9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Intent and Scope of TADA Act 2. Jurisdiction and Powers of Designated Courts 3. Factual Background and Prosecution Case 4. Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence 5. Identification of Accused 6. Ballistic Evidence and Expert Opinion Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legislative Intent and Scope of TADA Act: The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA) was introduced to combat the escalation of terrorist activities. Despite initial expectations, the Act had to be extended due to unabated violence. The Supreme Court in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat emphasized that the legislation should only be resorted to when the government's law enforcement machinery fails. The Act was designed to treat terrorism as a special criminal problem, creating a special court (Designated Court) and procedure for such offences. 2. Jurisdiction and Powers of Designated Courts: The Designated Courts derive their jurisdiction and power from TADA. Section 14(1) grants these courts exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of offences under the Act. Section 12 allows these courts to try other connected offences under general law in the same trial. The Supreme Court noted that the Act establishes a new hierarchy of courts, providing for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment or order of a Designated Court, bypassing the High Court. 3. Factual Background and Prosecution Case: The case involved the abduction and murder of Piara Singh and the injury of Mukhtiar Singh by the accused, Sarwan Singh and Bagicha Singh. The prosecution's narrative was that the accused, armed with guns, forced their way into the victims' house, abducted them, and subsequently murdered Piara Singh. The complainant, Darshan Singh, provided a detailed account of the events, including the identification of the accused and the subsequent police actions. 4. Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence: The defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated due to previous enmity. However, the Supreme Court found the prosecution witnesses credible, noting that human behavior and the circumstances of the case did not support the defense's claim. The Court emphasized that the credibility and acceptability of witnesses are crucial, and the evidence provided by the prosecution was consistent and reliable. 5. Identification of Accused: The defense contended that the identification of the accused for the first time in court lacked evidentiary value. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while identification in court should generally be corroborated, exceptions exist when witnesses are credible and familiar with the accused. In this case, the witnesses knew the accused from before, and their identification in the FIR and court was deemed reliable. 6. Ballistic Evidence and Expert Opinion: The defense argued that the lack of ballistic expert opinion connecting the gun with the empty cartridges weakened the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court noted that no weapon was recovered in this case, making ballistic evidence irrelevant. The preponderance of evidence supported the Designated Court's findings, and the appeal was dismissed. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Designated Court, emphasizing the legislative intent behind TADA, the special jurisdiction and powers of Designated Courts, and the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and evidence. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction of the accused under TADA and IPC.
|
