# [2001] 1 S.C.R. 111

- **Citation:** [2001] 1 S.C.R. 111
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2001-01-09
- **Bench:** M.B. Shah, S.N. Phukan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2001-1-s-c-r-111-17796
- **Pages:** 73

## Headnote

B
Terrorisl and Disruptive Aclivities (Prevention) Ac!, 1987--Section
3(2) u11d 3(3)-0f/ences under-Nature o/-Convil:lion under-Held. un
accused rnn be com·icted under Section 3(3) ll'ithout conl'icting any other
uccu.W!d under Section 3(2)·-Section 3 ( 3) constitutes an independent ojfi'nce. C
Section 3-Benefit of doubt-Accused charged with conspiracy to
commit terrorist acts-Recove1J· of arms on the hasis of the confessional
statement of co-accused-Accused facilitating the activities of the coaccused-Held, presumption of innocence ceases lo ex isl-Accused lo explain D
the recovelJ'·
Section I 5-Confessional starement-Validity of-Statement recorded
while the accused was in police custody-A/legalion that guidelines laid
down in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab not followed-Held, the confessional
statement is admissible in evidence-Can be relied upon against !he E
accused-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987-Rule
15.
Terrorist and Disruplive Activities (Prevenlion) Rules, 1987-Rule /./-
Search-Validity of-Search carried out prior to registration of a case under
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Search by a
Superintendent of Police without warrant issued by the District MagistraleHeld, not vitiated-Code of Criminal Procedure-Sec/ion 165.
F
Penal Code-Section I 20-B-Cri111inal conspiracy-Burden of proofConspiracy for commission ofterrorisl activities-Confession by the accused- G
Held, proof reqz1ired is of such degree that a prudent 111an on its basis 111ay
believe in the existence ofthefacl in issue-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Ac1, 1987--Section 3.
Twenty-one persons, including the Appellants, were tried jointly for
H
111
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001) I S.C.R.
A commission of offences under Sections 3(3) and 5 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 120-B of the Indian
B
Penal Code, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the
...,,
Arms Act.
The case of the prosecution was that Accused No. I was arrested on
16.7.1992 at Dadar Railway Station in respect of RC 5/92. The Bombay
police recorded the confession of Accused No. I and on coming to know that
his associates were operating from Baroda and other cities of Gujarat, the
Commissioner of Police, Baroda was informed. The Baroda police interrogated
Accused No. I and came to know that arms and ammunitions had been stored
C by the accused persons in two premises in Ahmedabad, i.e at Paresh
Apartment and at Usman Harun Society. The premises were raided by the
Superintendent of Police, CID (Crime) in front of p1111cl111s and huge quantities
of arms, ammunitions and explosives were recovered from there. Thereafter,
RC-6/92 was registered and investigations were carried out.
J..
D
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons had hatched a criminal
conspiracy to undertake subversive and terrorist activities in India and abroad
between September 1988 to July 1992 for facilitating the creation of Khalistan
and liberation of Jammu and Kashmir. Accused No. 2 was a Pakistani national
and an agent of the Pakistani military intelligence, who had entered into
E India for getting information regarding defence base of India and for collecting
other inside information in connection with defence personnel and army
positions in India. For this purpose he contacted Accused Nos. I, 3 and 4.
Accused Nos. I and 2 entered into India, lodged at different places in order
to achieve the goal. Both of them created contacts in India with Accused No.
20 at Aligarh and Accused Nos. 3 and 4 at Bombay. Accused Nos. I and 2
F visited various places of India including Ahmedabad and Bombay under their
fake names. The modus operandi of these two accused persons was to have
their activities ur:der false identity. Their targets were to create hideouts,
to have their own agents, to have their contacts with the agents in Pakistan,
UK·, Canada etc. and to have hideouts elsewhere. Accused Nos. I and

## Text

_Characters 0–39,992 of 190,008. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39992 for what follows._

LAL SINGH ETC. ETC.
A
\(
STA TE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.
JANUARY 9, 2001
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.]
B
Terrorisl and Disruptive Aclivities (Prevention) Ac!, 1987--Section
3(2) u11d 3(3)-0f/ences under-Nature o/-Convil:lion under-Held. un
accused rnn be com·icted under Section 3(3) ll'ithout conl'icting any other
uccu.W!d under Section 3(2)·-Section 3 ( 3) constitutes an independent ojfi'nce. C
Section 3-Benefit of doubt-Accused charged with conspiracy to
commit terrorist acts-Recove1J· of arms on the hasis of the confessional
statement of co-accused-Accused facilitating the activities of the coaccused-Held, presumption of innocence ceases lo ex isl-Accused lo explain D
the recovelJ'·
Section I 5-Confessional starement-Validity of-Statement recorded
while the accused was in police custody-A/legalion that guidelines laid
down in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab not followed-Held, the confessional
statement is admissible in evidence-Can be relied upon against !he E
accused-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987-Rule
15.
Terrorist and Disruplive Activities (Prevenlion) Rules, 1987-Rule /./-
Search-Validity of-Search carried out prior to registration of a case under
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Search by a
Superintendent of Police without warrant issued by the District MagistraleHeld, not vitiated-Code of Criminal Procedure-Sec/ion 165.
F
Penal Code-Section I 20-B-Cri111inal conspiracy-Burden of proofConspiracy for commission ofterrorisl activities-Confession by the accused- G
Held, proof reqz1ired is of such degree that a prudent 111an on its basis 111ay
believe in the existence ofthefacl in issue-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Ac1, 1987--Section 3.
Twenty-one persons, including the Appellants, were tried jointly for
H
111
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001) I S.C.R.
A commission of offences under Sections 3(3) and 5 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 120-B of the Indian
B
Penal Code, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the
...,,
Arms Act.
The case of the prosecution was that Accused No. I was arrested on
16.7.1992 at Dadar Railway Station in respect of RC 5/92. The Bombay
police recorded the confession of Accused No. I and on coming to know that
his associates were operating from Baroda and other cities of Gujarat, the
Commissioner of Police, Baroda was informed. The Baroda police interrogated
Accused No. I and came to know that arms and ammunitions had been stored
C by the accused persons in two premises in Ahmedabad, i.e at Paresh
Apartment and at Usman Harun Society. The premises were raided by the
Superintendent of Police, CID (Crime) in front of p1111cl111s and huge quantities
of arms, ammunitions and explosives were recovered from there. Thereafter,
RC-6/92 was registered and investigations were carried out.
J..
D
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons had hatched a criminal
conspiracy to undertake subversive and terrorist activities in India and abroad
between September 1988 to July 1992 for facilitating the creation of Khalistan
and liberation of Jammu and Kashmir. Accused No. 2 was a Pakistani national
and an agent of the Pakistani military intelligence, who had entered into
E India for getting information regarding defence base of India and for collecting
other inside information in connection with defence personnel and army
positions in India. For this purpose he contacted Accused Nos. I, 3 and 4.
Accused Nos. I and 2 entered into India, lodged at different places in order
to achieve the goal. Both of them created contacts in India with Accused No.
20 at Aligarh and Accused Nos. 3 and 4 at Bombay. Accused Nos. I and 2
F visited various places of India including Ahmedabad and Bombay under their
fake names. The modus operandi of these two accused persons was to have
their activities ur:der false identity. Their targets were to create hideouts,
to have their own agents, to have their contacts with the agents in Pakistan,
UK·, Canada etc. and to have hideouts elsewhere. Accused Nos. I and 4 visited
G Madras to survey the stock exchange building to find out the possibility of
a bomb blast there. The accused persons were using various types of vehicles
out of which vehicles, one jeep and scooter were recovered from Ahmedabad
and one Gypsy was recovered from Bombay. During interrogation of Accused
No. 1, hideouts of the accused in Paresh Apartment and Usman Harun Society
at Ahmedabad came to be known and raids on these hideouts resulted in
H recovery of arms and ammunitions.
-~-
LAL SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT
113
The _further case of th«; prosecution was that all the Appellants gave A
their confessional statements in which they corroborated each other. Accused
No. I in his confessional statenrcn.t admitted that after the Operation Blue
Star, he _started working for the independent state of Khalistan and was sent
to Pakistiln; Iu Pal<istail he came in contact with Accused· No. 2 (a Pakista.ni
oatio.nal) and Accus~d No. 3 (a resident of Bombay). Accused Nos. I and 2
came to India ~nderfalse ide.ntity:starte!f living in Aligarh. There Accused B
No •. I was introduced to Accuse~ _No. 'io, Accused .No. 3- introduced Accused
No. I to Ac~used No. 4 (a. r:esident of AJimedabad). With the help of Accused
No. 4, ~~cu~il No. I :rerited ii,tiat in i>aresh Apartnients and purchased a
nat fo Usnian H~run s6ciety ti:> hide a c~nsignm~ent of arms and ammunitions
that w~~ coming to India. He~~ purcfliise<l a. Gypsy and a scooter. He admitted C
th~{ he"ha~ goiJ~:to Madras along ~ith"Ac~u·s~cj No. 4 and that he had stayed
at Ahrnedabad.
Accused No. 2 also made a confessional statement in which he admitted
that.. he was an agent of.the.J?akist:an mmtary intelligence and corroborated
the c_onfessional stateinent of ~the .. Accl!sed No. I. From the premises of D
Accuse4 f\lo. 3,a letter written by.Acc:u$ed'Nl>.J ~as recovered which showed
the clii°nplicity Of tiie accused ih the s~cret ~ctivities.
.
-
,
·.
l'o establish the r.ecove..y of arms and ammunitions on the basis of
the confessionai statement; hiring of nat in Paresh Apartments, purchase
of the premises. at Usman. Harun Society", stay of the accused at Aligarh, E
Ahmedabad and .. Madras, the air flights taken by the accused, role of the
~ccus1;d in the alleged conspiracy,"several witnesses were examined by the
. prosecution.
The Designated Judge convicted all the Appellants under Section 3(3)
of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and F
sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment and -fine. The Designated Judge
further convicted the Appellants under Section 120-B(I) of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 3(3) of Terrorist and Disrur.tive Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1987 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No.
I was additionally convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive G
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act
and 25 (IA) ofthe Arms Act. The Designated Judge acquitted 16 other
accused persons giving them the benefit of doubt.
Against the order of the Designated Judge, the Appellants preferred
appeals before this Court and contended that:-
H

LAL SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT
115
the arms and ammuilitions.were recovered from two different A
~
premises. The arms and ammunitions allegedly recovered from
' .,
Paresh Apartments and Usman Harun Society were deposited
without any justifiable r4!ason at the police headquarters and
not ,at the police stll,tion where the FIR )vas registered.
8.
The prosecu.ti<fll has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all B
the links relied upon by it.
9.
There is no e\;idence to show any agreement between Accused
.
.
.
.
No. 2. and other accused to commit any offence. The evidence
does not show that Accused No. 2 visited Delhi and Aligarh for c
establishing contacts for the alleged conspiraty. No independent
evidence has been led to connect Accu~ed No. 2 with the recovery
of the arms and ammunitions. No recovery has been made on
the basis of the statement of Accused No. 2.
IO. Accused No. 20 ought to have been given the benefit of doubt D
as was done in the case of I 6 co-accused. There is nothing to
show the involvement of Accused No. 20 in the alleged criminal
conspiracy. The confessional statement of the accused was
-·~
recorded under coercion and torture. The confession made by
the other accused could not have been used against Accused No.
20.
E
I I. The evidence produced by the prosecution against the Appellants
.is not sufficient to convict them under the provisions of law
invoked against them.
~
Dismissing the appeals filed by Accused Nos. I and 2 and partly allowing F
the appeals of Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 20, the Court
HELD: I. For convicting the accused under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, it is not necessary that someone
should be convicted under Section 3(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive G
Activities (Prevention) Act for commission of a terrorist act. Sub-section (3)
.,
contemplates acts which are not terrorist acts by themselves, but activities
prior or subsequent to the terrorist act. Under this section, a person can be
convicted if it is proved that he - (a) conspired, (b) advocated, (c) abetted, (d)
advised, (e) incited, or (I) knowingly facilitated- the commission ofa terrorist
act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act. Any of these acts by itself H
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] l S.C.R.
A constitutes an offence. The aforesaid activitie·s are not only abetment of
terrorist act, but include other acts which are not covered by the concept of
abetment as provided under the Indian Penal Code. 1135-B-CI
B
2.1. Despite the suggestion made by this Court in Kartar Singh v. State
of Punjab, the guidelines laid down in the said judgment are neither
incorporated in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act nor
in the Terrorist and Disrupf!ve Acti\'ities (Prevention) Rules by the
Parliament. This Court has not held in Kurtar Singh v. Stale of Punjab that
if suggested guidelines are not followed then confessional statement would
be inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, it would be difficult to accept the
C contention that as the said guidelines arc not 'followed, confessional statements
even if admissible in evidence, should not be relied upon for convicting the
accused. (136-D; 137-F(
2.2. In the present case confessional statements were recorded prior
to the date of decision in Kartar Singf? v. State of Punjab. When the accused
D were produced before the Magistrate they did not make a complaint that the
confessional statements were recorded under coercion. In view of the settled
legal position, it is not possible to accept the contention that as the accused
were in police custody, the confessional statements are either inadmissible
in evidence or are not reliable. Custodial interrogation in such cases is
E permissible unde·r the law to meet grave situation arising out of terrorism
unleashed by terrorist activities by persons residing within or outside the
country.(137-F-El
Karta.r Singh v. State of Punjab, ( 1994( 3 SCC 569; SN Dube v. N.B.
Bhoir & Ors., (2000( 2 SCC 254 and State v. Nalini & Ors., (1999( 5 SCC
F 253, referred to.
2.3. If the confessional statements are accepted then it cannot be said
that the conviction of the appellants is in any way illegal or erroneous. However,
the confessional statements were recorded when all the accused were in
G police custody by CBI Officers who were supervising the investigation and
after recording the statements, they were not immediately produced before
.the Magistrate. Therefore, even though the confessional statements are
substantive pieces of evidence, to appreciate the contention that the said
statements are not truthful and reliable, other evidence produced on record
including the evidence which corroborates the said statements is required
H to beconsidered. (146-A-C(
IV
LAL SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT
117
3. Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules A
is complied with and each accused ma.king the confession was explained that
he was not bound to make it and in case he makes it, it could be used against
hi~ as evidence. Further, the officer had also verified that the accused was
making the confessional statement voluntar'ily and certificate to that effect
· is also attached to the said confessional statement. 1138-EI
4. There is no question of application of Rule 14 of the Terrorist and
;tr Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules as at the time of carrying out the
search, there was no pending case under the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The police officers were entitled to carry
B
out the search and seizure under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure C
Code. The search and seizure was carried out by higher officer, namely
Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch. Being a cognizable offence,
on the basis of information received that large quantity of arms and explosive
substances were stored in the premises, the police officer was entitled to
exercise power under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
exercise of power under Rule 14 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities D
(Prevention) Rules by the District Magistrate does not take away the authority
of the police officer to search under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. p 79-D-E I
5. It is true that the FIR was registered after carrying out the raids
in Paresh Apartments and Usman Ha run Society. Before raids were carried E
out there was no certainty that arms and ammunitions would be recovered.
These raids were carried out only on the basis of information received after
interrogation of Accused No. I. Secondly, the raid was carried out in the
presence of higher officer, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
~
1179-G-ftl F
6. For breaking of locks of the premises in which search was conducted,
a panchnama was prepared and it is mentioned that after breaking open the
locks, search was carried out. There is no question of different procedure
to be followed after breaking open the locks. I 180-AI
7.1. The alleged irregularity in mixing of the articles recovered from
Paresh Apartments and Usman Ha run Society would not in any way materially
affect the seizure of the said articles. The prosecution has established beyond
reasonable doubt that on the basis of interrogation of Accused No. 1 at Bombay,
G
by taking prompt action the police recovered large quantity of arms,
ammunitions and explosive substances. The raid was carried out by the H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] I S.C.R.
A
Superintend~nt o.f Police after obtaining directions from the Commissioner
of Police. He was present at the time of raiding the premises. He was also
present when panchnama·was. prepared for seizure of the articles. During
the examination of the panch witness pW6 each parcel was opened and the
panch had i.dentified the slips .which were affixed at the time of sealing of the
B parcel along with his signatures. He has also identified the seized articles
which were sealed in his presence and has described the premises which
were raided. In the first part of the panchnama the recovery from the Paresh
Apartments is mentioned separately and there is no reason to disbelieve the
said part of the panchnama. 1151-F; l52~C-DI
7.2. It would be difficult to accept the contention that the seized arms
C and ammunitions were not properly sealed or were not kept at proper place.
The seized articles were kept at the police headquarters because of its large
quantity. It is quite po~sible that there may not be sufficient space at the
police 5tation where FIR was r~gistered. In any case, for the purpose of
safety if the muddamal articles are deposited at the police headquarters, it
D cannot be said that the recovery is in any way vitiated. PW 8, a Senior
Scientific Officer in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at New Delhi,
has stated that on 28-8-1992 his team started examining the seized articles,
which were kept in boxes/bags at the police headquarters. The inspection
was carried out for three days after checking the seals. The seals were found
intact, which tallied with the specimen seals of Police Station. The prosecution
E has proved' beyond doubt recovery of large quantities of arms, ammunitions
and explosive substances. 1152-H; 153-A-CI
F
8. To say that the prosecution has to prove the case with a hundred
percent certainty is a myth. Since last many years the nation is facing great
streS\ and strain because of misguided militants and co-operation to the
militancy, which has >1ffected the social security,.peace and stability. It is
common knowledge that such terrorist activities are carried out with utmost
secrecy. Many facts pertaining to such activities remain in personal
knowledge of the person concerned. Hence, in case of conspiracy and
particularly such activities, better evidence than acts and stateplents including
G that of co-conspirators in pursuance of the conspiracy is hardly available. In
such cases, when there is confessional statement it is not necessary for the
prosecution to establish each and every link as confessional statement gets
corroboration from the link which is proved by the prosecution. In any case,
the law requires establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent
man may on its basis, believe in the existence of the facts in issue.
H
1176-C-DI
- ..If'"'
LALSlNGHv. STATEOFGUJARAT
I 19
"Collector a/Customs, Madras & Ors. v. D. Bhoormall, (19741 2 SCC A
544, referred to.
9. Accused No. 2 is a Pakistani"national. If a foreign national is found
staying in the country without valid passport and.visa and his movements
from one place to another with Accused No. 1 are established and from the
premises occupied by Accused No. 1, large quantitieS of arms and ammunitions B
arc found, it would be prudent and ·reasonable to draw inference of criminal
conspiracy.1176-AI
10.1. The concept of benefit of doubt is vague. Since years it has been
considered that before granting benefit of doubt to the accused, doubt should
be a reasonable one which occurs to a prudent man and not to a weak or C
unduly vacillating or confused mind. It is true that under the existing
jurisprudence in criminal matter, the Court has to proceed with presumption
~
of innocence, but at the same time, that presumption is to be judged on the
basis of concepti.ons of a reasonable prudent man. Smelling doubts for the
sake of giving benefit of doubt is not the law of the land. 1177-H; 178-A-FI D
VijayeeSingh & Ors. v. State of UP .. 119901. 3 SCC 190 and Miller v.
Minister of Pensions, 119471 2 All E. R. 372, referred to.
10.2. In cases of terrorist activities if arms and ammunitions are
recovered at the instance of or on disclosure by the accused, it can be stated
that presumption of innocence would not thereafter exist and it would be for E
the accused to explain its r.ossessiou or discovery or recovery and would
depend upon facts of.each ca~e which are to be appreciated on the scales of
common sense of a prudent man possessing capacity to "separate the chaff
from grain": If it is established on record that Accused No. 20 was found
in the COl)lpany of Accused No.Of and Accu~ed No. 2 at Aligarh and that at F
Bombay also he had introduc;ed himself as a friend of Accused No. 1 and
.
.
:
Accus.ed No. 3 t0 his childhood friend, then it would be reasonable to infer
that he was co-conspirl!tor and assisting Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2,
as stated in his confessional statement. With regard to the confessional
statement of a co-accused, it has been held that it can be relied upon.
1178-G; 179-AI G
11.1. The evidence of PWS and PW12 clinchingly establishes that the
Accused No; 1 along with other persons occupied the premises at Pares~
Apartments and Usman Harun Society from where large quantity of arms,
ammunitions and explosive substances were found. The evidence of PW 43
who was knowing Accused No. I since years clearly establishes the presence H
120
SUPRE;:ME COURT REPORTS
. . .
.
.·•
..
[2001) I S.C.R.
A of Accused No. I, Accused No. 2 a·nd·Accused _No. 20 at tlie house of Accused
No. I at Aligarh. PW 86 also proves· beyo.nd reasonable doubt that Accused
No. 2 stayed at Aligarh and joined computer course run by this witness.
Similarly, PW 44 provesthe movcment·of Accused No. I frcim.Aligarh to
Gwalior,. who visited him as.being friend of his brother. This clinching evidence
B leaves ilo doubt that Actus~d No. f and A~cuse~ No. 2, fo. f11rtherance of their
conspiracy stayed at Aligarh· and were aided by Accused No. 20.
·'
[ 157-F; 159-FI
.
.
.
· I I .2 .. There can"not be any doubt that Acci1sed No. 3, Accused No. 4 and
.
.
..
.
Accused. No, 20 have co11spired along with Accused No. ·i and Accused No.
C 2 in their ~reparatory terrorist activities, Apart from cpnspiring, Accused
No. 4 specifically accompanied _Accused No .. I ·at Ahmedabad for the purpose
of finding a. hideout. H~ also accompanied Accused No. I at Madras for
sun·eying the Madras Stock Ex~~ang~ to find out ·a possibility of bomb blast ·
thue. If Accused No. 4 was not at all connected with Accused No. I, there
was no necessity of travelling together under fake names. For Accused Nos.
D 3 and 20, 'it is true thafapart from their confessional statements, the role
proved agairist them i.n conspiring 1~·ith _Accused No. i is limited. However;
Accused No. 3 had_ kept substantial arirount for carrying the expenditur~
incurred in these activities. F'rom his premises.a letter.written by him was
found indicating his secret acth•ities. In this-~iew ofthe matter, it cannot be
E said that their conviction _under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Actis in any way illegal or erroneous.·[I82-D-EI
.
.
.
.
11.3. Considering the role played by Accused No. 3, Accused No. 4 and
Accused· No. 20, the interest of fustice would be served iftheir sentence is
· reduce.d from life imprisonm~nt to rigornus imprisonment for IO years.
F
1182-FI
G
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 219of1997.
· Froin the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.97 of the Designated Court at
· Ahmedabad in TADA case No. 2 of 1993.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 244 of 1997, 294 of 1997, 407-409/97 and 1409-1411
of 1999.
Sushil Kumar, R.B. Mehrotra, P.P. Malhotra, R.K. Talwar, D.M. Sinha,
H Yash Pal Dhingra, Sanjay Jain, R.P. Wadhwani, Anis Ahmed Khan, W.A.
LAL SINGH"· STATE OFGUJARA T [SHAH, J.J
121
Noomani, Z.K. Fazan, B.U. Burqi, Aili I Kumar Gupta-II, (Ms. K.Sarda Devi) A
(SCIS<:::) Romy Chacko, S.A. Matto, Mrs. Rekha Pandey. P. Parmeshwaran,
.,
Yashank Adhyaru, Ms. Anu Sawhney and. Ms. Hemantika Wahi for1 the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of Court was delivered by
B
SHAH, J. After trial in TADA Case Nos~2/93, 7/93 and 2/94; by judgment
~
and order dated 8th January, 1997, the Designated Judge, Aiimedabad (Rural)
at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, acquitted 16. accused and convicted 5 accused,
appellants herein, namely, A I Lal Singh. A2 Mohd. Sharief, A3 Tahir Ja~nal,
·A4 Mohd. Saquib Nachan ai1d A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar. The appellants were C
convicted for the offences punishable· (I) under Section 3 (3) of Terrorist and
""-···
. Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA
Act) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. I 0.000
each and in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months: (2) under Section 1208 (1) of
.IPC and sentenced to suffer R.l for I 0 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000 each, D
in default .to suffer R.I. for 3 months. They were further convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA Act read with Sec. 1208 IPC
but no separate sentence was awarded. Accused No.I was additionally
. convicted for the offences punishable (l).under Section 5 o(TADA Act and
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. I 0,000, and in
default (o suffer R.I. for 6 months; and (2) under Section 5 of the Explosive E
Substances Act, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 in default. to undergo R.I. for 3
months; (3) under Section 25( I A) of the Anns Act and sentenced to suffer
R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default to suffer R.I. for
3 months. No separate sentence for A-I under Section 3(3) of TADA Act,
Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act read with Section 1208 IPC was F
passed. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Against the said judgment and order, A I Lal Singh has filed Criminal
Appeal No.219/1997, A2 Mohd. Sharief has filed Criminal Appeal No.14091411/1997, A3 Tahir Jamal has filed Criminal Appeal No.407-409/1997, A4
Mohd. Saquib Nachan has filed Criminal No.244/1997 and A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar G
has filed Criminal Appeal No.294/1997.
In all, twenty one accused were tried jointly before the trial court on the
charge that they alongwith 13 named absconding accused and some unknown
Sikh militants hatched criminal conspiracy in India and abroad for subversive H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 1 S.C.R.
A and terrorist activities in India and.for facilitating creation of Khalistan and
liberation of Jammu and Kashmir by violent means during the period.between
September. 1988 to July, 1992; accused no. I Lal Singh visited P<ikistan on fake
Pakistani passport and contacted Inter Service Intelligence (ISi) officials of
Pakistan for smuggling of arms, ammunitions and explosives and· money for
B terrorist activities into India; accused No.2 is Pakistani national and ISi agent;
accused nos. I and 2 alongwith Sajjad Alam Raja (absconder) unlawfully
indulged in subversive activities. created an organization at Lahore (Pakistan)
for liberation of Kashmir and its merger with Pakistan, creation of Khalistan
in India by strihing terror in people or section of people or to adversely affect
c
the har111ony amongst different sections of people. creating hideouts at.various
places in India with the help of A4 and A20: accused No.2 along with accused
No. I and some unknown Pakistani smugglers facilitated the smuggling of
several consignments of arms, ammunitions and explosives into India from
Pakistan by illegal means during 1991; A I, A2 and A20 along with some
absconders conspired to strike terror by violent means to eliminate BJP/Hindu
D leaders/police officers and for that purpose procured fire-arms, ammunitions
and explosives: accused no.3, 4 and 20 with the help of other accused created
hideouts for accused no. I for intensifying terro.rist activities and for arranging
transportation; accused no. I alongwith accused Devendrapal Singh alias
Deepak (absconder) while staying at Ahmedabad was in constant touch with
.;..
E accused Gurjit Singh Dhaliwal alias Pal alias Sharma (absconder) in USA. He
coordinated the terrorist activities in India on telephone and that at the behest
of accused persons huge quantity of arms, ammunitions, explosives and other
articles were recovered and found to be in working order, which -:vere of
foreign make and sufficient to cause explosions.
F
According to prosecution, in the year 1984 the terrorism had gone
beyond limits and, therefore, blue star operation was performed. Just to
oppose the action of blue star operation, the dissatisfied and angry Sikh
youths started creating disharmon)· amongst two major groups of Hindus and
non-Hindus. LS.I. of Pakistan started instigating Indian Muslim and Sikh
youths for this purpose. ISi contacted certain youngsters in India, who were
G the members of one organization named SIMI-an institution for the purpose
of cultural and religious activities amongst Muslim youngste~s and to follow
}<
the principles of Holy Kuran and to live the life guided by Holy Kuran. For
this purpose, ISi took help of Mr. CMA Bashir (absconding) of Kera la having
close connection with SIMI. As the area of Punjab and J&K was not safe for
H the above activities, they chose certain borders of Gujarat and Rajasthan.
LAL SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SHAH, J.]
123
Accused no. 2 a·Pakistani National and ISi agent entered into India for getting, A
information regarding, defence base of India situated at Ambala, Punjab, J&K
and for collecting other inside information in connection with defence pei·sonnel
-
.
.
and army position in India. For this purpose h.e contacted accused nos. I, 3
and 4. Accused no. I and 2 were active in furtherance of their conspiracy.
They entered into India,- lodged at different places in order to achieve the B
goal. Both of them created cor!tacts in India with accused no. 20 at Aligarh
and accused nos. 3 and 4 at Bombay. Accused nos. I and 2 visited various
-...rplaces of India inclu.ding Ahmedabad and Bombay in· their fake names. The
modus operandi of these two accused persons was to have their activities
·under false identity. In December, 1991 both the accused reached at Aligarh
where they sta11ed their activities. Their targets were to create hideouts, to
have their own agents, to· have .their contacts with agents in Pakistan, UK,
Canada etc. and to have hideouts elsewhere. It is stated that A I and A4
visited Madras to survey the stock exchange building to find.out the possibility
c
of bomb blast there. It is further stated that accused persons were using
various types of vehicles according to their requirement and convenience. D
Out of those vehicles, one jeep and scooter were recovered from Ahmedabad
and one gypsy was recovered from Bombay. During interrogation of tccused
No. I, two hideouts of accused persons at Ahmedabad came to be known and
~-
raid of these hideouts resulted into recovery of arms and ammunitions. At
both the hideouts, they were living under different identities. It is further E
stated that A I to A4 and A20, in their respective confessional statements,
corroborate with each other on various points and items of conspiracy. The
statements lend support to prove the conspiracy. The evidence against A3,
A4 and A20 shows that they were helping and abetting A I and A2 in
common design.
F
It is further case of the prosecution that accused No. I Lal Singh was
arrested in the morning of 16.7.92 at Dadar Railway Station while he was
alighting from a train. His arrest was shown in RC5/92 in which final report
was submitted as no case is made out For the present case, it is the prosecution
story that Mr. Hiralal, the Commissioner of Police, Baroda (Gujarat) got G
infomrntion that one terrorist Inder Pal Singh alias Lal Singh along with other
~
associates was arrested by Bombay Police and the arrested terrorist Lal Singh
confessed regarding conspiracy hatched for kidnapping of grand-daughter of
V.V.LP. from Pune and that main leaders were operating from Baroda and other
cities of Gujarat. The Commissioner of Police entrusted the work of verifying
the said information to Mr. Anopkumar Singh, DCP (PW I 0). It was decided H
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[200 I) I S.C.R.
A to send AS! I.C. Raj, PW9 of Chhani Police Station, Baroda working under
Mr. Anopkumar Singh, to Bqmbay for interrogating lnderpal ·Singh and his
associates. After contacting the Police C~mmissioner, City of Bombay, on
23rd, 24th and 25th July, 1992 AS! Mr. ~aj interrogated accused Lal Singh. He
was sending information every day with regard to the interrogation to DCP
B Mr. Anopkumar Singh. On 24th July, 1992 on the basis of interrogation,
information was conveyed at Baroda with regard to large scale arms and
ammunitions stored at certain premises at Ahmedabad. On receipt of the said
information, Mr. Anopkumar Singh rushed to the Commissioner of Police,
Baroda. Fur1her, the D.G. Police of Gujarat State was informed immediately on
c
telephone about the said information. The C.P. Baroda also talked about the
information with Mr. Surolia, DCP Ahmedabad (PWI03). The infonnation was
received at night time on 24th July, 1992 and PW7 ASI T.A. Barot located the
two premises, namely, Flat No. C-33, Paresh Apartments situated at
Narayanagar Road, Paldi and House No.4-A, Usman· Harun Society, Juhapura
at Ahmedabad and raids were carried out on 25th July in the morning. During
D raids, large quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosives were recovered from
the said premis.es. The Ahmedabad police was investigating the crime but
considering its seriousness, on 31st July, 1992, the State Government gave
consent for investigation by the CBI. On 4th August, 1992, Central Government
notified that investigation be carried out by the CBI. The CBI registered the
E case as RC-6/92, carried out the investigation and also recorded confessional
statements of the .accused. Finally, after completing the investigation accused
were charge-sheeted and tried by the Designated Judge at Ahmedabad.
To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 136 witnesses during
the trial and relied upon various documents including confessional statements
F recorded during investigation.
All the accused persons abjured their guilt, pleaded innocence and
stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused no. I Lal
Singh has stated that he left India in the year 1991 and returned to India in
the year 1992 and when he was at Bombay, he was arrested at Dadar Railway
G Station. He has denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution and
stated that during his arrest his signatures on blank papers were obtained
forcefully and that he never gave any confessional statement. During police
lock up, he was tortured, his tongue was cut and was injured on the head.
The Doctor was required to take 12 sutures on his head injury. It is his say
H that when he was arrested at Dadar Railway Station at the ticket counter, he
LAL SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SHAH, J.]
125
was having 350 American dollars and 15 to 16 thousand' Indian currency A
notes. He has disputed the date and time of his airest.
Accused no.2 Mohd. Sharief admitted that he is a Pakistani Natio.nal
and is Ahmadi Muslim. He has also denied all allegations levelled by the
prosecution and stated that during his arrest his si~natures on blank papers B
were obtained forcefully and that he never gave any confessional statement.
He has stated.that the Pakistan Govt. declared Ahmadi Muslim Coii:1111unity
as non-Muslim Community. His father died becal!se of tortur.e exercised by
extremist Muslims of Pakistan. He has further stated. that Indian Govemlilent
had sponsored one conference of Ahmadi Muslims at Gurudaspur, Punjab. He
wanted to settle at Germany and, therefore, he contacted one Ch ... Avtar. ·c
Ahmad in India for making arrangement for going to Germany. When he was
at Delhi Airport and was preparing tci leave for Germany via Moscow, he was
stopped and tater on arrested. From August 1992 t_ill July '1993,, he was
confined at Lal Quila, Delhi. He was i.ortured and his signatures were taken .
on blank papers. Because of threats. given by the C.B.I. OfficerS, he had not
disclosed th·e story qf torture when .he was produced before the Court. He D
refused to identify other accused. He also denied to .have visited India except.
in August 1992.
Accused No.3, Tahir.Jamal also refused ofhaving·any relation with any
of the accused. He·stated'that during the period of rerlland,n~ specimen E
writings were taken from hiin. Accused No.4, Saquib Nachah has stated that·
he was arre~ted from his village. He has also denied. a'tl ailega:tibn~ levelled
·by the prosecution and stated that during his arrest his signatures on blank
.
.
'
papers were obtained under pressure and· torture. Accused No.20, Shoaib
Mukhtiar has stated that he was arrested from Aligarh. C.B.I. officers took his
signatures on blank papers after torture and beating him severely. With regard F
to the evidence of Azim Varasi, PW87, he has stated that witness was his
friend but afterwards their relations became enemical. This happened because
he was not ready to marry with the sister of Azim Varasi and further there was
some quarrel between them on account of money.
It is not necessary to narrate the defence of rest of the accused who
are acquitted.
G
After appreciating the entire evidence at great length, the learned
Designated Judge convicted the aforesaid five accused and gave benefit of
doubt to remaining sixteen accused. The Court arrived at the conclusion that H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] I S.C.R.
A the prosecution has proved that:
\
L
the muddamal anns, ammunitions and explosives produced before
the court were recovered on 24.7.92 from C-33, Paresh Apartments
and 4-A, Usman Harun Society and the same were recovered on
the basis of the information given by the accused no. I during
B
his interrogation;
2.
the link between accused no. I and absconding accused Manish
Agrawal with the premises C-33, Paresh Apartments and/or 4A of Usman Harun Society and the above two premises or any
of the two was used as hideout by accused no. I, absconding
C
accused Manish Agrawal alias Dipak or any of the accused
named in the charge-sheet;
3.
in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, absconding accused
Devendrapal Singh alias Manish Agrawal alias Dipak reached
to Ahmedabad in April, 1992 with Rs. 2,00,000 to 3,00,000 and
D
stayed with accused no. I in a hired flat no. C-33, Paresh
Apartments and in a purchased bungalow no. 4-A, Usman Harun
Society;
E
F
G
H
4.
for the convenience of the conspirators and for transporting the
firearms, ammunitions and explosives, accused no. I, absconding
accused Devendrapalsingh alias Manish Agrawal alias Dipak
and Dahyasingh Lahoria alias Vijay Pahelvan purchased a
Maruti Gypsy No. MH-01-8942 of blue or sky blue colour and
a Mahindra Jeep No. MH-04-A2 I 14 from Bombay and these
vehicles one after another were put to the disposal of accused
no. I at Ahmedabad;
5.
the scooter bearing no.GJ. I .P.9485 was purchased in the name of
Ashok Kumar Khanna {accused no. I) from Arvish Auto of
Ahmedabad and the same was found on 24.7.92 in the
compound of B. No. 4-A, Usman Harun Society;
6. accused nos. I and 2 had entered into India from Pakistan
through entry point Bombay Airport in the name of Chaudhari
Mohmad Iqbal and Manzoor Ahmad respectively as Pakistani
Nationals on 11112.12.91;
7. their visits at various places in furtherance of criminal conspiracy
hatched by A I to A4 and A20:
,
LAL SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SHAH, J.]
127
(i)
the visit of accused nos. I and 2 at Aligarh and their stay A
at Aligarh in the month of December, 1991 or round about;
(ii)
the visit of accused nos. I and 20 at Bombay as alleged;
(iii) the visit of accused nos. I and 4 at Ahmedabad and their
stay in hotel Sidhdhartha Palace and the stay of accused B
no. I in hotel Royal and/or hotel Butterfly at Ahmedabad;
(iv) the visit of accused no. I and absconding accused
Mushahid under assumed names of K. Kumar and M.
Husain respectively to Bombay on 30.6.92 and their contacts
with accused no.4 to plan out about the bomb blast m C
Stock Exchange Building at Madras;
(v) the visit of accused no. I and absconding accused
Mushahid Husain to Hotel Balvas International in the names
of Murtuzakhan and Anwar;
(vi) the visit of accused nos.1,4 and absconding accused
C.A.M. Bashir to Madras on 2.7.92 as alleged and the stay
of accused nos. I and 4 in hotel New Woodland, Madras;
D
(vii) the visit of accused nos.1,4 and absconding accused
C.A.M. Bashir of Stock Exchange Building, Madras on E
3.7.92 and the return journey to Bombay on 4.7.92; and
(viii) the visit of accused nos.3,4 and absconding accused
Mushahid Husain to Pakistan in the year 1991.
8.
accused no. I had brought 3000 US dollars and Rs.20,000/- in F
Indian currency and accused no.2 brought 3000 US dollars and
Rs.30,000 in Indian Currency when they entered into India in
December, 1991 and ultimately reached to Aligarh;
9.
accused no.2 came to India sometimes during March, 1991 to
establish contacts with Kashmiri or Sikh Militants for terrorist G
activities. He again came to India sometimes during October,
1991 to set up hideouts and contacted accused no.