# 15 S.C.R. 1061 IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- **Citation:** [2013] 15 S.C.R. 1061
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-03-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2012
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, Dr. B.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/15-s-c-r-1061-ibrahim-musa-chauhan-baba-chauhan-v-state-of-maharashtra-29202
- **Pages:** 122

## Headnote

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
A
B
- s.3(3), 5,
6 and 15 - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 -
Conscious possession of contraband and weapons in notified
C
area -
Recoveryfrom public place - Conviction of A-41 by
Designated Court u/ss. 3(3) and 5 of TADA - Justification -
Held: Justified - A-41 was well acquainted with Abu Salim
(absconding accused) who was working with Anis Ibrahim
Kaskar (another absconding accused), brother of notorious
D
smuggler Dawood Ibrahim - A-41 was asked to arrange a
garage, and hence searched for an appropriate garage with
co-accused Salim, Hingora (A-53) and his partner Haneef -
A-41 was introduced to co-accused Sanjay Dutt (A-117) at the
residence of the latter and witnessed the handing over of E
contraband to A-117 - A-41 was in conscious possession of
certain contraband items - Recovery of contraband material
which was effected upon the making of a disclosure statement
by A-11, took place at a dumping ground for waste - Penal
Code, 1860 - SS. 120-B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436,
F
201 and 212 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - Arms Act, 1959
- ss.3 and 7 rlw ss:25(1-A), (1-B)(a) - Explosive Substance·
Act, 1908 - s.4(b) - Explosives Act, 1884 -
s.9-B(1)(b) -
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - s.4.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 G
- ss.3(3) and 5- Bombay serial blasts of 1993- A-67 charged
for arranging 13 air tickets in order to facilitate the traveling
of the accused persons for training of handling arms,
1061
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A ammunition and explosives - Also charged for knowingly and
intef]tionally storing two suitcases containing arms and
ammunition -· Conviction of A-67 - Challenged - Held: In the
second week of February 1993, A-67 met A-1 in the office of
A-68 and A-1 asked A-67 to book tickets for Dubai for him -
B Thereafter, A-68 gave A-67 four packets and after some time,
A-46 came with 3 packets of A-1 to be kept with A-67 - On
being asked A-68 revealed that the packets contained
weapons which had been brought to be used for taking
revenge of sufferings of Muslims - A-67 had taken 5 bags
c on 10.3.1993 and kept the same in the garage of A-1 at the
Al-Husseini Building -
The Bombay blast took place on
12.3.1993, and it was after that A-67 kept the 2 remaining
bags with PW282 from where they had been recovered by the
police on a voluntary disclosure of A-67 and at his instance
0 - Prosecution's case stood corroborated by the confessional
statement of A-46, who had also disclosed that he had
received a sum of Rs.50,0001- and Rs.62,0001- respectively,
from A-1 to be handed over to A-67 and accordingly, the said
amount had been delivered to A-67 by him - He had also
E deposed that he had seen A-67 taking away the 3 suit cases
in red Maruti Car to Al-Husseini Building ~ Other evidences
of PW341 and PW.420 fully proved the booking of tickets by
the firm of A-67 - Though the evidence on record in respect
of booking does not lead to draw an inference, that while
booking the tickets he had any knowledge of any conspiracy
F regarding the Bombay blasts, however, recovery of 2 suit
cases containing the arms and ammunition i.e.,
handgrenades, detonators and wires etc. was effected by
PW506, on the disclosure of A-67 in the presence of PW37
and on 26.3.1993 from the hcuse of PW-282 - Conviction of
G A-67 upheld.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- s.3(3) - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - A/legation that A95 had abetted and facilitated various terrorist activities, and
H more particularly, he had gone to Pakistan to receive weapons
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN@ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1063
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
training in the handling of arms, ammunition and explosives
A
for commission of terrorist activities - He was further charged
for having attended conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai and
Pakistan, alongwith the other co-conspirators in order to plan
the commission of terrorist acts -
Con

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 227,917. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

[2013) 15 S.C.R. 1061
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHAN
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 2012)
MARCH 21, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
A
B
- s.3(3), 5,
6 and 15 - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 -
Conscious possession of contraband and weapons in notified
C
area -
Recoveryfrom public place - Conviction of A-41 by
Designated Court u/ss. 3(3) and 5 of TADA - Justification -
Held: Justified - A-41 was well acquainted with Abu Salim
(absconding accused) who was working with Anis Ibrahim
Kaskar (another absconding accused), brother of notorious
D
smuggler Dawood Ibrahim - A-41 was asked to arrange a
garage, and hence searched for an appropriate garage with
co-accused Salim, Hingora (A-53) and his partner Haneef -
A-41 was introduced to co-accused Sanjay Dutt (A-117) at the
residence of the latter and witnessed the handing over of E
contraband to A-117 - A-41 was in conscious possession of
certain contraband items - Recovery of contraband material
which was effected upon the making of a disclosure statement
by A-11, took place at a dumping ground for waste - Penal
Code, 1860 - SS. 120-B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436,
F
201 and 212 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - Arms Act, 1959
- ss.3 and 7 rlw ss:25(1-A), (1-B)(a) - Explosive Substance·
Act, 1908 - s.4(b) - Explosives Act, 1884 -
s.9-B(1)(b) -
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - s.4.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 G
- ss.3(3) and 5- Bombay serial blasts of 1993- A-67 charged
for arranging 13 air tickets in order to facilitate the traveling
of the accused persons for training of handling arms,
1061
H
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A ammunition and explosives - Also charged for knowingly and
intef]tionally storing two suitcases containing arms and
ammunition -· Conviction of A-67 - Challenged - Held: In the
second week of February 1993, A-67 met A-1 in the office of
A-68 and A-1 asked A-67 to book tickets for Dubai for him -
B Thereafter, A-68 gave A-67 four packets and after some time,
A-46 came with 3 packets of A-1 to be kept with A-67 - On
being asked A-68 revealed that the packets contained
weapons which had been brought to be used for taking
revenge of sufferings of Muslims - A-67 had taken 5 bags
c on 10.3.1993 and kept the same in the garage of A-1 at the
Al-Husseini Building -
The Bombay blast took place on
12.3.1993, and it was after that A-67 kept the 2 remaining
bags with PW282 from where they had been recovered by the
police on a voluntary disclosure of A-67 and at his instance
0 - Prosecution's case stood corroborated by the confessional
statement of A-46, who had also disclosed that he had
received a sum of Rs.50,0001- and Rs.62,0001- respectively,
from A-1 to be handed over to A-67 and accordingly, the said
amount had been delivered to A-67 by him - He had also
E deposed that he had seen A-67 taking away the 3 suit cases
in red Maruti Car to Al-Husseini Building ~ Other evidences
of PW341 and PW.420 fully proved the booking of tickets by
the firm of A-67 - Though the evidence on record in respect
of booking does not lead to draw an inference, that while
booking the tickets he had any knowledge of any conspiracy
F regarding the Bombay blasts, however, recovery of 2 suit
cases containing the arms and ammunition i.e.,
handgrenades, detonators and wires etc. was effected by
PW506, on the disclosure of A-67 in the presence of PW37
and on 26.3.1993 from the hcuse of PW-282 - Conviction of
G A-67 upheld.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- s.3(3) - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - A/legation that A95 had abetted and facilitated various terrorist activities, and
H more particularly, he had gone to Pakistan to receive weapons
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN@ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1063
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
training in the handling of arms, ammunition and explosives
A
for commission of terrorist activities - He was further charged
for having attended conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai and
Pakistan, alongwith the other co-conspirators in order to plan
the commission of terrorist acts -
Conviction of A-95 -
Justification - Held: Justified - A-95 had gone to Dubai at the
B
behest of A-65 and, thereafter, to Islamabad in Pakistan for
attending the training camps and acquired training in handling
the arms and ammunition and thereafter, returned to India via
Dubai - Evidence on record that A-95 came to know only after
reaching Dubai that he had. to go with other four co-accused c
to Pakistan for taking training as they had to take a revenge
for suffering of Muslims, and he was under a coercion that he
alongwith others could be arrested by the police of Dubai and,
therefore, he had to go to Pakistan for training - Though, after
coming back, no evidence to show that A-95 had committed 0
any offence and participated in any other act on the fateful
day, however, as A-95 had obtained training for commission
of the terrorist acts, he cannot be acquitted of the charges u/
s.3(3) TADA.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
E
- ss. 3(3) and 5- Bombay serial blasts of 1993- Possession
of contraband - Preparatory act for commission of terrorists
acts - Conviction of A-123 - Designated TADA Court held
that contraband articles recovered from A-123 were received
from A-49 and A-123 concealed the same by digging up the
F
earth in close vicinity of railway station - Held: Involvement
of A-123 stood fully established - He had been given the
contraband material by A-49, and A-123 was fully aware of the
nature of the weapon and cartridges - Relevant Panchnama,
i.e., the statement in the memorandum Panchnama, the oral G
evidence of panch witness (PW-40) and evidence of PW-600
connect A-123 in concealing the weapon and ammunition -
Conviction of A-123 upheld.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 H·
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A - s.3(3) and 5- Bombay serial blasts of 1993-A-47 charged
with keeping in po~session one AK-56 rifle, 980 cartridges
and 132 magazines of AK-56 rifles, knowing that they were
being smuggled into the country for committing terrorist acts
- Recovery of contraband - Specific knowledge - Conviction
B of A-47 - Justification - Held: Justified - Merely because the
contraband was recovered from a public place, i.e. a place
accessible to the public at large, the same did not mean that
the recovery was to be discarded - In case, the articles had
been hidden by digging up the earth, covering the same up
c with garbage or other material, the public may not have taken
note of it - The same remained in the specific knowledge of
the accused, i.e. where and also the manner in which the said
articles were hidden - The recovery could not be discarded
for want of signature of the accused on the recovery memo
0 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss.3 and 7 rlw s.25(1-A)(1-B)(a).
Tefforist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- ss.3(3) and 5 - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - Possession
of contraband - Aiding terrorists - Conviction of A-91 -
Designated TADA Court held that A-137 having kept the bag
E of contraband at the house of A-91, thereafter the further act
of A-91 in shifting the same to the house of his mother-in-law
clearly shows that he had dominium and control over the
same -
Held:
A-91 had kept in his possession
unauthorisedly weapons at the behest of A-137 - A-91 told
F his mother-in-law and other family members that tffe goods
belonged to his friend, and nobody should open the same -
Recovery of the same at his behest stood proved -
Prosecution successfully proved its case - Conviction of A91 upheld-Arms Act, 1959- ss.3 and 7 rlw s.25(1-A)(1-B)(a).
G
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- s.3(3) - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - A-96 was charged
with facilitating the holding of conspiratorial meetings in her
flat in Bandra, wherein the terrorist acts came to be discussed
and finalized - Conviction of A-96 - Justification - Held: Not
H justified - No evidence on record to show that A-96 was the
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN@ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1065
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
actual owner of the flat where the meeting took place - A-96
A
was simply present in the next room when the meeting was
held and she was asked to serve tea - Further, it was her
brother who was well acquainted with Tiger Memon
(Absconding accused) and after his death Tiger Memon (AA)
simply gave some money to her family for household
B
expenses and that money was not for her own personal/
individual expenditure - Nothing on record to show that A-96
knew that the blasts were going to take place on that day, or
that she had acquired any knowledge that Tiger Memon (AA)
would be absconding from India - Moreover, she was not a c
participant in any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy -
A-96 entitled for benefit of doubt - Acquitted of the charge u/
s.3(3) TADA
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- s.5 - Bombay serial blasts of 1993 - A-50 charged for D
permitting co-accused and his associates, to store
contraband/explosive material/ROX in his godown -
Designated Court held that A-50 had been in unauthorised
possession of 58 bags of ROX material within the notified
area, and that he had indulged, alongwith the other coE
accused conspirators, in disposal of said ROX material -
Held: A-50 had spent about Rs. 5 /akhs for disposal of the said
material - A very close associate of Tiger Memon (AA) had
a/so been involved in the process of such disposal -
The
remnants of ROX were taken from his godown, and thrown into
F
the river - Being in possession of the said material for a
limited time period, rendered him guilty for commission of
offence u/s.5 TADA - He was a/so guilty u/s. 201 /PC, as even
though he may not have been directly involved in disposal
of the contraband, the same was disposed of upon his G
instructions, and for this, he had paid a huge amount - Penal
Code, 1860 - s.201.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- ss. 2(1)(a)(iii), 3(3), 5 and 21(2) - Bombay serial blasts of
H
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A
1993 - Rendering of financial assistance - Conviction of A97 - Justification - Held: Not justified - A-97 was working as
a carrier or agent, between persons indulging in money
transactions in India or abroad, without having any knowledge
whatsoever, that A-1 or his ass6ciates or any other co-accused
B were indulging in terrorist activities - Nothing on record to
show that A-97 indulged in such activities though he might
be involved in other illegal activities - S.21(2) of the Act can
be resorted to, only in case it is proved by the prosecution
that the accused rendered any financial assistance to a
c person who was already facing the charge of terrorist or
disruptive activities or he had reasons to suspect that the
person to whom financial help was rendered was indulging in
such activities - Thus, there was a burden on the prosecution
first to prove the aforesaid condition -
Nothing on record to
0 show that during the time A-97 facilitated the financial
transaction of A-1 in the fake account named 'HATH/' and that
he had reason to suspect that Tiger Memon or his associates
were indulging in disruptive activities, or had been accused
in such activities - A-97 may be guilty of running and
E indulging in fraudulent banking activities, or may be violating
of provisions of other statutes but cannot be held guilty of the
offences u/s.3(3) TADA - Foreign Exchange and Regulation
Act, 1973.
Evidence -
Confession -
Retracted confession -
F Admissibility of.
Evidence - Recovery of contraband from public place -
Appreciation of recovery evidence - Held: It cannot be said
that a recovery made from an open space or a public place
G accessible to everyone, should not be taken into consideration
for any reason - The reasoning behind it, is that, it will be the
accused alone who will be having knowledge of the place,
where a thing is hidden - Other persons having access to the
place would not be aware of the fact that an accused, after
commission of offence, had.concealed contraband material
H
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1067
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
beneath the earth, or in the garbage - Once possession is
A
established, burden is on the accused to show that he was not
in conscious possession - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 - s.5.
Evidence - Evidence of police officials - Appreciation -
B
Held: Duty cast on the Court to adopt greater care while
scrutinising .the evidence of the police official - If evidence
of police official is found acceptable, the court cannot reject
the prosecution version solely on the ground that no
independent witness was examined.
Jackaran Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 2345
- distinguished.
c
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh (1999) 4 SCC
370: 1999 (1) SCR 1033; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat o
Fakira Dhiwar (2002) 1 SCC 622: 2001 (5) ·suppl. SCR 12;
Durga Prasad Gupta v. State of Rajasthan thr. CBI (2003) 12
SCC 257: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 1; Sanjay Dutt v. State thr.
CBI, Bombay (//), (1994) 5 SCC 410: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR
263; Ka/pnath Rai v. State (Thr. CBI) (1997) 8 SCC 732;
E
Paras Ram v. State of Haryana (1992) 4 SCC 662: 1992 (2)
Suppl. SCR 55; Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar & Ors. v.
State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255; Sama Alana
Abdulla v. State of Gujarat (1996) 1 SCC 427: 1995 (5)
Suppl. SCR 279; Anil v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC
589: 1996 (2) SCR 807; Tahir v. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC
F
338: 1996 (3) SCR 757; Balbir Singh v. State (1·996) 11 SCC
139: 1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 50; Gurjinder Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 2011 SC 972: 2011 (3) SCC 530; State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652: 2000 (5)
Suppl. SCR 144; Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. v. State of West
G
Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230: 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR; State
of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776: 1999
(2) SCR 29 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC
569: 1994 (2) SCR 375 and Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana
(1997) 7 sec 231: 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 95 - relied on.
H
1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr.
CBI Criminal Appeal No.1728 of 2007 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1999 (1) SCR 1033
relied on
Para 15
B
2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 12
relied on
Para 16
2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
Para 18
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263
relied on
Para 19
c
(1997) 8 sec 132
relied on
Para 42
1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 55
relied on
Para 42
(1995) 4 sec 255
relied on
Para 42
D
1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 279
relied on
Para 42
1996 (2) SCR 807
relied on
Para 42
1996 (3) SCR 757
relied on
Para 42
1996 (7) Suppl. SCR 50
relied on
Para 42
E
2011 (3) sec 530
relied on
Para 89
2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 144 relied on
Para 90
2006 (10) Suppl. SCR
relied on
Para 119
F
AIR 1995 SC 2345
distinguished Para 170
1999 (2) SCR 29
relied on
Para 171
1994 (2) SCR 375
relied on
Para 190
G
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 95
relied on
Para 197
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal
No. (s). 555 of 2012 etc.
From the Orders of Convication dated 29.11.2007 and
H
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @BABA CHAUHAN v. 1069
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
order of Sentence date 06.06.2007 of the Learned Designated
A
Court Under TADA (Prevention) Act, 1987 for Bomb Blast
Cases, Greater Bombay in Bomb Blast Case No.1 of 1993.
WITH
Crl.A. Nos. 1129-1130 of 2007, 402 & 617-618 of 2008,
B
1631,1419, 1226, 1422, 1180, 1225 of 2007, 919 of 2008 &
1393 of 2007.
Shekhar Kumar, Ajay sharma, Ms. Farhana Shah, Dr.
Sushi! Balwada, Mushtaq Ahmad, V.R. Anomolu, Balraj Dewan,
C
Himanshu Shekhar, Advs., for the Appellant.
Mukul Gupta Sr. Adv., Satyakam, Anubhav Kumar, Anando
Mukherjee, Harsh N. Parekh, P. Parmeswaran, Advs, with him
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
preferred against the judgments and orders dated 29.11.2006
and 6.6.2007 passed by a Special Judge of the Designated
E
Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, .1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') in the Bombay
Blast Case No. 1/1993, by which the appellant (A-41) has been
convicted under Sections 3(3), 5 and 6 TADA, as well as under
Sections 3 and 7 read with Section 25(1-A) (1-B) (a) of the
F
Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arms Act'),
Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1908), and Section 9-B(1)
(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act 1884').
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
that:
G
A. As all the main factual and legal issues involved in this
appeal have already been dtscussed by us and
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 15 S.C.R.
determined in the main connected appeal i.e. Yakub
Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra thr. CBI
{Criminal Appeal No.1728 of 2007), there is thus, no
occasion for us to repeat the same.
B. The Bombay Blasts occurred on 12.3.1993, in which
257 persons lost their lives and 713 were injured. In
addition thereto, there was loss of property worth several
crores. The Bombay police investigated the said matter
at the initial stage, but subsequently the investigation of the
same was entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation
(hereinafter referred to as the 'CBI'), and then upon
conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed
against a large number of accused persons. Among the
accused persons against whom a chargesheet was filed,
40 accused could not be put to trial as they were
absconding. Thus, the Designated Court under TADA
framed charges against 138 accused persons. During the
trial, 11 accused died and 2 accused turned hostile.
Furthermore, the Designated Court discharged 2 accused
during trial, and the remaining persons, including the
appellant (A-41) stood convicted.
C. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the coconspirators including the appellant. The relevant
portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder:
"During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993
at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District
Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.),
Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were
members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object
was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed
to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist
acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law
established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate
sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony
amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1071
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, handgrenades and
other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable
substances or fire-arms likP. AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols
and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause
or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or
persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies
of services essential to the life of the community, and to
achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed
A
B
to smuggle fire-arms, ammunition, detonators, hand
grenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to
distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of c
confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and
for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms,
ammunition and explosives at such safe places and
amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till
its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the
0
objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same
as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan
and ln India to import and undergo weapons training in
handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit
terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/
coconspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly
E
facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the
commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance
financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the
conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any
other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the
aforesaid objectives of the crimin<il conspiracy and that
?on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb
explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building,
Hotel Sea Rock at Bandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel
Centaur at Santa Cruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar,
Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena
Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at
Macchimar Hindu Colony.
F
G
Mahirn and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 15 S.C.R
more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property
worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to
cause bomb explosions at 'Naigaum Cross Road and
Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e.
within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences
punishable under Section 3(3) TADA and Section 120-B
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
IPC) read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 TADA
and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435,
436, 201 and 212 IPC and offences under Sections 3 and
7 read with Sections 25 (1-A), (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act
1959, Sections 9B (l)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884,
Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance."
D. Additionally, he has been charged for abetting and
facilitating acts that were preparatory in nature, for the
terrorist acts, by acquiring and distributing AK-56 rifles in
the city of Bombay and its suburbs, their magazines,
ammunition and also hand grenades to co-accused Sanjay
Dutt (A-117) and Salim Kurla (Juvenile) at the instance of
Anis Ibrahim Kaskar, an Absconding Accused (hereinafter
referred to as 'AA'), brother of notorious smuggler Dawood
Ibrahim, and Abu Salim for committing the terrorist acts
punishable under Section 3(3) TADA.
E. The appellant (A-41) was also charged with, being in
the unauthorised possession of one AK 56 rifle, 635
rounds of ammunition, 10 magazines of AK 56 rifle, and
25 hand grenades as the same were recovered in the
notified area at his instance, and thus he has been charged
under Section 5 TADA.
F. The appellant was further charged under Section 6
TADA, Sections 3 & 7 read with Section 25(1-A), (1-B)(a)
of the Arms Act, Section 4(b) of the Act 1908 and Section
9-8(1 )(b) of the Act 1884, for unauthorisedly being in
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @BABA CHAUHAN v. 1073
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
possession of the aforesaid arms with the intention to aid
A
terrorist acts.
G. The prosecution has examined a large number of
witnesses and produced a large number of documents to
prove its case, and upon conclusion of the trial, the
B
Designated Court acquitted the appellant of the umbrella
charge of conspiracy i.e. charge No. 1. However, he was
convicted for the second charge i.e. smaller conspiracy
under Section 3(3) TADA and was awarded a sentence
of 8 years RI alongwith a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and in . C
default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for a period
of three years; under Section 5 TADA, he was sentenced
to suffer RI for 1 O years alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-,
and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for a
period of one year; under Section 6 TADA, he was
sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and a fine of D
Rs.1,00,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer
further RI for a period of 3 years; under Section 4(b) of the
Act 1908, he was sentenced to suffer RI for four years
alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months, under
E
Section 9-B (1)(b) oft~e Act 1884, he was sentenced to
suffer RI for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for two
months. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. However, under Sections 3 and 7 read with
F
Section 25 (1-A)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, the appellant
was convicted, but no separa'te sentence was awarded.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Shri Shree Prakash Sinha, learned counsel for the
G
appellant has submitted that the confessional statement of the
appellant as well as those of the co-accused were recorded
by the police forcibly, without meeting the requirements of
Section 15 TADA and Rule 15 of the rules framed thereunder.
H
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A Thus, the same cannot be relied upon. The recoveries
purported to have been made were also planted by the
investigating agency and cannot be relied upon. The
Designated Court erred in convicting the appellant. Thus, the
appeal deserves to be allowed.
B
4. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for
the respondent, has opposed the appeal contending that the
confessional statement of the appellant as well as those of the
co-accused, were recorded in strict adherence to statutory
C requirements i.e. Section 15 TADA and Rule 15 of the rules
framed thereunder. The appellant and co-accused have made
their confessional statements voluntarily and the conviction of
the appellant can be maintained on the sole basis of the
confessional statement of the appellant himself. Moreover, a
large number of co-accused have named him and have
D assigned to him overt acts. The recoveries have also been
made strictly in accordance with the requirements of Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Evidence Act') and there is no reason to disbelieve the
same, as the same were made at the instance of the appellant
E i.e. on the basis of his disclosure statement made voluntarily.
F
Thus, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Evidence against the appellant (A-41):
(a)
Confessional statement of the appellant himself.
(b)
Confessional statement of co-accused Samir
G
Ahmed Hingora (A-53).
(c)
Confessional statement of co-accused Sanjay Dutt
(A-117).
(d)
Confessional statement of Manzoor Ahmed Sayyed
H
Ahmed (A-89).
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @BABA CHAUHAN v. 1075
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
(e)
Deposition of Pandharinath Hanumanth Shinde
A
(PW.218).
(f)
Deposition of Laxman Loku Karkare (PW.45).
(g)
Deposition of Hari Pawar (PW.596).
(h)
Deposition of Prem Kishan Jain (PW.189).
7. Confessional Statement of Baba Musa Chauhan
(A-41 ):
His confessional statement shows that he was well
acquainted with the co-accused Salim who used to extort
money, and was working for Anis Ibrahim Kaskar (M), brother
of notorious smuggler and gangster Dawood Ibrahim. Salim
B
c
told the appellant (A-41) on 15.1.1993 to arrange a garage, with
D
respect to which, the appellant (A-41) initially expressed his
inability, but after receiving a phone call from Anis Ibrahim
Kaskar in the evening at about 7-7.30 P.M., wherein Salim was
asked to go to the Magnum Video Office, and meet Samir
Ahmed Hingora (A-53). The appellant (A-41) wen~ there
E
alongwith Salim in a blue coloured Maruti 800 Car, and with
the help of Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53) and his partner
Haneef, they searched for an appropriate garage. At this time,
Salim told the appellant (A-41) that he would keep 2-3 AK 56
rifles with him (A-41) for about 2-3 days, and asked him to stay
at home, so that he could bring the arms. On the subsequent
morning, Salim came to the h'ouse of the appellant (A-41). Abu
Salim asked the appellant (A-41) to drive a white coloured
Maruti Van which was parked near the Arsha Shopping Centre
F
and to come near the Magnum office. Salim drove ahead of G
him in a blue coloured Maruti, after handing over the keys of
the van to the appellant (A-41). Appellant (A-41) reached close
to the Magnum office in the van. Salim and Samir Ahmed
Hingora (A-53) then sat in the van driven by the appellant (A41 ), and all those three persons reached the house of coH
1076
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A accused Sanjay Dutt (A-117). Sanjay Dutt (A-117) embraced
Salim and Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53). Salim introduced
Sanjay Dutt (A-117) to the appellant (A-41). Sanjay Dutt cleared
the passage leading to the garage, shifting the vehicles parked
therein to the other side. The van which the appellant (A-41)
8
had driven was taken to the garage in reverse gear. Salim
opened the cavity of the car whicti was under its back seats
with the aid of a 'panna', and from within, removed 9 AK 56
rifles one by one, and then opened the inside lining of the front
door of the car and removed from there 80 hand grenades
C without pins, then he removed 1500/2000 bullets from the back
door. These bullets were packed in brown coloured paper, in
packets of 25-30 bullets, which were held together by rubber
bands. The hand grenades were also packed in brown coloured
paper. There were 56 magazines in the lining of the back door
of the car. Sanjay Dutt (A-117) asked Salim why the hand
D grenades had been brought there, as it might create a problem
in case the same blew up. Salim explained to Sanjay Dutt (A117) that as the hand grenades did not have pins nothing would
happen. Salim made a list of all the articles and asked the
appellant (A-41) to keep 3 rifles, 9 magazines, 450 bullets and
E 20 hand grenades in Sanjay Dutt's Fiat car (A-117) . The
appellant (A-41) kept the said arms and ammunition as directed
by Salim in the dickey of Sanjay Dutt's car (A-117), locked the
dickey and put the key in his pocket. Samir Ahmed Hingora
(A-53) kept 20 hand grenades in his car after packing the same
F into a bag and the appellant (A-41) kept 3 rifles, 16 magazines,
25 hand grenades and 75.0 bullets and came out with Samir
Ahmed Hingora (A-53). The appellant (A-41) left with the
remaining arms and ammunition kept in a bag, which he laid
under his bed. Next day, the appellant (A-41) loaded all the
G bullets in the magazines of the rifles. He could not contact Salim
to take away the said arms as no one picked up Salim's
telephone. Subsequently, the appellant (A-41) was told by
Salim's wife that Salim had gone out of India and that she
would talk to him after 2-3 days. The appellant (A-41) told her
H that Salim had kept some computer parts with him (A-41) and
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1077
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
that the same were to be returned to him at the earliest. A-41
went to the house of Salim and told his wife that he wanted to
return the said goods at the earliest. On the same night, A-41
received a telephone call from Dubai from Salim informing him
that he was coming back to Bombay within 1-2 days, and that
after coming back he would collect all the goods. However,
Salim did not return from Dubai. So the appellant (A-41) called
up his brother-in-law in Dubai and asked him to talk to Salim,
A
B
and request him to collect his goods, who subsequently
informed the appellant (A-41) that Salim was likely to come to
Bombay within a day or two and that he would contact him. c
Immediately thereafter, riots took place in Bombay. On
16.1.1993 the appellant (A-41) received a telephone call from
Salim, who asked him to talk to Anis Ibrahim Kaskar (AA). A41 contacted Anis Ibrahim, who told the appellant (A-41) to give
two guitars and six 'tars' (cord) to Salim Kurla and also, to give
D
him some 'Kadis' and on being told that the 'Kadis' had already
been attached to the broom (Jaadu), Anis Ibrahim asked the
appellant to give only 6 'tars'. The appellant (A-41) told Anis
Ibrahim Kaskar that he did not know Salim Kurla. Then Anis
Ibrahim Kaskar told him that Salim Kurla knew the appellant (AE
41 ), and that he would come to the Andheri Post Office in the
front of his house. Thus, on his instructions, the appellant (A41) handed over two rifles and 6 loaded magazines to Salim
Kurla. Salim Kurla had told the appellant that these arms were
to be given to some one in Beharam Pada. After 2-3 days,
Salim returned to Bombay and came to the appellant (A-41)
with his brother Kalam . .The appellant (A-41) told him that he
F
had 1 rifle, 25 hand grenades, the remaining bullets and 1 O
magazines etc. The appellant (A-41) asked Salim to take these
remaining articles from him. However, he promised to take
them back in the evening, but then did not come for two days.
G
During this period, the appellant (A-41) learnt from the
newspapers that Salim had been arrested by the police while
trying to extort money from a Gujarati person. Salim himself
came to see the appellant (A-41 ), an~ told him (A-41) that Salim
H
1078
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 15 S.C.R.
A Kurla could disclose the name of the appellant (A-41) to the
police, and hence, he advised the appellant (A-41) not to
disclose Salim's name. The appellant (A-41) became
frightened, as he was in the possession of arms. Thus, he
immediately shifted the arms to Iqbal Tunda and informed Salim
B to keep the remaining goods with someone without disclosing
his (A-41) name. Salim came to see the appellant (A-41), and
he had with him 30 loaded magazines which were wrapped in
a plastic/polythene bag and then kept in a cloth bag. He left
these magazines with the appellant (A-41) and said that he
c would send Ayub to collect this ammunition. from him.
Accordingly, the next night at 9-9.30 p.m. Ayub came with arms
including one AK 56 rifle. He kept the magazine and bag in one
place. Though, he returned a part of the arms and ammunition,
some material still remained with the appellant (A-41 ), which
0 was kept in another place. He returned 30 loaded magazines
to Salim and Ayub which they kept inside the dickey of their
scooter and left.
Salim Kurla was arrested after the Bombay blast and upon
his disclosure, the appellant (A-41) was arrested on 28.3.1993.
E Later. on, his father obtained the bag which he had kept with
Iqbal Tunda through Hazi Ismail, and the same was produced
before the police. He (A-41) further stated that he was not
interested in using any arms or keeping the same with him,
rather he had been forced to keep the same by the other coF accused, on the pretext that the weapons and ammunition would
be collected from him within 2-3 days.
The appellant (A-41) made a retraction statement on
21.12.1993.
G
8. The Confessional Statement of Samir Ahmed
Hingora CA-53):
He made a confession that on 15.1.1993, Anis Ibrahim
Kaskar had telephoned him stating that the appellant (AH
41) and Salim would bring one vehicle loaded with
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN@ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1079
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
weapons, and that he was to make arrangements for the
A
off-loading and handing over of some weapons to Sanjay
Dutt (A-117), and that thereafter, some weapons would be
taken back by them for distribution to other persons. Since
his partner Haneef was not in office, he took them to his
house. Haneef talked to Anis Ibrahim Kaskar (AA) in Dubai
B
over the telephone, and expressed his unwillingness to
carry out his instructions. However, upon the request of
Salim, he (A-53) agreed to take him to Sanjay Dutt's house
while he was talking to Anis Ibrahim Kaskar over the
telephone about the said weapons. Sanjay Dutt hugged c
Salim and asked him to come the next day with the
weapons.
The next day, he (A-53) went to his office and met Salim
and the appellant (A-41) and then reached the house of Sanjay
Dutt (A-117). Sanjay Dutt asked his driver Mohd. to remove all
D
the vehicles from the garage, and the appellant (A-41) then
parked his Maruti van there and asked for a spanner and screw
driver. Sanjay Dutt (A-117) asked Mohd. to bring the tool kit
from his car and give it to the appellant (A-41). Salimwrapped
three AK 56 rifles and some magazines in a bed sheet as per
E
the request of Sanjay Dutt (A-117), and Salim also gave Sanjay
Dutt 20-25 hand grenades which were put in a black coloured
bag along with other ammunition.
9. Confessional statement of Sanjay Dutt (A-117):
F
He admitted that one day in the month of January around
9-9.30 p.m., Haneef and Samir Kurla had come to his house
alongwith Salim. He had met Salim once or twice earlier also.
They told him (A-117) that they would be coming the next day
with the weapons that were to be delivered to him and then went
G
away. The next morning, Samir, Haneef and Salim came to his
house alongwith one other person, whom he did not know. They
had come in a Maruti Van and parked the same in the tin shed
which was used by him for parking his own vehicles. One
person was sitting inside the Maruti Van. After about 15-20
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2013] 15 S.C.R.
A
minutes, he took out three rifles, and they told him that the same
were AK-56 rifles. He then brought some cloth from his house
and gave it to them. Salim and the person who had come with
.him, wrapped the rifles in the cloth, and thereafter, gave the
same to him. He stated that he could identify, the person sitting
B in the car and also the hand grenades. He kept these rifles and
the ammunition in the dickey of his Fiat Car No.MMU 4372.
10. Confessional statement of Manzoor Ahmed
Sayyed Ahmed (A-89):
C
He confessed that he had a blue coloured Maruti 800
bearing No. M.P.23 B-9264. On 22nd/23rd January, 1993, in
the evening, Salim contacted him over the telephone and called
him to his office at Santacruz. After reaching there he took him
(A-89), to the office of the appellant (A-41) at Monaz Builders
D and Builders, S.V. Road, Andheri, Opposite the Post .Office.
He introduced (A-89) to the appellant (A-41 ), and gave the key
of his car to the appellant (A-41) and after about half an hour
the appellant (A-41) came back and parked the said car outside
the office, and gave the key to Salim and told him that he had
E kept the bag of weapons in the car. When Salim and (A-89)
entered the car, he (A-41) saw that a black bag containing
weapons, was kept on the rear seat of the car.
F
11. Deposition of Pandharinath Hanumanth Shinde
(PW.218) :
He was the 9onstable posted at the house of Sanjay c;>utt
(A-117) for security. His statement was recorded in court on
6.11.1997, wherein he deposed about the visit of the appellant
(A-41) alongwith Salim and others, to the house of Sanjay Dutt
G (A-117). He identified the appellant in a Tl Parade held after
57 days, as well as in court. He also identified the two persons
alongwith Sanjay Dutt. He supported the prosecution's case by
saying that Sanjay Dutt had instructed the witness to go to Gate
no. 1 for duty, which he had followed. The happenings at Gate
H No.2 would not be visible to him, while he was standing near
IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHAN v. 1081
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
the main Gate No.1. It was for this reason that he had been
A
shifted to a place from where he could not possibly see what
was happening.
12. Deposition of Laxman Loku Karkare CPW.45) - He
was a panch witness in the recovery made on 1.4.1993, When
B
he reached the police station and· had agreed to become a
panch witness, there were some constables and one more
person, who had disclosed that his name was Ibrahim Musa
Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan (A-41 ). He had given the address
of his residence. The appellant (A-41) had disclosed to the
police in his presence, that he had AK 56 rifles, magazines,
C
grenades and cartridges which he had been concealed, and
that he would show them the place of concealment and also
produce the weapons. The panchanama was signed by this
witness. They reached the place as was explained to them by
the appellant (A-41) by police jeep, which was near Andheri Bus
D
Terminus.