IMPORTANT POINTS
Conspiracy - determination of.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Criminal Appeal no. 418 of 2011 - Designated court acquitting respondent by well reasoned judgment - No interference required. (Para 10)
        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Criminal appeal no. 409 of 2011 - Respondents taken to Dubai with intention to send them to Pakistan for arms training - None of them aware of purpose of or intention of their visit to Dubai - Designated court rightly acquitted the respondent. (Para 26)
        (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Criminal Appeal no. 601 of 2011 - Designated court after elaborately analyzing the evidence acquitting the respondents - No witness naming the respondents or identifying them in court - No infirmity in acquittal. (Para 39)
        (d) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 15 r/w rule 15(3)(b), TADA Rules - Criminal Appeal no. 404 of 2011 - Procedure for recording confessional statement - A-48 - First part of confessional statement not recorded in consonance with statutory requirements - Rightly rejected by Designated court. (Para 52)
        (2000) 2 SCC 254; (2001) 3 SCC 221; (2002) 8 SCC 447 - Relied upon
        (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Criminal Appeal no. 405 of 2011 - A-38 - Designated court acquitting respondent of all charges - Parameters laid down by Supreme Court for interfering with order of acquittal have to be applied - There is no ground for interfering with order of Designated court. (Paras 62 and 63)
        (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Section 3(3) and 15 r/w Rule 15, TADA Rules and Section 120-B, IPC - Criminal Appeal 394 of 2011 - A-80 - Confessional statement of accused and co-accused - Requirements of section 15 and Rule 15 not complied with - No other evidence to connect respondent A-80 to the crime - Rightly acquitted by Designated court. (Para 75)
        (2001) 3 SCC 221; (2002) 8 SCC 447 - Relied upon
        (g) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Criminal appeal no. 1033 of 2012 - In recording confessional statements requirements of section 15 TADA Act and Rule 15 of TADA Rules not complied with - No other acceptable evidence connecting respondent with crime - Rightly acquitted by Designated court. (Para 86)
        (h) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Criminal Appeal no. 594 of 2011 - A-105 - His involvement in the crime not established - For involvement of his son, he cannot be held responsible merely because he was present in the house where contraband were hidden - Designated court rightly acquitted the respondent. (Para 98)
        (i) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Criminal Appeal no. 402 of 2011 - Prosecution failed to identify the accused who had gone to Pakistan for training - Designated court rightly gave benefit of doubt. (Para 110)
        (j) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and Section 111 r/w Section 135(b), Customs Act, 1962 - Criminal Appeal no. 1022 of 2012 - A-27 - Respondent held by Designated court to be not aware of nature of the goods being transported - Rightly confined conviction to section 111 r/w 135(b) and acquitted of other charges. (Paras 123 and 125)
        (k) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and section 111 and 135(b), Customs Act, 1962 - Criminal Appeal no. 393 of 2011 - A-60 - Respondent’s not aware of the nature of goods being smuggled - Designated court rightly held him liable only u/ss 111 and 135(b). (Paras 135 and 137)
        (l) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) and 6 - Criminal Appeal no. 391 of 2011 - A-17 - Designated court acquitting respondent of charge of conspiracy - Holding guilty on other counts - Respondent came to know real nature of goods being smuggled, i.e., they were not of silver or gold but arms and ammunition - Despite acquiring such knowledge he continued his association with Tiger Memon - Liable to be convicted for conspiracy u/s 3(3) - Designated court wrongly acquitting the respondent. (Para 171)
        (m) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3), 5 and 6; and section 120-B, 201 IPC- Criminal Appeal no. 1027 of 2012 - A-24 - Was involved and participated throughout in main conspiracy - Order acquitting him of charge of conspiracy held perverse - Order set aside - A-24 convicted and sentenced. (Para 190)
        (n) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 597 of 2011 - A-55 - Respondent not directly involved in the conspiracy - His involvement being only because his father was the landing agent - Designated court acquitting him on charge of conspiracy - No infirmity. (Paras 203 and 204)
        (o) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3), 5 and 6; and Sections 3 and 7 r/w Section 25(1-A)(1-B)(a), Arms Act - Criminal Appeal no. 407 of 2011 - A-72 - Hand grenades were given to one Ayub resident of Oshiwara - Respondent also name Ayub - No evidence to establish that both are one and the same person - Designated court rightly granted benefit of doubt. (Para 213)
        (1995) 5 SCC 410 - Relied upon
        (p) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 1025 of 2012 - A-135 - Confessional statement - Section 15, TADA and rule 15, TADA Rules not complied - Statement not admissible - Respondent participating in Shekhadi landing - Not aware of the articles being smuggled - Not guilty of conspiracy - Designated court rightly acuiting respondent of charge of conspiracy. (Paras 222, 223 and 225)
        (q) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 599 of 2011 - A-58 - Designated court acquitting respondent of charges of conspiracy - Respondent having served sentence on other counts, i.e., 10 years RI and paid the fine Supreme Court declined to interfere with order of Designated court. (Paras 232 and 234)
        (r) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 395 of 2011 - A-75 - Respondent travelling to Dubai and Pakistan on fictitious passport - Receiving arms training - Also involved in sending PW1 to Dubai and Pakistan for training - Participated in conspiratorial meetings in Dubai - His throughout involvement in conspiracy established - Order of Designated court acquitting Respondent of conspiracy charge perverse - Set aside. (Para 248)
        (s) TADA (P) Act, 1987 - Section 3(3) - Criminal Appeal no. 397 of 2011 - A-94 - Designated court acquitting respondent of charge of conspiracy - Respondent going to Pakistan and receiving arms training, attending conspiratorial meetings at Dubai - Taking oath of secrecy in the name of Quran - Establishes his awareness of the purpose of training in Pakistan - He undertook training without any protest - Order of Designated court acquitting respondent of conspiracy charge - Not sustainable - Respondent convicted and sentenced for conspiracy. (Paras 266 and 267)
       Facts of the case:
        This case relates to Mumbai blasts in 1993 in Bombay Blast Case No. 1/93.
       The respondent had been charged for general conspiracy which is framed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 3(3) TADA and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 TADA and read with Sections 302, 307,326,324, 427,435,436, 201 and 212 IPC and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (I-A), (l-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9-B (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
        The Designated TADA Court acquitted the respondent of all charges.
       Finding of the Court:
        Designated court decided the cases rightly in general.
       Result :
        Criminal Appeal nos. 418 of 2011; 409 of 2011; 601 of 2011; 404 of 2011; 405 of 2011; 394 of 2011; 1033 of 2012; 594 of 2011; 402 of 2011; 1022 of 2012; 393 of 2011; 597 of 2011; 407 of 2011; 1025 of 2012 and 599 of 2011; dismissed.
        Criminal Appeal no. 391 of 2011; 1027 of 2012; 395 of 2011 and 397 of 2011 allowed.

Judgment :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.8.2007, passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TADA’) in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1/93, acquitting the respondent of all the charges.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that :

A. As the facts of this case and all legal issues involved herein have been elaborately dealt with in the connected appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI], it may be pertinent to mention only the relevant facts and charges against the respondent.

B. Bombay Blast took place on 12.3.1993 in which 257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In addition thereto, there had been loss of property worth several crores. The Bombay police investigated the matter at initial stage but subsequently it was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBI’) and on conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against a large number of accused persons. Out of the accused persons against whom chargesheet was filed, 40 accused could not be put to trial as they have been absconding. Thus, the Designated Court under TADA framed charges against 138 accused persons. During the trial, 11 accused died and 2 accused turned hostile. Further the Designated Court discharged 2 accused during trial and the remaining persons including respondent (A-76) stood convicted.

C. The respondent had been charged for general conspiracy which is framed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 3(3) TADA and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 TADA and read with Sections 302, 307,326,324,427,435,436, 201 and 212 IPC and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (I-A), (l-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9-B (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

D. In addition, the respondent had been charged for persuading his brother-in-law Firoz Amani Malik (A-39) to undergo weapons’ training in Pakistan and keeping in his possession 4 handgrenades brought to him by Firoz Amani Malik (A-39) and for handing over the same to Mohd. Jabir (A-93-dead), showing that the same had been smuggled into India for committing terrorist activities.

E. The Designated Court after conclusion of the trial acquitted the respondent of all the charges.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the respondent had been responsible to send the co-accused to Dubai, and further to Pakistan to have training for handling the arms, ammunition and explosives, and therefore, his acquittal for all the charges is liable to be reversed.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the co-accused (A-39), who was brother-in-law of respondent himself, had not been aware of the purpose for which he had been taken to Dubai. The respondent cannot be held responsible for sending Firoz (A-39) for any criminal activity. Thus, the well- reasoned judgment of the Special Judge does not require interference.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

There is no confession by the respondent accused (A-76).

6. Confessional statement of Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39) revealed that the said respondent was the brother-in-law of Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39). The said accused Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39) had been awarded the death sentence in this very case and his appeal is being heard alongwith this case.

Respondent (A-76) used to advise the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 271

IMPORTANT POINTS Conspiracy - determination of.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Conspiracy - determination of.