1994 (5) TMI 280 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 3 of TADA.
2. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149/120B IPC.
3. Admissibility of disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
4. Validity of specimen handwriting obtained under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
5. Connection of individual appellants with the crime.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 3 of TADA:
The Supreme Court found the conviction under Section 3 of TADA to be "wholly unjustified." The Court noted that none of the ingredients of Section 3 of TADA were alleged or established. The prosecution evidence was "totally insufficient" to bring home the charge under Section 3 of TADA. The Designated Court had recorded the conviction without any discussion as to how the provision was attracted. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 3 of TADA and acquitted all appellants of the said charges.

2. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149/120B IPC:
The Designated Court had convicted the appellants based on circumstantial evidence, including the conduct of the appellants, letters demanding ransom, disclosure statements leading to the recovery of the dead body, and the motive of wanting to vacate the house. The Supreme Court scrutinized these pieces of evidence separately for each appellant.

3. Admissibility of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act:
The Supreme Court criticized the manner in which the disclosure statements were recorded and relied upon by the Designated Court. The Court noted that only the first disclosure statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Subsequent statements leading to the "re-discovery" of the same fact are inadmissible. Therefore, the disclosure statements of Sukhdev Paul and Puran Chand were deemed inadmissible as they were recorded after Sukhvinder Singh had already disclosed the location of the dead body.

4. Validity of Specimen Handwriting Obtained under Section 73 of the Evidence Act:
The Supreme Court found that the specimen handwriting of Sukhdev Paul was obtained in violation of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The specimen writing was taken under the direction of a Tehsildar Executive Magistrate, who was not authorized to issue such a direction as no enquiry or trial was pending before him. The Court held that the specimen writing could not be used during the trial, rendering the handwriting expert's report inadmissible. This led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish that the ransom letters were authored by Sukhdev Paul.

5. Connection of Individual Appellants with the Crime:
- Mohan Singh and Surjit Kaur: The Supreme Court found no evidence to support the prosecution's theory that they were involved in the conspiracy to kidnap and murder Varun Kumar. The Court noted that the prosecution's case against them was based on conjectures and surmises, and there was no material to demonstrate their involvement. Consequently, their convictions and sentences were set aside.
- Puran Chand: The only evidence against him was the inadmissible disclosure statement. With no other circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. His conviction and sentence were set aside.
- Sukhdev Paul: The Supreme Court ruled out the inadmissible disclosure statement and the handwriting expert's report. With no other circumstantial evidence connecting him to the crime, his conviction and sentence were set aside.
- Sukhvinder Singh: The Supreme Court found that his conduct, the admissible disclosure statement, and the recovery of the dead body from his house were significant circumstantial evidence. These pieces of evidence collectively formed a chain so complete that it excluded any hypothesis other than his guilt. Consequently, his conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld, but his convictions under Section 3 of TADA and Section 120B IPC were set aside.

Conclusion:
The appeal was accepted for Mohan Singh, Surjit Kaur, Puran Chand, and Sukhdev Paul, setting aside their convictions and sentences. Sukhvinder Singh's appeal was partly allowed, setting aside his convictions under Section 3 of TADA and Section 120B IPC, but maintaining his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The four acquitted appellants were ordered to be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.