Case: Lal Singh Vs. State Of Gujarat

of PW128, PW132 and PW133. PW128 Satishchandra Rajnarayanlal, who was S.P., CBI II, Punjab Cell, at New Delhi in 1992 stated that he registered the offence R.C.6-SII/92. He recorded the confessional statements of A1 Lal Singh Ex.620 and A3 Tahir Jamal Ex.618 alongwith other accused. Before recording confessional statements, he ascertained from every accused whether they were voluntarily ready to give confessional statements. Necessary questions were put to them and time was given to them to think over the matter. After being satisfied that they were willing to give voluntary confessional statements, he recorded their confessional statements. PW132 Padamchandra Laxmichandra Sharma, who was SP CBI SIC II at the relevant time stated that when he took over the charge of this case RC.6.(S)/92 from Mr. Satishchandra, this case was on the last phase. Dy.S.P. CBI, D.P. Singh (PW136) had produced A2 Mohd. Sharief and A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar before him on 8.7.1993 and 6.2.1994 for recording their voluntary confessional statement, which are Ex.650 and Ex.654 respectively. Before recording their statements, he warned them of the consequences of making confessional statements and further gave them time to think over the matter. On being satisfied that they wanted to give confessional statements, he recorded their statements. PW133 Sharadhkumar Laxminarayan, DIG Police, CBI, SIC II Branch, New Delhi stated that in the year 1992 he was S.P. in the same branch at New Delhi. On 5th November, 1992 he was directed by DIG M.L. Sharma to proceed to Ahmedabad in order to record statement of A4 Saquib Nachan under Section 15 of TADA Act. On 6th November, 1992 after reaching at Ahmedabad, Saquib Nachan was produced before him. He put necessary questions to A4 Saquib Nachan. Before recording confessional statement, he ascertained from him whether be was voluntarily ready to give confessional statement and warned him that if he made confessional statement, the same can be used against him. He also apprised the accused that he is not bound to make such statement. When the accused replied that he wanted to make clean admission of guilt, he recorded the confessional statement of A4 Saquib Nachan. From the above evidence, it is clear that Rule 15 was fully followed by the witnesses, who recorded the confessional statements of accused. 90. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants who are convicted by the trial Court. (1) For accused No. 1, the evidence as narrated above proves, beyond reasonable doubt, his involvement in criminal conspiracy. He moved from one place to another in India in different fake names; he along with other persons went to Ahmedabad, hired C-33, Paresh Apartments and got transferred building 4A in Usman Harun Society, Juhupura, Ahmedabad. On the basis of his interrogation, the police at Ahmedabad raided the premises and found large quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosive substances. His stay at Ahmedabad in the said premises is established without any shadow of doubt by examining independent witnesses including residents of aforesaid two premises, the washerman and other persons. He was staying in the name of Ashok Kumar Khanna or Iqbal. His stay in different hotels is also established. The purchase of Mahindra Jeep and Maruti Gypsy is also proved. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court erred in convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 3(3) and 5(1) of the TADA Act as well as Section 120B IPC and under Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. (2) Against accused No. 2, apart from his confessional statement, it is proved that he is a Pakistani national. He moved from one place to another in India. He stayed at Aligarh with A1 and in Qureshi Guest House at Delhi in different names during different period. Hence, there is no reason to discard his confessional statement that he was I.S.I. agent and that he was involved in terrorist activities and hatched conspiracy with A1. (3) For accused No. 3, apart from proving his confessional statement, prosecution has proved that he was found in the company of A1 and A20 at Bombay. From his premises, the letter written by him (Ex. 602 and 603) was found indicating his secret activities. (4) For accused No. 4, apart from his confessional statement, it is proved that he accompanied A1 at Ahmedabad and Madras and stayed in different hotels in different names. He was present at Aligarh alongwith A1 and A2. He was also absconding. (5) Similarly for A20, in addition to confessional statement, the prosecution has led the evidence to establish his association with A1 and A2 at Aligarh. Thereafter, it is proved that he went to Bombay and introduced A1 and A3 as his friends to his friend PW87. 91. The next question would be with regard to the conviction of A3, A4 and A20 for the offence punishable under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act. In our view, there cannot be any doubt that A3, A4 and A20 have conspired alongwith A1 and A2 in their preparatory terrorist activities. Apart from conspiring, A4 specifically accompanied A1 at Ahmedabad for the purpose of finding hideout. He also accompanied A1 at Madras for surveying the Madras Stock Exchange. If A4 was not at all connected with A1, there was no necessity of travelling together in fake names. For accused Nos. 3 and 20, it is true that apart form their confessional statement, role proved against them in conspiring with A1 is limited. However, A3, Tahir Jamal had kept substantial amount for carrying the expenditure incurred in these activities. The torn letter Ex.602 and 603 establishes that he was involved in secret `karobar. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that their conviction under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act is in any way illegal or erroneous. However, considering the role played by A-3, A-4 and A-20, we think interest of justice would be served if their sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to R.I. for 10 years. 92. In the result,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]39. In our view, there is no substance in the said submission. First seals, which were removed, were affixed again at second premises after arranging and classifying the weapons. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve prosecution witnesses for the recovery of large quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosive substances, which were recovered on the basis of interrogation if A1 Lal Singh. Immediate action was taken for locating the premises and after locating the premises, raids were carried out by S.P. Mr. Surolia. Learned senior Counsel has also submitted that no search warrant was obtained prior to search as required under Rule 14 of the TADA Rules. He submitted that no entry was made in the record despite the decision being taken to raid the premises. It is to be stated that raid was carried out by S.P. Mr. Surolia after obtaining directions from Commissioner of Police Mr. M.M. Mehta. He was present at the time of raiding the premises. He was also present when panchnama was prepared for seizure of the articles. Further, the learned Judge has specifically observed that during the examination of the panch, PW6 Dharmen H. Dudhiya, each parcel was opened and panch had identified the slips which were affixed at the time of sealing of the parcel along with his signatures and of the other panch Mr. Akhilesh S. Bhagat. He has also identified the seized articles which were sealed in his presence and has described the premises which were raided and has fully corroborated Mr. Surolia and Mr. Tarun Barot, with regard to seizure of the articles. Therefore, alleged irregularity in mixing of the articles recovered from Paresh Apartments and bungalow No. 4A, Usman Harun Society would not in any way materially affect the seizure of the said articles. It was the prosecution version that in order to classify the weapons or to arrange them in category, the seals which were affixed at C-33, Paresh Apartments were removed and after classification of the arms and ammunition, they were re-sealed. We would also state that in the first part of the panchnama the recovery from the Paresh Apartments is mentioned separately and there is no reason to disbelieve the said part of the panchnama. In view of the overwhelming evidence it appears that before the learned Judge, the defence has not challenged the prosecution evidence qua recovery of arms and ammunitions from two praises but they contended that none of the accused can be linked with the alleged recovery or with the conscious possession of any of the two premises. Before the trial Court much comment was made with regard to the exhibition of the seized arms to the Press in presence of the then Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat. But in our view, exhibition of the said seized articles would not in any way adversely affect the prosecution version that the said articles were seized on the basis of the information received after interrogating A1 Lal Singh on 23rd July, 1992 and immediate action was taken by the police after its receipt on the same night. Further, PW8 Rupsingh, Ex.165, a Senior Scientific Officer in Central Forensic Science Laboratory at New Delhi has inter alia stated that on 28th August, 1992 his team started examining the seized articles, which were kept in boxes/bags at Police headquarter, Shahibag, Ahmedabad. The inspection was carried out for three days after checking the seals. The seals were found intact, which tallied with the specimen seals of Astodia police station. The report prepared by him is produced at Ex.167. Further, all these arms were firearms as defined in Arms Act, 1959. In this view of the matter, it would be difficult to accept the contentions of the defence counsel that the seized arms and ammunition were not properly sealed or were not kept at proper place. The seized articles were kept at the police headquarter because of its large quantity. Hence, we hold that on the basis of interrogation of A1 prosecution has proved beyond doubt recovery of large quantities of arms, ammunitions and explosive substances86. It is true that under our existing jurisprudence in a criminal matter, we have to proceed with presumption of innocence, but at the same time, that presumption is to be judged on the basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent man. Smelling doubts for the fake of giving benefit of doubt is not the law of the land. In such type of terrorist activities if arms and ammunitions are recovered at the instance of or on disclosure by accused, it can be stated that presumption of innocence would not thereafter exist and it would be for the accused to explain its possession or discovery or recovery and would depend upon facts of each case which are to be appreciated on the scales of common sense of a prudent man possessing capacity to separate the chaff from grain. In such cases, as stated by Lord Denning J., law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If it is established on record that A20 was found in company of A1 and A2 at Aligarh and that at Bombay also he had introduced himself as friend of A1 and A3 to PW87, who is his childhood friend, then it would be reasonable to infer that he was co-conspirator and assisting A1 and A2, as stated in his confessional statement88. The learned Counsel pointed out that before carrying out the raids neither FIR was registered and even after breaking open locks the procedure is not followed. It is true that in this case FIR was registered after carrying out the raids. For this contention, it has been pointed out on behalf of the prosecution that before raids were carried out there was no certainty that arms and ammunition would be recovered. These raids were carried out only on the basis of information received after interrogation of A1 Lal Singh. Secondly, the raid was arrived out in the presence of higher officer, namely Mr. A.K.R. Surolia, Dy. C.P. (PW103). For breaking of locks in the said premises, there is no question of different procedure in such cases. For this purpose panchnama was prepared and it is mentioned that after breaking open the locks, search was carried out. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was no justifiable reason to deposit the arms and ammunitions which were found in the said two premises at the police headquarter. It is the say of the witness that muddamal arms and ammunitions were deposited at the police headquarter because of its large quantity. It is quite possible that there may not be sufficient space at the police station where FIR was registered. In any case, for the purpose of safety if the muddamal articles are deposited at the police headquarter, it cannot be said that the recovery is in any way vitiated89. The next contention that Rule 15 of TADA Rules has not been followed also does not carry any weight. For this purpose, we would refer to the evidence of PW128, PW132 and PW133. PW128 Satishchandra Rajnarayanlal, who was S.P., CBI II, Punjab Cell, at New Delhi in 1992 stated that he registered the offence R.C.6-SII/92. He recorded the confessional statements of A1 Lal Singh Ex.620 and A3 Tahir Jamal Ex.618 alongwith other accused. Before recording confessional statements, he ascertained from every accused whether they were voluntarily ready to give confessional statements. Necessary questions were put to them and time was given to them to think over the matter. After being satisfied that they were willing to give voluntary confessional statements, he recorded their confessional statements. PW132 Padamchandra Laxmichandra Sharma, who was SP CBI SIC II at the relevant time stated that when he took over the charge of this case RC.6.(S)/92 from Mr. Satishchandra, this case was on the last phase. Dy.S.P. CBI, D.P. Singh (PW136) had produced A2 Mohd. Sharief and A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar before him on 8.7.1993 and 6.2.1994 for recording their voluntary confessional statement, which are Ex.650 and Ex.654 respectively. Before recording their statements, he warned them of the consequences of making confessional statements and further gave them time to think over the matter. On being satisfied that they wanted to give confessional statements, he recorded their statements. PW133 Sharadhkumar Laxminarayan, DIG Police, CBI, SIC II Branch, New Delhi stated that in the year 1992 he was S.P. in the same branch at New Delhi. On 5th November, 1992 he was directed by DIG M.L. Sharma to proceed to Ahmedabad in order to record statement of A4 Saquib Nachan under Section 15 of TADA Act. On 6th November, 1992 after reaching at Ahmedabad, Saquib Nachan was produced before him. He put necessary questions to A4 Saquib Nachan. Before recording confessional statement, he ascertained from him whether be was voluntarily ready to give confessional statement and warned him that if he made confessional statement, the same can be used against him. He also apprised the accused that he is not bound to make such statement. When the accused replied that he wanted to make clean admission of guilt, he recorded the confessional statement of A4 Saquib Nachan. From the above evidence, it is clear that Rule 15 was fully followed by the witnesses, who recorded the confessional statements of accused.