SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Bom) 1132

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. SONAK, M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser - Appellant
Versus
Vinay Talekar & Others - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2014
Decided On : 19-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondents:Sanjeev Punalekar, Nagesh Takbhate Joshi, Advocates.

The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, meeting the standard of being fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, of a conclusive nature and tendency, and excluding every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

Headnote:

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION ACT - ACQUITTAL - 120B, 121A IPC, 16, 18, 23 UAPA, 3, 4, 5 Explosive Substances Act - The court acquitted the accused persons from various charges including conspiracy to create terror and communal disharmony at Narkasur effigy competition. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. The court dismissed the appeal seeking reversal of the acquittal.

Fact of the Case:

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) appealed against the judgment and order of the Special Court for NIA cases acquitting the accused persons from various charges including conspiracy to create terror and communal disharmony at Narkasur effigy competition. The prosecution's case was based on the incident of 16th October, 2009, where an improvised explosive device (IED) exploded near a Narkasur effigy competition venue, resulting in injuries and fatalities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that while some circumstances were proved, they were not sufficient to convict the accused persons. The court dismissed the appeal seeking reversal of the acquittal.

Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the requirement of consent for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt, of a conclusive nature and tendency, and excluding every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. The court found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard.

Final Decision: The court sustained the acquittals recorded by the Special Court, dismissing the appeal seeking reversal of the acquittal. The court also set aside certain remarks and observations in the impugned judgment and order.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the National Investigation Agency (NIA)- Appellant herein.

2. Heard Mr. Punalekar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 who were styled as A3, A4, A5 and A6 before the learned Special Court.

3. Heard Mr. Joshi who appears for Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who were styled as A10 and A11 before the learned Special Court.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st December, 2013, made by the learned Special Court for NIA cases acquitting the aforesaid accused persons from various offences which they were charged with in Special SC No.01/2013.

5. Mr. Faldessai, at the outset submits that this is an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Act, 2008. However, he agrees that the principle relating to appeals against the acquittal as provided under Section 378 of Cr. P.C., will govern the adjudication of this appeal.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16th October, 2009, at about 21.30 hours, the improvised explosive device (IED) carried by the A1 and A2 in the dickey of an Eterno scooter bearing registration No. GA-05-A-7800 exploded near Reliance Trade Centre, Margao Goa. On account of such explosion A1 and A2 sustained injuries. A case bearing Crime No.338/09 was registered at the Margao Police Station under Sections 120B, 121A, 122, 123, 427 IPC read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

7. Further, on the same date at about 22.30 hours, on receipt of information, the PSI of Verna Police Station rushed to the spot near Shantadurga Temple, Sancaole and noticed a bag lying suspiciously on on the ground adjacent to the road. PSI summoned the services of Bomb Detection Disposal Squad (BDDS). The squad found and diffused an explosive device comprising of four gelatin sticks, 4 electronic detonators with wires, box containing electric circuits with two 9 volt batteries and a clock. Accordingly, another case bearing Crime No.114/2009 was registered at Verna Police Station under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 120B, 427 read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 6 and 9(B)(2) of the Explosives Act, 1884.

8. The above two cases were investigated by the team of Police Officers of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) for some time. However, vide order No.17011/116/2009-IS-VI dated 9th December, 2009, Govt. of India directed the NIA to take up the investigations in the above two cases. Accordingly, the NIA re-registered the cases as RC Nos. 7/2009 and 8/2009 and carried out the investigation therein.

9. Based upon its investigation, the NIA filed a composite final report in respect of both the cases against A3, A4, A5, A6, A10 and A11 under Sections 120B and 121A of IPC, Sections 16, 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1967 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In addition to this, A4 was charged with offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC and A10 and A11 were charged with offences under Section 201 of IPC. On account of injuries sustained on 16th October, 2009, A1 and A2 expired and therefore, the cases against them abated.

10. The accused Nos.7, 8 and 9 were indicated as absconding. Therefore, the prosecution was granted liberty to file separate chargesheet against A7, A8 and A9 as and when they could be apprehended.

11. The prosecution examined in all 122 witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. The accused persons examined Nagesh Gade (DW1), in support of their defence. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Special Judge has acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. Hence, this appeal by the NIA.

12. Mr. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top