SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal and H.K. Sema, JJ.
Bharatbhai @ Jimi Premchandbhai - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2002.
Decided On : 3 October, 2002
Confession - TADA Act - Rule 15(3) - The confessional statements were inadmissible and could not be made the basis of upholding the conviction. The appeals were allowed and the appellants were directed to be set free forthwith.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased Raghunath Yadav was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court at Varanasi for the murder of father of Brijesh Singh - who is one of the absconding accused in the present case. While on bail in appeal, Raghunath Yadav, apprehending danger to his life, came to reside at Mehsana in the State of Gujarat. On 14th June, 1992, Raghunath Yadav was murdered at Mehsana.
Finding of the Court:
The confessional statements were inadmissible and could not be made the basis of upholding the conviction. The appeals were allowed and the appellants were directed to be set free forthwith.
Issues: The admissibility of the confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act and Rule 15(3) and the compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Rule.
Ratio Decidendi: Writing the certificate and making the memorandum under Rule 15(3)(b) is mandatory. The language of the certificate and the memorandum is not mandatory. In case the certificate and memorandum is not prepared but the contemporaneous record shows substantial compliance of what is required to be contained therein, the discrepancy can be cured if there is oral evidence of recording officer based on such contemporaneous record. In absence of contemporaneous record, discrepancy cannot be cured by oral evidence based on memory of the recording officer.
Final Decision: The confessional statements were inadmissible and could not be made the basis of upholding the conviction. The appeals were allowed and the appellants were directed to be set free forthwith.
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - Deceased Raghunath Yadav was convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Court at Varanasi for the murder of father of Brijesh Singh - who is one of the absconding accused in the present case. While on bail in appeal, Raghunath Yadav, apprehending danger to his life, came to reside at Mehsana in the State of Gujarat. On 14th June, 1992, Raghunath Yadav was murdered at Mehsana.
2. In TADA case Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 of 1996, twelve accused were tried by the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad for offences under Sections 302, 397, 307, 120B Indian Penal Code, Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) and 5 of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA Act) and under Section 25(1)(a) and (b) of the Arms Act.
3. The charge-sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 was filed on 6th April, 1993, against accused Nos. 4 to 6 on 1st July, 1994, against accused Nos. 7 to 11 on 15th April, 1996 and against accused No. 12 on 26th November, 1996. The charges were that the accused persons and the absconding accused - Sharifkhan Azizkhan Pathan, Daud Ibrahim Meman, Brijeshsinh Bholansinh, Radayanarayansinh alias Harinarayansinh alias Bhulansinh Thakur, Unita Prajapati, deceased accused Sunil Savat and Abdulllatif Abdul Vahab Shaikh had hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Raghunath Yadav and thereby, committed criminal acts punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code; as per the above conspiracy on 14th June, 1992, accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and the absconding accused Radayanarayansinh @ Harinarayansinh @ Bhuvansinh Thakur and Brijeshsinh Bhuvansinh @ Ravinathsinh Thakur had gone to S.T. Bus stand, Mehsana and after obtaining information about the identification of the deceased as a part of the conspiracy made firing with the positol and caused murder of Raghunath Yadav and created an atmosphere of terror and fear at the said place and then fled away in the vehicles and, thus, committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of TADA Act read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code; while fleeing away from Mehsana after firing and committing murder as aforesaid, Police Sub-Inspector, Zala who tried to arrest the accused was fired at the accused causing him injuries and had run away taking the Government Maruti Gypsy with them and, thus, committing offence punishable under Sections 307, 120B Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) and 5 of the TADA Act read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and Section 397 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code.
4. The Designated Court, by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced accused No. 4 Subhashsinh @ Mahesh Shobhnathsinh Thakur, accused No. 5 Abdul Khuddarsh Abdulgani Shaikh, accused No. 7 Bharat Premchanbhai Patel, accused No. 8 Ramdularsinh Ramdharisinh Thakur and accused No. 9 Shitalaprasad Devjansinh Thakur for offences punishable under Sections 120B, Section 302 read with Section 120B, Section 307 read with Section 120B, Section 397 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and offence under Sections 3(1), 3(3) of the TADA Act read with Section 5 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code. All of them have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 120B, offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs. 500/- each and further imprisonment of one month for default in payment of fine. For other offences, varying punishments have been awarded. Accused No. 12 died during trial and the remaining were acquitted.
5. The convicted accused have preferred three appeals under Section 19 of TADA Act. We have perused the record and heard Mr. Yashank Adhyaru for accused No. 7 (Crl.A. No. 594/2002), Mr. Ranjit Kumar for accused No. 9 (Crl.A. No. 720/20002), Mr. V.S. Kotwal for accused No. 8 (Crl.A. No. 731/2002), Mr. U.R. Lalit for accused No. 4 (Crl.A. No. 721/2002), Mr. Sushil Kumar for accused No. 5 (Crl.A. No. 82
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini & Ors.
S.N. Dube v. N.B. Bhoir & Ors.
Chandran v. State of Tamil Nadu
Sharafat Hussein Abdul Rahaman Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
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.