9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of ₹ 1,000/- each and in default suffer RI for six months and for the other two offences RI for a period of five years each with a similar fine and RI in default in payment of fine. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The impugned judgment further directs the release of the approver Kulvinder Singh @ Kinda and acquits accused Hardeep Singh of all the offences for which he was charged. No appeal has been preferred by Nishan Singh. We are, thus, concerned in this appeal with the case of the prosecution against Ravinder Singh @ Bittu only. The number of incidents as projected by the prosecution before the designated court were seven, i.e., (1) Hatching of conspiracy in September, 1991 by the appellant, Nishan Singh, Hardeep Singh, approver and deceased Pradhan Singh; (2) commission of robbery at Sharma Petrol Pump on 22nd October, 1991; (3) commission of robbery at Mohadi Petrol Pump, on 25th October, 1991; (4) Firing on police jeep on 25th October, 1991 and killing of three police personnel; (5) Preparation of Bomb; (6) Train Bomb blast on November 8, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1991 after alerting his staff. Pradhan Singh, Nishan Singh and the appellant started running from the backside of the house. PSI Supare who had taken position at the backside of the house fired on Pradhan Singh who fell near the compound wall. In the said incident, Nishan Singh was arrested on the spot and the appellant escaped. The appellant was arrested on 6th July, 1992. Nishan Singh made a confessional statement on 24th April, 1992 and the appellant on 1st December, 1992. The prosecution to substantiate the charges examined 63 witnesses. The designated court for holding the appellant guilty has, inter alia, relied upon the evidence of Deepali (PW-3), the approver Kulvinder Singh (PW-1), and the confessional statement of the appellant. It may be noticed that the confessional statement made by the appellant was retracted by him only during recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main emphasis in the submissions of Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel for the appellant, was to demolish the prosecution case in respect of conviction and sentence of the appellant in the bomb blast case. It was rightly so for the reason that the acquittal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the TADA Act is an exception to the provisions which make the confession inadmissible. A confession made by a person to a Police Officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police and recorded in the manner provided in the section is admissible in the trial of such person or co-accused, abettor, or conspirator for an offence under the TADA Act or Rules made thereunder. In the present case, we are concerned with the confession made by the appellant under Section 15 of the TADA Act and recorded in the manner provided therein. In Kalpnath Rai v. State (Through CBI) [(1997) 8 SCC 732] it was observed that the confession made by one accused is not substantive evidence against a co-accused. It has only a corroborative value. In the present case, we are, however, primarily concerned with the confession made by the maker, i.e., the appellant himself. Besides this confession, there is also a confession made by co-accused Nishan Singh which too implicates the appellant in commission of the offence of the bomb blast in the train. The observations made in Kalpnath Rai's case were considered in State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini Ors. [(1999) 5 SCC 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the highest sense of guilt. Having examined the record, we are satisfied that the confession made by the appellant is voluntary and truthful and was recorded, as already noticed, by due observance of all the safeguards provided under Section 15 and the appellant could be convicted solely on the basis of his confession. Faced with the aforesaid confessional statement made by the appellant and the legal position regarding its admissibility as a substantive piece of evidence, Mr. Murlidhar contended that as there are inherent contradictions in the confessional statement of the appellant when compared with the confessional statement made by the co-accused, Nishan Singh, the learned designated court committed serious illegality in convicting the appellant by relying upon his confessional statement. Besides that of the appellant, we have also gone through the confessional statement of Nishan Singh. For more than one reason, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Murlidhar. Firstly, the confessional statement made by the appellant is not required to be examined with reference to the confessional statement made by Nishan Singh and, therefore, there is no question of contradictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 2nd February, 1996. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through various statements of the approver. Mr. Murlidhar contends that on these three dates, different, contradictory and inconsistent versions were given by him. It was thus contended that the evidence of approver is not reliable. The other illegalities highlighted by Mr. Murlidhar in the evidence of the approver were (i) failure of the Magistrate to record the statement of the approver upon grant of pardon as a witness i.e. in the presence of the accused being violative of Section 306(4)(a), Cr.P.C. (ii) different contradictory and inconsistent version in the statements given on different dates as above and (iii) confession being exculpatory. It is not necessary to examine these issues and express opinion thereupon. It is not on the testimony of the approver alone that the conviction has been based. Assuming the contentions of learned counsel to be correct without going into it, it deserves to be noticed, as already observed, the conviction herein can be based on the confession made by the appellant himself without anything more. We would, therefore, keep out of consideration the appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
