2002 (4) TMI 946 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction and sentencing under various sections of TADA Act, IPC, Explosives Substances Act, and Arms Act.
2. Admissibility and reliability of the confessional statements.
3. Reliability of the approver's testimony.
4. Identification of the appellant by a witness.

Summary:

1. Conviction and Sentencing:
The appellant, Ravinder Singh @ Bittu, was convicted by the Designated Court for offences u/s 3 and 4 of the TADA Act read with Section 120 IPC, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1984. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for these offences. Additionally, he was convicted u/s 392 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, receiving 10 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each offence. The sentences were to run concurrently.

2. Admissibility and Reliability of Confessional Statements:
The appellant's confessional statement, recorded by the Superintendent of Police, was deemed voluntary and truthful, complying with all legal requirements u/s 15 of the TADA Act. The court held that such a confession is a substantive piece of evidence and does not require corroboration. The appellant's confession detailed his involvement in the bomb blast on November 8, 1991, which resulted in 12 deaths and 65 injuries. The court also considered the confessional statement of co-accused Nishan Singh, which implicated the appellant.

3. Reliability of the Approver's Testimony:
The approver, Kulvinder Singh (PW-1), provided evidence against the appellant. However, the court noted that the conviction was not solely based on the approver's testimony. Despite the appellant's counsel pointing out inconsistencies in the approver's statements, the court maintained that the appellant's confession alone was sufficient for conviction.

4. Identification of the Appellant by a Witness:
Deepali Chauhan (PW-3), a victim of the bomb blast, identified the appellant in a test identification parade and in court. She testified that she saw the appellant handling a cloth bag containing the bomb in the train. The court found her identification reliable despite minor contradictions and a delay in the identification parade, noting that her testimony corroborated the appellant's confessional statement.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, finding no illegality in the judgment of the Designated Court. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the substantive evidence provided by the appellant's voluntary and truthful confession, supported by the testimony of PW-3 and the confessional statement of co-accused Nishan Singh.