IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Siva @ Jeeva @ Atham @ Mottai Khadar @ Abdullah & Another - Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 1049 of 2006
Decided on : 16-04-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120B read with 307, 34 and 436 - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act - Section 4 - Appellants herein are A2 and A3 – Offence of Attempt of Murder - Criminal Conspiracy – Charged - Accused were charge sheeted for offences alleging that accused/A1 to A3, conspired among themselves in month to stall cabaret dance performance at Maxims Hall, within Imperial Hotel at Egmore - It is further alleged that A1 manufactured an improvised explosive device and A3 helped in concealing that bomb at his Scrap Iron Shop, located at No. and that in furtherance of above conspiracy, A1 and A2 obtained stored bomb from A3 made entry into Maxim Hall of Imperial Hotel and planted bomb below 2nd and 3rd tables under cover of semi darkness and that when dancing programme was going on, A1 switched bomb and left Maxim Hall with A2 and that within few minutes thereafter, bomb exploded with a huge noise, which caused various types of injuries to customers who witnessed programme and to employees of programme - It is further alleged that loss occurred to furniture and floor of dance hall was estimated and thereby accused appeared to have committed offences under above provisions of law – Held, present case being a case of circumstantial evidence as discussed above, Prosecution has miserably failed to establish each and every instance of incriminating circumstances by way of reliable and clinching evidence and circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events on basis of which no conclusion other than one of guilt of accused can be reached - Trial Court failed to prove its inference by established facts - Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court is contrary to evidence on record and well settled principles in respect of circumstantial evidence - Though it is a serious nature of case of planting bombs in a Hotel, Prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, AppellantsA2 and A3 are entitled for acquittal - Court has placed reliance on evidence of PW.41, PW.44, PW.15 and PW.16 to base conviction of Appellants - Based on reasonings as stated above, Court finds that their evidence is not reliable and do not inspire confidence and thereby, Trial Court had erred and is not justified in convicting the Appellants/A2 and A3 placing reliance on evidence of above said witnesses - Criminal Appeal is allowed - Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside.
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 17.11.2006, made in SC.No.13 of 2001, by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 17.11.2006, made in SC.No.13 of 2001, by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee.
2. The 1st Appellant/A2 was convicted and sentenced (a) for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with 307 of IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years, (b) for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years, (c) for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 4 Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act (in short TNPP Act), to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, (d) for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, read with Section 34 of IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years, (e) for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC (14 counts), to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years under each count and (f) for the offence under Section 4 of the TNPP Act, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and was directed to undergo the sentences concurrently.
3. The 2nd Appellant/A3 was convicted and sentenced (a) for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years, (b) for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with 307 of IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years, (c) for the offence under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 4 Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years, (d) for the offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, read with Section 6 of the Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years and (e) for the offence under Section 4 of the TNPP Act, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and was directed to undergo the sentences concurrently.
4. There are three accused persons, namely, A1 to A3 in SC.No.13 of 2001 and they are alleged to be religious fundamentalists. The Appellants herein are A2 and A3. The accused were charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 120B, 436 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992, read with 109 of IPC, alleging that the accused/A1 to A3, conspired among themselves in the month of July 1996 to stall the cabaret dance performance at Maxim's Hall, within Imperial Hotel at Egmore and accordingly, A3 arranged a house for A1 and A2 at No.5/121, 115th Street, Muthamiz Nagar, Kodungaiyur, belonging to one Sabu, residing at No.38, 4th Street, TVK Nagar, Chennai and conspired to blast the dance floor of the said Hotel. It is further alleged that A1 manufactured an improvised explosive device and A3 helped in concealing that bomb at his Scrap Iron Shop, located at No.110. TH Road, Erukkancheri and that in furtherance of the above conspiracy, A1 and A2 obtained the stored bomb from A3, made entry into the Maxim Hall of the Imperial Hotel on 27.09.1996 and planted the bomb below the 2nd and 3rd tables under the cover of semi darkness and that when the dancing programme was going on, A1 switched the bomb and left the Maxim Hall with A2 and that within few minutes thereafter, the bomb exploded with a huge noise, which caused various types of injuries to the customers who witnessed the programme and to the employees of the programme. It is further alleged that the loss occurred to the furniture and the floor of the dance hall was estimated to be Rs.1,50,000/- and thereby, the accused appeared to have committed the offences under the above provisions of law.
5. The case was taken on file in SC.No.13 o
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P.
Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of Maharashtra
D.Gopalakrishnan Vs. Sadanand Naik and others
Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Kailash Gour Vs. State of Assam
M.G.Agarwal Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1963 SC 200)
Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of AP (AIR 1990 SC 79)
Rajkumar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan (AIR 2013 SC 3150)
Ravi Vs. State by Inspector of Police (AIR 2007 SC 1729)
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.
State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya
Shaik Umar Ahmed shaik Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1998 SC 1922)
Sharad Vs. State of Maharashtra
Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam (AIR 2013 SC 3817)
Shaik Umar Ahmed Shaik and another Vs. State of Maharashtra
State of UP Vs. Wasif Haider and others
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984 4 SCC 116: AIR 1984 SC 1622
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.