and Periyasami were convicted and sentenced u/s 120(B) IPC read with Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the TADA, Sections 3(2) (ii), 4(1) and 5 of the TADA, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, under Section 150(2) (b) of the Railways Act, 1989 and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act in connection with blowing of railway track.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against A2.
Result: Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2012 is allowed and Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2013 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.
1. The present appeals filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ("the TADA") are directed against the judgment and order dated 27/06/2012 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Designated Judge under the TADA, for Tiruchirapalli in Calendar Case No.45 of 1995 in Crime No.307 of 1992 of Vridhachalam Railway Police Station. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2013 is Senthilkumar @ Kumar ('A1-Senthilkumar' for convenience). The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2012 is Periyasami ('A2-Periyasami' for convenience).
2. According to the prosecution, on 24/10/1992, PW-10 Ramasamy was driving Quilon Express (Train No.6105). When the train reached near Maruvathur Peria Odai Bridge No.276, he noticed some object over the railway track. He immediately applied emergency brake and stopped the train. PW-11 Rajendran Raja, who was the Assistant Driver stepped down from the train along with the guard and proceeded to inspect the track. They saw some boulders placed on the track covered with green leaves. At that time, they heard a loud noise near the bridge situated at a distance of 1 K.M.
In the meantime, PW-2 Ganapathy, Station Master 3 of Sillakudi Station received information that Quilon Express had started from Kallagam Station after crossing of Pearl City Express, but had not reached Palanganatham. He instructed PW-1 Antonisamy, PW-4 Hazi Salahudeen, PW-6 Thangaraj and PW-7 Ponnaian to find out the reason for the delay of the Quilon Express. They found at the place of occurrence the rails bent upwards and the gravel stones and the sleepers broken and dislocated. Under the bridge, they saw some papers containing slogans.
They saw some slogans written on the bridge walls. Some boulders were also found over the railway track covered with green leaves. PW-8 Raja Chidambaram, SEP at Kallagam Station also went in search of the train along the track and found the train on the northern side of Bridge No.276. He found boulders placed on the track covered with green leaves. The sleepers were found broken and dislocated and rails found bent upwards.
3. On information being received from the control room about the bomb blast on the railway line, PW-29 Hyder Ali Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway, Vridhachalam rushed to the place of occurrence. He received complaint [Ex-P1] dated 24/10/1992 from PW-1 Antonisamy and registered a case being Crime No.307 of 1992 against unknown persons under Section 150 of the Indian Railways Act and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Act and Sections 120-B and 124 of the IPC. The printed version of First Information Report [Ex-P11] was forwarded to Judicial Magistrate No. V, Tiruchirappalli and a copy was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Railways, Villupuram for necessary action. Investigation was started.
It appears from the evidence of PW-40 Pattabiraman, the Inspector of Police of "Q" Branch CID, Tiruchirappalli that after he took over investigation, he interrogated PW-15 Sevi Periyasamy. He got the leads. Involvement of A1- Senthilkumar, A2-Periyasami and other accused was disclosed. A1- Senthilkumar was arrested on 17/12/1993. On his search, five gelatin sticks concealed in his right side waist, five electric detonators concealed in his left side waist and two pen torch cells from his pocket were recovered. They were seized under Mahazar [Ex-P5]. On 19/12/1993, the confessional statement of A1-Senthilkumar was recorded by PW-37 Ramanujam, Superintendent of Police, "Q" Branch CID under Section 15 of the TADA, after following the necessary procedure. A2-Periyasami was arrested on 9/1/1994.
4. Upon completion of investigation, PW-40 PI Pattabiraman filed a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') against A1-Senthilkumar, A2-Periyasami, absconding accused Rajaram @ Madhavan alleging that A1-Senthilkumar, A2-Periyasami along with absconding accused Rajaram @
Pulin Das @ Panna Koch v. State of Assam
Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.