1996 (10) TMI 489 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.
2. Possession of bombs, grenades, and explosive substances.
3. Validity of confessional statements under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
4. Sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act.
5. Charges under IPC Sections 307, 353, and 309.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorist Acts:
The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to manufacture and transport bombs for the LTTE and to strike terror in India. The trial judge found no evidence proving that all accused met and conspired at the specified location and time. The confessional statements of A-2 and A-9 were not considered as they were not recorded as prescribed by Section 15 of the TADA Act and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules. The judge concluded that the conspiracy charge was not proved, as there was no evidence showing the accused met and agreed to commit illegal acts during the specified period.

2. Possession of Bombs, Grenades, and Explosive Substances:
The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and confessional statements to prove possession of explosive substances. The trial judge held that the evidence regarding the recovery of articles was insufficient. Even if possession was proved, there was no evidence showing the intention to use them for terrorist acts. The judge also found the sanction for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act invalid. Thus, the charges under Section 5 of the TADA Act and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act were not proved.

3. Validity of Confessional Statements:
The trial judge ruled that the confessional statements of A-2 and A-9 were inadmissible as they were typewritten and not recorded in the manner prescribed by Section 15 of the TADA Act and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules. The Supreme Court found this interpretation incorrect, holding that "recorded in writing" includes typewriting, and the certification requirement was met if the police officer signed the typewritten document. The confessions were deemed voluntary and correctly recorded, but they did not sufficiently prove the conspiracy charge.

4. Sanction for Prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act:
The trial judge held the sanction given by the District Collector invalid due to the absence of witness statements. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the Collector's consent was based on sufficient material, including the FIR and forensic reports. Thus, the consent was deemed legal and valid.

5. Charges under IPC Sections 307, 353, and 309:
The trial judge found the evidence for charges under Sections 307, 353, and 309 IPC artificial and unbelievable. The Supreme Court re-evaluated the evidence, finding that A-1 attempted to dash his scooter against a police constable and attempted suicide by biting a cyanide capsule. The acquittal under Section 307 was maintained due to the lack of intent to murder, but the conviction under Sections 353 and 309 IPC was warranted. A-2's acquittal under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld due to lack of evidence.

Final Judgment:
The Supreme Court confirmed the acquittal of all accused under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 3(3) TADA Act, Sections 3(3) and 5 of TADA Act, and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. A-1's acquittal under Sections 353 and 309 IPC was set aside, and he was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 353 IPC and six months under Section 309 IPC. A-1 and A-5 to A-9 were convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, with A-1 receiving two years of rigorous imprisonment and A-5 to A-9 receiving one year each. All sentences for A-1 were to run concurrently.