IMPORTANT POINTS
Sanction/approval granted u/s 20-A without application of mind is invalid.
Unless the crime creates terror in the area, it will not be covered under TADA Act.
TI parade conducted after publication of pictures of accused persons in news papers would be farse.
Confession recorded in custody of police cannot be made basis for conviction.

Headnote:(a) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20-A – Prior approval – Sanction granted on 16.09.1997 on the basis of confession of A-1 recorded on 3.04.1997 – Confession of A-6 recorded on 25.10.1994 revealing that A-6 advised A-1 to A-5 to commit the murder in question – It is the only document relevant u/s 3 revealing conspiracy – Not even referred to in the sanction latter – The two confessions contradicting each other, and not voluntary – Sanctioning authority not knowing Tamil and hence sanction was not granted on considering all materials in Tamil – Sanction order vitiated by non application of mind. (Para 7, 8, 9)
       (2014) 8 SCC 425; (1997) 8 SCC 732 – Relied upon
       (b) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 3(1) – Terrorist activities – Ingredients – No evidence of terror spreading in the area the murder – Case of simple murder out of animosity – No evidence showing appellants’ intention to cause terror in the minds of people or strike on them with terror – Held, invalid approvals vitiated the entire proceedings. (Para 19, 20)
       (2013) 8 SCC 119; (2011) 1 SCC 491; (2012) 11 SCC 606 – Relied upon
       (1994) 3 SCC 569; (1996) 11 SCC 179; (1994) 4 SCC 602 – Distinguished
       (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 – Test Identification Parade – Conducted after publication of pictures of accused persons in news paper – Would be a farce. (Para 24)
       1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 – Relied upon
       (d) Criminal trial – Confession – Recorded in immediate custody of high security of CBI – Cannot be said to be voluntary – Cannot form basis of conviction. (Para 26)
       (2012) 11 SCC 606; (2005) 11 SCC 600 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The Court of Designated Judge for TADA cases found the appellants herein guilty for offences punishable under Section 120(B) read with Sections 302, 147, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
       Finding of the Court:
       Whole proceedings in the present case were vitiated.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2011 passed by the Court of Designated Judge for TADA Cases, Tirunelveli, in TADA Case No.1/1997, whereby the learned Designated Judge found the appellants herein guilty for offences punishable under Section 120(B) read with Sections 302, 147, 148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( for short “TADA”) and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

2. The facts of the case have been elaborately discussed by the learned Special Judge of the Designated Court for adjudication of TADA cases. We need not, therefore, recapitulate the entire factual backdrop in which the appellants were tried, found guilty and sentenced, excepting where it is absolutely necessary to do so. There are six accused in this case, namely, Sahul Hameed (A-1), Raja Hussain (A-2), Zubeir (A-3), Zakir Hussain (A-4), Azeez (A-5) and Seeni Nainar Mohammed (A-6). On 10th October, 1994, at about 06:30 a.m., A-1 to A-6 in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched amongst them, went to the house of one Rajagopalan (since deceased), who was President of Hindu Munnani Association, with a motive to kill him. A day before the incident, A-6 Seeni Nainar Mohammed had advised his brother Raja Hussain (A-2) to meet him after completing the task of murdering Rajagopalan. When Rajagopalan, after taking the newspapers from a newspaper sub-agent Saravanam (PW-3), was going through the newspapers facing East at his house, accused persons came from left hand side of Rajagopalan and while A-1 caught hold of the neck of Rajagopalan from behind, A-3 and A-4 took out knives and stabbed on his stomach. A-5 showing a sickle threatened the public to run away and repeatedly attacked the said Rajagopalan and thereafter they ran away towards west. On hearing the noise, PW-1 Krishnaveni wife of the deceased came out of the house and saw that her husband was lying down in a pool of blood. The occurrence was witnessed by PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6. PW-1 informed about the incident to the Market Police Station on telephone. Upon receiving the information, PW-2 Inspector of Market Police Station rushed to the spot and enquired from PW-1 who gave a written complaint to him.

3. Law was set into motion when PW-2 Stalin Michael, Inspector registered the FIR Ext.P2 at 07:30 a.m. at Police Station Thilagar Ground, Madurai District, under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of IPC in Crime No.2490/1994. On the orders of DGP, the case was transferred from local Police to CBCID and Shri Rajagopal, DSP (PW-24) took up the investigation, went to the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Since PW-24 was holding additional charge, he could not accomplish the task of investigation and further investigation was taken up by Shri Jones, DSP (PW-30) and after receiving prior approval from Superintendent of Police (PW-26), registered the case under TADA. The records of the case were transferred to the learned Designated Judge for TADA Cases and after trial, the learned Designated Judge vide his judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 convicted all the accused in TADA Case No.1/1997 holding that the prosecution has proved the first charge as against A-1 to A-6. A-1 to A-5 were convicted under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(1) of TADA read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. However, A-6 was convicted under Section 3(2) read with 3(1) of the TADA read with Section 109 of IPC and under Section 3(4) of TADA and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. However, all the sentences were directed to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 414

Cases Referred (10)