# ' [2011) 1 S.C.R. 997 MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P

- **Citation:** [2011] 1 S.C.R. 997
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-01-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1778 of 2008
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, H.L. Dattu
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2011-1-s-c-r-997-manjit-singh-mange-v-cbi-through-its-s-p-27290
- **Pages:** 65

## Headnote

TERRORIST
AND
DISRUPTIVE
ACTIVITIES
PREVENTION ACT, 1987:
s., 12 - Designated Court -Jurisdiction of -Held.: By
virtue of s. 12 of the Act, the Designated Court may also try
any other offence with which the accused may be charged at
A
B
c
the same trial if the offence is connected with such other
offence and further if it is found that the accused has 0
committed any other offence under any other law, the
Designated Court may convict such person of such other
offence and pass any sentence authorized by the Act or such
other law for the punishment thereof-Interpretation of statutes.
s. 15 -Confession made to police officer -
Held:
E
Confessional statement made by a person u/s 15 shall be
admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence committed
and tried in the same case together with the accused who
makes the confession -Confession of an accused can be
used against him as well as other co-accused even if they are
F '
acquitted of offence under TADA Act .
. s.20-A(1) -Cognizance of offence -Held: Expression
"District SP" has been used in order to take the sanction of a
senior officer of the district, when the prosecution wants to
G
record any commission of an offence under the Act -In the
instant case, investigation was entrusted to CBI, therefore, the
CBI SP could authorize the police to record the information
about the commission of the offence under the Act -TADA
997
H
998
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 1 S.C.R.
A Rules, 1987 -r. 15 -Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 s. 3
ss. 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) -Prosecution -Held: Section 3
gives due importance to the aspect of intent -A person can
be charged with s. 3(1) only when the prosecution has
8 established that the offence was committed with the intent to
awe the Government or to achieve one or other ends
mentioned in s. 3(1) -In the instant case, the prosecution has
not proved that the murder was committed with the intention
to cause terror -Intention of the accused in the instant case
was not to cause terror but to prevent information regarding
C another crime from being divulged -Designated Court was,
therefore, justified in dismissing the charges framed under the
Act -Penal Code, 1860 -ss.302, 302134 and 3021120-8.
D
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss, 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 -Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence -Out of the three prosecuted for
assassination of an Additional Collector of Customs, two
charged with offences punishable under Penal Code and ss.
E 3(2) and 3(3) rlw s. 3(1) of TADA Act..., The third one was
extradited from Singapore and in view of Extradition Treaty
was charged only with ss. 302 and 120-8, /PC - Designated
Court convicting all the three accused of the offences
punishable u/ss. 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC with
F imprisonment for life and acquitting the two accused of the
offences punishable under TADA Act - Held : The evidence
on record presents an unimpeachable evidence against the
accused, clearly indicating the modus operandi and the
motive -
The Designated Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the accused ulss 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC
G -It also rightly acquitted the accused of the charges under
TADA Act - There is no illegality in the impugned judgment
- Te"orist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 -
ss.3(2) and 3(3) read withs. 3(1) "".""Evidence - Circumstantial
evidence.
H
....
-..+ .
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 999
EVIDENCE:
1
Circumstantial evidence -Offences punishable ulss 3021
120-B /PC -Evidence against 'mastermind'l'kingpin' of
I criminal conspiracy -Appreciation of - Penal Code, 1860 -
SS. 3021120-8.
The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1778 and .1844
of 2008 were prosecuted for offences punishable u/s :302,
s. 302/34 and s. 120 IPC, and ss. 3(2) and 3(3) read With
A
B
3(1) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 ands. 120 IPC, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal
C
No. 1826/2008 was prosecuted for offences punishable
u/ss 1208, 302 and 302/34 IPC for assassination of

## Text

_Characters 0–39,869 of 121,890. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39869 for what follows._

-
.,... '
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 997
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE
v.
CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1778 of 2008 etc.)
JANUARY 25, 2011
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
TERRORIST
AND
DISRUPTIVE
ACTIVITIES
PREVENTION ACT, 1987:
s., 12 - Designated Court -Jurisdiction of -Held.: By
virtue of s. 12 of the Act, the Designated Court may also try
any other offence with which the accused may be charged at
A
B
c
the same trial if the offence is connected with such other
offence and further if it is found that the accused has 0
committed any other offence under any other law, the
Designated Court may convict such person of such other
offence and pass any sentence authorized by the Act or such
other law for the punishment thereof-Interpretation of statutes.
s. 15 -Confession made to police officer -
Held:
E
Confessional statement made by a person u/s 15 shall be
admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence committed
and tried in the same case together with the accused who
makes the confession -Confession of an accused can be
used against him as well as other co-accused even if they are
F '
acquitted of offence under TADA Act .
. s.20-A(1) -Cognizance of offence -Held: Expression
"District SP" has been used in order to take the sanction of a
senior officer of the district, when the prosecution wants to
G
record any commission of an offence under the Act -In the
instant case, investigation was entrusted to CBI, therefore, the
CBI SP could authorize the police to record the information
about the commission of the offence under the Act -TADA
997
H
998
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 1 S.C.R.
A Rules, 1987 -r. 15 -Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 s. 3
ss. 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) -Prosecution -Held: Section 3
gives due importance to the aspect of intent -A person can
be charged with s. 3(1) only when the prosecution has
8 established that the offence was committed with the intent to
awe the Government or to achieve one or other ends
mentioned in s. 3(1) -In the instant case, the prosecution has
not proved that the murder was committed with the intention
to cause terror -Intention of the accused in the instant case
was not to cause terror but to prevent information regarding
C another crime from being divulged -Designated Court was,
therefore, justified in dismissing the charges framed under the
Act -Penal Code, 1860 -ss.302, 302134 and 3021120-8.
D
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss, 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 -Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence -Out of the three prosecuted for
assassination of an Additional Collector of Customs, two
charged with offences punishable under Penal Code and ss.
E 3(2) and 3(3) rlw s. 3(1) of TADA Act..., The third one was
extradited from Singapore and in view of Extradition Treaty
was charged only with ss. 302 and 120-8, /PC - Designated
Court convicting all the three accused of the offences
punishable u/ss. 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC with
F imprisonment for life and acquitting the two accused of the
offences punishable under TADA Act - Held : The evidence
on record presents an unimpeachable evidence against the
accused, clearly indicating the modus operandi and the
motive -
The Designated Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the accused ulss 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC
G -It also rightly acquitted the accused of the charges under
TADA Act - There is no illegality in the impugned judgment
- Te"orist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 -
ss.3(2) and 3(3) read withs. 3(1) "".""Evidence - Circumstantial
evidence.
H
....
-..+ .
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 999
EVIDENCE:
1
Circumstantial evidence -Offences punishable ulss 3021
120-B /PC -Evidence against 'mastermind'l'kingpin' of
I criminal conspiracy -Appreciation of - Penal Code, 1860 -
SS. 3021120-8.
The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1778 and .1844
of 2008 were prosecuted for offences punishable u/s :302,
s. 302/34 and s. 120 IPC, and ss. 3(2) and 3(3) read With
A
B
3(1) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 ands. 120 IPC, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal
C
No. 1826/2008 was prosecuted for offences punishable
u/ss 1208, 302 and 302/34 IPC for assassination of the
Additional Collector of Customs of Allahabad, namely,
'LO' on 24-3-1993 at about 07-07 .15 p.m" During the
course of investigation, the Government of India with the
D
consent of the Government of Uttar Prades~. entrusted
the investigation of the case to Central Bureau of
Investigation, which registered a case for an offence
punishable u/s 302 IPC. Subsequently, offences
punishable u/s 1208 IPC and ss. 3(2) and 3(3) read with
E
F
s. 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 were added. The prosecution case
was that three persons namely 'MD' 'TS' and accused 'B'
(the appellant in Crl.A. No. 1826/2008) ente.red into a
criminal conspiracy to eliminate 'LO' to strike terror
among the Customs officials with a view to prevent the
persons from passing on information about their
smuggling activities or their involvement in the Mumbai
serial blasts of 1993. Pursuant to this conspiracy hatched,
accused 'B' instructed co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' to G
eliminate 'LO'. 'KKS' while in police custody, made a
confessional statement u/s 15 of the TADA Act, wherein
he confessed his own involvement as well as
involvement of others in the killing of 'LO'. The
confessional statement of 'MS' was also recorded on
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 11.07.2001 by S.P., CBI, Delhi. Accordingly, charge sheet
against 'KKS' and 'MS' was filed in the Designated .Court
both under the provisions of the IPC and the TADA Act
on 26.11.2001. Accused 'B' was arrested in Singapore on
21.04.1995 in response to look out notice issued by
· B Interpol, India. On the request of Government of India, he
was extradited by the Government of Singapore. In view
of the Extradition Treaty ~igned between the two
countries, 'B' was tried u/s 120-B and 302 IPC and no
charge under the TADA Act was framed against him. The
c Designated Court (TADA) convicted accused 'KKS',
'MS'and accused 'B' of offences punishable u/ss. 302,
302/34 and 302 read with s. 1208 IPC and sentenced
each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs. 10,000/• . Accused 'KKS' and 'MS' both were
0 acquitted of the offences punishable u/ss. 3(2) and 3(3)
read with s. 3(1) of TADA Act. Aggrieved, the accused
filed the appeals. The State also appealed against
acquittal of the accused of offences punishable under
the TADA Act and for enhancement of the sentence.
E
The questions for consideration of the Court were :
(i) Whether the confessional statement of the co-accused
was admissible against 'B', who was not charged under
the TADA Act; (ii) Apart from the confession of the coaccused, whether there was any other evidence against
F accused 'B' to sustain the conviction and sentence u/s
302 read with s. 120-B IPC; (iii) Since the TADA Act is a
special statute enacted for a specific purpose and object,
whether the interpretation of provisions of the TADA Act
requires any specific mode of interpretation; (iv) Whether
G there was breach of mandatory requirements provided In
s. 20A(1) of the TADA Act while recording the confession
of an offence under the Act;· (v) Whether the conviction
of 'KKS' and 'MS' for the offences under the provisions
of the IPC were sustainable with the available evidence
H
. ....,
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1001
on record; and (vi) Whether the Designated Judge
A
_,,;.,
(TADA) y.ras justified in acquitting all the accused persons
of the offences charged and tried under the TADA Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:
B
1. Case of accused 'B':
.....
1.1 By virtue of s. 12 of the TADA Act, the Designated
Court may also try any other offence with which the c
accused may, under the Code, be charged at the same
trial if the offence is connected with such other offence.
The language of s. 12 clearly states that in the course of
any trial under the TADA Act of any offence, if it is found
that the accused person has committed any other D
.....,
offence either under this Act or any other law, the
Designated Court (TADA) may convict such person of
such other offence and pass any sentence authorized by
this Act or such other law, for the punishment thereof.
Section 15 of the TADA Act, after its amendment,
E
authorizes the Designated Court to use the confession
statement of one accused against another accused only
..,..
when the co-accused is charged in the same case along.·
with the confessor and is tried together with the
confessor in the same case. The language of these two
Sections is clear and unambiguous. It is well settled
F
principle of law that the jurisdiction to interpret a Statute
can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. In the
instant case, accuse 'B' was not charged under the TADA
Act, but tried in the same trial along with 'KKS' and 'MS',
-y
who were tried under the TADA Act. [para 15, 35 and 38]
G
(1023-E; 1036-F; 1037-D-F]
Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal, 2003 ( 1 )
SCR 634 = (2003) 2 SCC 577; Dadi Jagganadhan v.
Jammulu Ramulu and Ors .• AIR 2001 SC 2699; Feroze N.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 1 S.C.R.
Dotivalaz v. P.M Wadhwani and co., (2003) 1 SCC 14; Union
of India v. Harsoli Devi, 2002 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 324 = (2002)
7 sec 273 9 - relied on
Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. v. Directorate of
Enforcement and ors. AIR 2005 SC 2622; The Assistant
Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore and Ors. v.
Valliappa Textiles Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 86 -referred
to.
Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co. v. Vandray, AIR
1920 PC 181 - referred to.
Union of India v. Elphinstone Company Ltd., 2001 (1)
SCR 221 =(2001) 4 SCC 139, Whirpoo/ of India v. ES/
Corporation, (2000) 3 SCC 185, Mohd. Ali Khan v. CW/, 1997
(2) SCR 658 = (1997) 3 sec 511 - cited
1.2 In the case of Kartar Singh*, the Constitution
Bench of this Court held thats. 15 of the TADA Act was
playing the role- of s. 30 of the Evidence Act, which makes
the confession of an accused admissible in evidence
against its maker as well as other co-accused in a
criminal trial. The main concern while making such
confession admissible is to test the veracity of the
confession, as the incriminated co-accused does not get
the opportunity to cross-examine the maker. However,
such evidence must be corroborated in order to
determine the guilt of a person. In the event, independent
evidence supports the confessional statement then there
is no harm in relying upon the confession adding further
to the independent incriminating evidence. [para 46]
[1042-A-C]
*Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1994 ( 2 ) SCR 375 =
(1994) 3 sec 569 - relied on
1.3 The confessional statement made by a person u/
H s 15 of the TADA Act shall be admissible in the trial of a·
~
.-+--
-"("
..,.,.._
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1003
co-accused for offence committed and tried in the same
A
case together with the accused who makes the
confession. It is settled law that confession of an accused
can be used against him as well as other co-accused
even if they are acquitted of offences under the TADA Act.
(para 33 and 48] (1042-E-F; 1035-G-H]
B
Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs. State of Gujarat,
2005 (1 ) SCR 408 = (2005) 2 SCC 409; Baba Peer Paras
_.... · Nath vs. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 500; State vs.
Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253; S.N. Dube vs. N.B. Bhoir, (2000)
C
2 SCC 254; Jameel Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004
SC 588 and Esher Singh vs. State of A.P. 2004 (2 )
SCR 1180 = (2004) 11 sec 585 - relied on.
1.4 In any case, it would lead to absurdity for a court
to rely on confessions of the maker against himself, and
D
--..,
not against another person, when such other person
features prominently in the confessional statement, in a
joint trial of offences for the same criminal act, especially
in circumstances when
there · is independent
-~-
incriminating evidence. [para 47] (1042-D-E]
E
2.1 Section 20A (1) of TADA Act commences with the
words "notwithstanding anything", hence it is a nonobstante clause. The phrase "District SP" has been used
F
in order to take the sanction of a senior officer of the said
district, when the prosecution wants to record any
commission of an offence under the. Act,· the reason
appears to be that the Superintendent of Police of the
District is fully aware of necessity to initiate the
proceedings under the stringent criminal law like the
TADA Act. In the instant case, the State Government, in G
exercise of the power conferred by s. 3 of the Delhi Police
Special Establishment Act, 1946, has handed over the
·investigation to CBI. The Superintendent of Police, CBI,
has authorized his subordinate officer to record the
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 1 S.C.R.
A confessional statements of the two accused, namely,
'KKS' and 'MS', after following the procedure prescribed
under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Since
investigation was done by CBI, the Superintendent of
Police could authorize the Police to record the
B information about the commission of the offence under
the Act. [para 52 and 54] [1044-B; 1044-F-H; 1045-A]
In Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose and Anr. AIR
1952 SC 369; Vishin N Khanchandani & Another v Vidya
C Laxmidas Khanchandani & Another, 2000 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR
415 = (2000) 6 sec 724 - referred to
2.2 In the instant case, the cognizance/'prior
permission' was granted by the S.P. of CBI. It was at the
behest of the State Government, the case was transferred
D to the CBI and, therefore, the distinction between District
Superintendent appointed by the State concerned and
the Superintendent of CBI has hardly any relevance. After
a careful consideration of the submission on the question
of equation of rank, in matters concerning national
E security, as is the case of terrorist acts, the Centre and
an autonomous body functioning under it would be better
equipped to handle such cases. Therefore, 'prior
approval' by the SP of CBI would adequately satisfy the
requirements u/s 20A(1). There is no prejudice caused to
F the accused as a result of the authorization being granted
by the SP of the CBI. If the whole investigation process
is annulled, on the basis of what at its worst, appears to
be a technical flaw, it would result in the purport of the
statute being ignored. Furthermore, the safeguards
provided u/s 15 of the TADA and the rules made
G thereunder are complied with while recording the
confession statement; and no prejudice is caused to the
accused. [paras 56, 57 and 59] [1045-E-H; 1046-C-D;
1047-A]
H
Ahmad Umar Saeed v. State of U.P 1996 ( 9 ) Suppl.
.+
MANJIT SINGH@ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1005
SCR 53 = (1996) 11 SCC 61; Gurdeep Singh alias Deep v.
A
,...,
State(Delhi Administration), 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 693 =
2000(1) sec 498; s.N Dube v. N.B Bhoir, (2002) 2 sec 254
- relied on.
3.1 As regards, the evidence against accused 'B'
B
independently, the prosecution has examined PW-30, PW87, PW-68 .. From the evidence, it can be established that
..... ,
accused 'B' was living in the house of PW-87 in Nepal.
He had the phone number 410564 at his disposal. He not
only knew that accused 'KKS' and 'MS' were in c
Allahabad, but also knew the purpose for which they
were in Allahabad. This is clear from the testimony of PW30. From the evidence of PW-68, who was Telecom
Department at the relevant date, and the phone bills, it is
clear that phone calls were made from the phone number
D
410564 to the phone number 622452, the phone of Hotel
---,
Finero. On a perusal of the phone bills, it is clear that the
phone calls were made at the times which have been·
indicated by the confessional statements of accused
'KKS' and 'MS'. Hence, the part of the confessional
statements in question have been corroborated by the . E
other evidence. The evidence on record, without
considering the confessional statements, is strong
....,..
enough to create serious doubts about the conduct of
/ accused 'B' in this matter. [para 63] [1048-C-F]
F
3.2 Merely because the owner of the car, which was
used in the crime, is not examined by the prosecution, it
does not weaken the case of the prosecution. In fact, the
car was recovered on the information furnished by coaccused 'KKS'. This would clearly establish the
G
prosecution case that the car bearing No.ONH-8440 was
used in committing the offence alleged against the
accused. Minor discrepancies, if any, would not be fatal
to the entire case of tile prosecution. [para 63] [1048-FH; 1049-A]
H
'·
· 1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 1 S.C.R.
A
3.3 The role played by accused 'B' in the instant case
is that of a "king pin". The possibility of having direct
. .._
evidence against a "king pin" is rather low. In most cases,
it may be circumstantial. What is to be seen is the chain
of events that the prosecution is expected to prove can
B be linked to the evidence incriminating accused 'B'. [para
65] [1049-C]
3.4 It has been consistently held by this Court that
where the guilt of a person squarely rests on
C circumstantial evidence, then the inference of guilt can
be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be in coherence of each
other and incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. The circumstances from which, such inference
is to be drawn, must be shown to be closely connected
D to the facts which are sought to be proved. When the
matter depends on the conclusions to be drawn from
such circumstances, then the cumulative effect of the
circumstances must be to negate the possibility of
innocence in any manner. [para 66] [1049-D-F]
E
State of UP v. Satish, 2005 (2 ) SCR 1132 = (2005) 3
SCC 114; Liyakat v. State of Uttranchal, 2008 Cri LJ 1931
(SC); Swamy Sharaddananda v. State of Kamataka, 2007 (7
) SCR 616 =2007 (3 ) SCR 507 =
(2007) 12 sec 288;
F State of Goa v. Sanjay Thekaram, (2007) 3 SCC 755 - relied
on
3.5 From the evidence on record, it can safely be
inferred that accused 'B' was the mastermind of the whole
incident and co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' committed the
G offence at the behest of accused'B'. There is
independent incriminating evidence against accused 'B',
even if the confessional statement of co-accused is
eschewed. [para 67] [1049-G-H; 1050-A]
H
,+
-
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1007
4. Case of accused 'KKS' and 'MS' :
A
......
4.1 Co-accused 'KKS' has, u/s 15 of the TADA Act,
confessed to the crime. His confession was recorded by
SP, CBI (P.W 47). He was fully made aware of the
cons~quences of making a confessional statement. He
B
has stated that he went to Nepal on accused 'B's behest
where he met co-accused 'MS'. He further stated that he.
....
was given the task to kill 'LO'. He also mentions that he
was chosen specifically to open fire as he had previously
committed four murders. He stated that accused 'B' c
provided co-accused 'MS' with Maruti car ONH - 8440, a
9 mm pistol, several cartridges and Rs.10,000 to 12,000/-
for this purpose. On the morning of 23-3-1993, coaccused 'KKS' and 'MS' checked into Hotel Finero in
Allahabad under the assumed· names of 'AKS' and 'HS'
respectively. Subsequently, they received a phone call
D
~
from accused 'B' from Nepal who told them that they
would meet one 'AB' who would help them in the task.
Subsequently, 'AB' met co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' in
their room. They examined the area and planned how to
execute the task of killing the victim 'LO'. On the following
E
morning, they received a phone call from accused 'B'
from Nepal who asked them to finish the task as the
.__.
victim was to leave for Bombay to reveal information
..... ..
regarding smugglintJ of arms and explosives used in the
Bombay bomb blasts. 'AB' told them the time of arrival
F
:j
of victim 'LO'. They took their respective positions. 'KKS'
shot three times at the victim and escaped to the place
I
where 'MS' was waiting. Both met 'AB' and exchanged
--;
J
vehicles. They went back to the Hotel, checked out and
left for Nepal. [para 69, 70] [1050-0-E; 1051-A-B]
G
--...(
..,.,
, 4.3 The testimony of co-accused 'MS' is substantially
similar to that of co-accused 'KKS'. Merely because the
confessional statement of both the co-accused is more
\
or less similar, it cannot be said they are neither normal
H
•,.,._I.
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 1 S.C.R.
A nor natural which would vitiate the probative value of
such confessional statement. [para 71] [1051-E-F]
4.4 Subsequently,· both the co-accused 'KKS' and
'MS' retracted their confessional statements before the
8
Designated Court and have categorically denied knowing
each other or accused 'B'. They have also denied ever
having gone to Hotel Finero, or the Colony of the
deceased etc. They have stated that the CBI has prevailed
upon the witnesses produced on behalf of the
prosecution to give false evidence against them.
C However, a confessional statement given u/s 15 shall not
be discarded merely for the reason that the same has
been retracted. [paras 72-73] [1052-A-C]
Ravinder Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 ( 3 ) SCR
D 622 = (2002) 9 SCC 55; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat
Chaganlal Raghani, 2001 ( 3 ) · SCR 840 = (2001) 9 SCC
1-relied on
4.5 In the instant case, the accused were sent to the
E CMM, Delhi the very next day and they neither alleged that
the confession was fabricated, nor that they had been
tortured. In the light of these. circumstances, due
credence is to be given to the confession. [para 75] [1053E-F]
.
F
4.6 It would be prudent to examine the authenticity
of a confession on a case to case basis. Section 15 and
the rules made thereunder prescribe certain guidelines
- which if ensured can, to a large extent, point towards
the fact that the confession is truthful and voluntary.
G However, it must not be overlooked that the TADA Act
prescribes a deviation from the conventional criminal
jurisprudence. As a court of record, this Court is bound
to keep in mind situations where despite the procedure
being followed, the testimony so obtained u/s 15 is
H coloured by suspicion and doubt regarding its veracity.
.+
'
_..
' >
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1009
Hence, albeit the procedure is followed, it would be
A
judicious to look into whether the testimony is
c:orroborated by the .evidence presented by the
prosecution. The life and liberty of a person are at stake
and no effort should be spared in such circumstances to
see that justice is done. [para 77] [1053-H; 1054-A-E]
B
4.7 The confessional statements of 'KKS' and 'MS'
are corroborated.by the documentary evidence, which are
marked in the evidence by the prosecution. Exhibit D-20/
Ka 2 is the notebook maintained by Hotel Finero and
C
·proves the entry of Maruti car DNH - 8440 against
accused 'KKS's assumed name, 'AKS' on 23.3.1993.
Exhibit D-19 is the hotel register and proves that 'KKS'
and 'MS' signed in it under fictitious names. Both 'KKS'
and 'MS' have been recognized by the employees of the
Hotel Finaro. The testimony of PW-1, the Hotel Manager,
D
P.W-44, the waiter, and PW 60 corroborates the fact that
the accused stayed in the Hotel during the relevant time
and were met by 'AB'. The hand writing of the accused
in the register has also been proved by the detailed report
of PW-43, Sr. Scientific Officer, produced as Exhibit-D-27.
E
The car used for committing the crime has been
recovered at the instance of accused 'KKS'. The copy of
the Cash Memo seized from the petrol pump Exhibit- D
22/ Ka 27 and the Customs Receipt [D 37/28, Ka 76)
corroborates the alleged journey from Krishna Nagar, . F
Nepal to Allahabad and back. The statement issued by
the Nepal police reveals that Car bearing No. DNH - 8440
entered Nepal through Krishna Nagar customs and was
allowed to stay for a period of one week on payment of
Rs 700 Nepal Currency as customs duty. Further, the G
printouts of call logs on telephone number 622452
installed in Hotel Finero (Exhibits D 38/40 and D 36/2), the
report of part of investigation in Nepal (Exhibits D 37, D
37/28) read with the statements of PW 87 (land lady of
accused 'B' in Nepal), PW - 68, the Deputy Fiscal Officer,
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 1 S.C.R.
'
A Telecom Dept, Nepal corroborate the confessional
statement of accused 'KKS' and 'MS' to a substantial
extent. PW 87 has recognized accused 'B' in court and
stated that he was staying at the house rented out by her
in Krishna Nagar, Nepal and that the telephone number
B from which calls were made to Room No 7 in Hotel
Finero, where 'KKS' and 'MS' were staying, was installed
in the same house where accused •a• was staying. PW
21 Inspector MTNL identified co-accused 'KKS' in court
.and stated that he had previously been involved in the
c transfer of a phone in the name of one 'AKS'. He stated
that 'KKS' and 'AKS'are one and the same. 'AKS'is the
assumed name used by 'KKS' even at Hotel Fin~ro. 'KKS'
had, in his confession, stated that he had obtained the
driving license of 'AKS' and substituted the photograph
0 therein with his own. [para 78] [1054-F-H; 1055-A-H]
. .+
4.8 PW-30, who was declared hostile by prosecution
,-
stated on o.:th that he knows accused 'B' from his
University days. He admits to have been involved in
solving a few land disputes on accused 'B's behalf. He
E has visited 'B' in Nepal a couple of times. During the time
when 'LO' was murdered, he was in Allahabad. He stated
that he received calls from both accused 'MS' and 'B' on
March 23 and 24. It was stated by the witness that in the
course of conversation, 'MS' revealed that he had
F obtained his number from accused 'B'. 'MS' stated that
he was in Allahabad and that 2-3 people had come with
him. Subsequently, he has stated that accused 'B' called
him in relation to a property dispute that he was assisting
him with. PW-30 in his cross examination, has denied
G having told the investigating officer that 'MS' had told him
that he had come to Allahabad to kill 'LD'. However, he
._.
admitted that he told the CBI officer that accused 'B' told
him that 'MS' was there on a specific task and that is the
reason why he should desist from meeting him. [para 79]
H [1 056-A-E]
MANJIT SINGH @MANGE v. CBl;THROUGH ITS S.P. 1011
4.9 The evidence of PW-30, despite the fact that the A
--.>
prosecution has chosen to treat him as a hostile witness,
need not be totally disregarded. Its admissibility should
be tested in the light of the surrounding circumstances
and other evidence. The testimony of PW-30 provides a
vital link between the various participants in this crime, B
the fact that co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' were in Allahabad
on a 'specific task' assigned to them by accused 'B', who
was in Nepal. [paras 80- 81] [1056-F-G; 1057-A-B].
In Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of UP, 2006 Cri LJ C
1121 (1125) (SC) - relied on.
4.10 Taken together, the evidence on record presents
an unimpeachable evidence against the accused, clearly
indicating the modus operandi and the motive. The
· Designated Judge (TADA) was justified in convicting and D
-,
sentencing 'KKS' and 'MS' for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC.
[para 81, 82] [1057-B-D]
·
5.1 Section 3 of the TADA Act gives due importance
to the aspect of 'intent'. The person who is alleged to be E
involved in a terrorist act can be charged u/s 3(1) only
when the prosecution has been successful in
establishing that the same was committed with the intent
to awe the government or to achieve .one or the other
ends mentioned u/s 3(1). The Designated Court, while
dismissing the charges under the TADA Act, relied on the
F
decision of this court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu
Thakur *. This Court made a distinction between the
incidence of terror as a consequence of a particular act
and causing terror being the sole intent of the same act.
It is only in case of the latter that the provisions of s. 3(1) G
are attracted. [para 85] [1059-C-E]
*Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994
( 1 } Suppl. SCR 360 = (1,994) 4 SCC 602; State of West
Bengal vs. Mohammed Khalid 1994 ( 6 ) Suppl. SCR 16 = H
1012
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 1 S.C.R.
A
(1995) 1 SCC 684; Corpus Juris Secundum (A
Contemporary Statement of American Law, Vol 22 at pg
116) - referred to
5.2 The instant case concerns the murder of 'LO'. The
8
prosecution has not been successful in proving t~at this
particular murder was committed with the intention to
cause terroi:"Terror could have been caused as a
consequence of the act. The prosecution has stated that
the main intention behind the murder of 'LO' was to
prevent that the names of 'MD', 'TS' and others involved
C in smuggling of arms and explosives would not come to
light during the investigations that followed the Bombay
blasts. It is, therefore, evident that the intention of the
accused in the instant case was not to cause terror but
to prevent information regarding another crime from
D being divulged. In the light of these facts, the Designated
Court was justified in dismissing the charges framed
under the TADA Act. There is no illegality in the judgment
under appeal. [para 88 and 89] [1060-G-H; 1061-A-D]
E
F
G
H
Case Law Reference:
2003 ( 1 ) SCR 634
AIR 1952 SC 369
(2000) 2 sec 254
2004 (2) SCR 1180.
2005 (1 ) SCR 408
1994 ( 2 ) SCR 375
AIR 2001 SC 2699
AIR 2005 SC 2622
(2003) 1 sec 14
relied on
referred to
relied on
relied on
relied on
relied on
relied on
referred to
relied on
para 38
para 52
para 58
para 31
para 19
para 34
para 39
para 43
para 40
MANJIT SINGH@ MANGEv. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1013
2002 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 324 relied on
para 50
A
J
AIR 1920 PC 181
referred to
para 42
AIR 2004 SC 86
referred to
para 44
2000 ( 2) Suppl. SCR 415 referred to
·para 53
.8
1996 (9) Suppt SCR 53 relied on
para 55
1999 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 693 relied on
para 57
2002 ( 4) Suppl. SCR 416 rel!ed on
para 40
c
2001 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 60
relied on
para 39
2001 ( 1 ) SCR 221
cited
para 50
1997 ( 2) SCR 658
cited
para 50
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
D
No. 1778 of 2008.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2008 of the Ld.
Designated Court (TADA}, Kanpur in TADA Criminal Case No.
3A of 1994.
E
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1826 of 2008.
Criminal Appeal No. 1844 of 2008.
F
Criminal Appeal No. 1336 of 2009.
Criminal Appeal No. 1347-1348 of 2009.
P.P. Malhotra, ASG K.T.S. Tutsi and A. Sharan, Gaurave
G
-<'.
Bhargava, Raj Kamal, Ravi Prakash, Niraj Gupta, lrshad
Ahmad, Amit Anand T., A.K. Singh, Sanchit, Tulika Prakash,
Sheeba Khan, M. Khairati, Ranjana Narayan, Naresh Kaushik,
T.A. Khan, A.K. Sharma and 8. Krishana Prasad for the
appearing parties.
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 1 S.C.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H.L. DATIU, J. 1. These appeals are preferred against
the common judgment and order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Designated Court (TADA), Kanpur dated
B 30.9.2008 in TADA Crl. Case No.3 of 1994 (State vs. K.K.
Saint), TADA Crl. Case No. 3A of 1994 (State vs. Manjit
Singh@ Mange) and TADA Crl. Case No.1 of 1995 (State
vs. Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo). By the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, K.K. Saini, Manjit
Singh@ Mange (in short, "Mange") and Om Prakash
C Shrivastava @ Babloo (in short, "Babloo") have been convicted
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 read with Section
120B IPC respectively. They have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in
D respect of these offences and in default, undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months each. K.K. Saini and
Mange are both acquitted of charges under Sections 3(2) and _
3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as,
E "TADA Act"]. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. The accused have filed appeals under Section 19 of the
TADA Act against the impugned judgment and order passed
F by the Designated Court (TADA), Kanpur. State of Uttar
Pradesh through CBI has also filed appeals against the
judgment and order passed by the Designated Court (TADA)
acquitting the accused persons for the offences under Sections
3(2) and 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the TADA Act and further
G for the enhancement of sentence imposed under the provisions
of IPC to death sentence in view of the seriousness of the
offence and the purpose for which it was carried out.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :-
H
Shri L.D. Arora, Additional Collector of Customs,
.,_..
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1015
[H.L. DATTU, J.]
Allahabad was assassinated on 24.03.1993 at about 07-07.15
A
_.,,, p.m. in the area of P.S. Cantonment, Allahabad. The nephew
of the deceased Dr. Satish Arora (PW-2) had lodged the First
Information Report at P.S. Cantonment, Allahabad at 20.15 p.m.
According to his report, on 24.03.1993, Shri L.D. Arora
(Deceased) reached his house at HIG flat No.9, ADA Colony,
B
Circular Road, Allahabad by his car. He had gone to his uncle's
house on 24.03.1993 at about 07-07.15 p.m. ·He saw his
. -t uncle's car parked at the same place where he used to park
his car regularly. After knocking the door, he had entered his
uncle's house. Soon after his arrival, the neighbour told him that c
something has happened to his uncle. He immediately rushed
to the place where his uncle had parked his car. Upon arrival
at the spot, he saw his uncle was lying unconscious on the
driving seat in a pool of blood. He immediately took his uncle
to Swaroop Ram Medical Hospital with the help of people from
D
the neighborhood. At the hospital, his uncle was declared
-,- brought dead. The investigation was initially taken up by the
Cantonment Police Station, Allahabad.
4. The prosecution has further stated that the post mortem
of the dead body was carried out by Dr. A.K. Shrivastav of MLN
E
Hospital on 25.03.1993, who prepared a post mortem report,
which was duly countersigned by Dr. S.L. Diwan, Senior
..___ Surgeon of the hospital. The post mortem report revealed that
· there were three entry wounds caused by fire arm and
corresponding three exit wounds on the upper parts of the body
F
below the pinna of right ear, below and behind the tip of right
mastoid procure and the last was 2 ems below it. The cause
~
of death was ascertained to be ante-mortem head injuries
caused by bullets. The time of the death was ascertained to
be 7.55 p.m. on 24.03.1993.
G
5. When the investigation by the State Police was still
going on, the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of
India vide Notification No.228/48/93'-A.V.D.-JJ dated
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201"i) 1 S.C.R.
A 12.07 .1993 issued with the consent of the Government of Uttar
Pradesh, entrusted the investigation of the case to CBI, pursuant
to which R.C. (10) (S)/93-S.J.U.V/C.B.L, 1 I/New Delhi dated
13.07.1993 under Section 302 of IPC was registered in SIC.II
Branch of CBI. During the course of investigation, offences
B under Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2) and 3(3) read
with Section 3(1) of the TADA Act were added with the
permission of Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi.
6. The prosecution further states that one Mohd. Dosa,
Tahir Shah @ Tappu and Babloo entered into criminal
C conspiracy to eliminate L.D. Arora to strike terror among the
customs officials with a view from preventing anyone from
passing on information about their smuggling activities or their
involvement in the Bombay Blasts on March 12, 1993. Pursuant
to this conspiracy hatched, Babloo instructed K.K. Saini and
D Mange on 20.03.1993, who were with him in Krishna Nagar,
Nepal, to assassinate the deceased L.D. Arora. Mange was -r--
further informed that one Alimuddin @ Baba would be available
at Hotel Finero, Allahabad. Babloo gave them '10-12,000/-, one
9 mm Pistol, 12 cartridges and a Maruti Car, bearing
E registration No. DNH 8440, to accomplish the task. Thereafter,
K.K. Saini and Mange left Nepal with the above mentioned fire
arms in the said car. They reached Allahabad and checked into
the above mentioned Hotel Finero in Room No. 7 and entered
their names as AK. Singh and Harjeet Singh respectively in
F the hotel register. Thereafter, Alimuddin also checked into
Room No. 5 of the same hotel along with a lady named Smt.
Arshi. On the same day, there was a meeting between K.K.
Saini, Mange and Alimuddin in Room No.7 to chalk out the
strategy to kill the deceased on the morning of 24.03.1993, i.e.
G the next day. All three of them reached the office and residence
of the deceased on a scooter and conducted a thorough survey. ,.,
Babloo further contacted K.K. Saini over telephone installed at
the hotel in Allahabad, instructing him to kill the deceased that
very day as he might leave for Bombay on the next day to
H disclose information he had gathered regarding the Mumbai
MANJIT SINGH @MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1017
[H.L. DATIU, J.]
serial blasts of 1993. Persuant to these instructions, at around
A
~---
6.45 p.m., K.K. Saini, Mange and Alimuddin waited near the
ADA Colony, Circular Road, Allahabad for the arrival. of the
deceased in his car. As soon as the car of the deceased was
spotted in the vicinity, all three of them took up positions and
when the deceased entered the ADA Colony through the main
B
gate in the eastern boundary wall and was about to park his .
car, K.K. Saini took out his pistol and fired three shots at the
deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal
injuries and collapsed in his seat.
7. It is further case of the prosecution that during the course c
of the investigation, they recovered three empty cartridges and
one lead from the car of the deceased and one lead from the
ground, where the car was parked. The Ballistic Expert of
F.S.L., Lucknow opined that the three empty cartridges were
D
fired from the same 9 mm pistol. Investigations disclosed that
.....,..
Mohd. Dosa had entered into criminal conspiracy with Tahir
Shah and Babloo to kill the deceased L.D. Arora so that their
involvement in the Bombay Bomb Blasts were not revealed.
After killing the deceased, the information was relayed to
Babloo and later, Mange and K.K. Saini returned to Nepal on
E
25.03.1993 by crossing the lndo-Nepal border at Krishna
""-...rNagar by paying an amount -of Rs. 600/- in Nepal currency
towards octroi/tax for vehicle No.DNH 8440. The course of
investigation further led to information that one Virendra Pant
and Sanjay Khanna met Babloo in Al-Rigu Apartments in Dubai
F
where Babloo made an extra judicial confession that he had
got the deceased killed through the concerned people as he
had information about the activities of Mohd. Dosa and Tahir
Shah especially in the smuggling of ROX, weapons and
•-..<
explosives used in the Bombay Bomb Blasts. For this job, he
G
was paid Rs. 6,0 0,0001- by Tahir Shah, out of which Rs.50,000/
- was given to K.K. Saini.
8. Prosecution further states that K.K. Saini, while in police
custody, during the period from 06.04.1994 to 04.05.1994
H
1018
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 1 S.C.R.
A made a confessional statement under Section 15 of the TADA
Act, wherein he confessed his own involvement as well as
involvement of others in the killing of L.D. Arora. Based on his
confession and information, the Maruti Car bearing No. DNH
8440, the vehicle used in the commission of the offence, was
B also recovered. Later, K.K. Saini refused to join the Test
Identification Parade and his refusal was recorded by Shri
Rakesh Kapoor, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The
confessional statement of Mange was also recorded on
11.07.2001 by S.P., CBI, Delhi. Accordingly, charge sheet
c against K.K. Saini and Mange was filed in the Designated
Court both under the provisions of the IPC and the TADA Act
on 26.11.2001, which was registered as Criminal Case No.3
of 1994 and Criminal Case No.3A of 1994.