# CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - **Citation:** [2014] 6 S.C.R. 819 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2014-05-09 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1155 of 2014 - **Bench:** K.S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chandra-prakash-v-state-of-rajasthan-30096 - **Pages:** 54 ## Headnote Penal Code, 1860: s. 307, 427 rlw s. 1208; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: s.3; Explosive Substances Act, 1908: s. 3; Explosive Act, 1884: s. 98 - c Conviction under - Evidence of approver that all accused used to meet at one place and bring explosive substance and the approver himself used to carry the boxes of substance along with other accused - Approver implicated himself in the crime and did not make any effort to give any exculpatory D statement - On the basis of evidence of approver, accused was arrested and search conducted - Recovery of explosive substance was made at the instance of accused - Deposition of expert witness to the effect that ammonium nitrate seized from appellant's godown was in such a condition that it could E be used to prepare bomb - Recovery of fuse wire, live bomb, ammonium nitrate and other items made at the instance of appellants - Chain of events and participation of the accused persons which had the genesis in the discussion and meetings, the purchase of ammonium nitrate and other items, F carrying of the boxes and all other·factors showed that there was conspiracy - Charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt - No interference called for with the order of conviction. : Test Identification Parade: Object of - Delay in conducting TIP - Held: The purpose of TIP is to provide G corroborative evidence and is more confirmatory in nature -- Delay per se cannot be fatal to validity of holding an identification parade in all cases without exception. 819 H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A Evidence: Testimony of accomplice/approver - Evidentiary value of - Held: Testimony of accomplice/ approver can be relied upon if it is corroborated by independent evidence either direct or circumstantial connecting the accused with the crime - While looking for B corroboration, one must first look at the broad spectrum of approver's version and then find out whether there is other evidence to lend assurance to that version. ' Evidence Act, 1872: s. 27 - Discovery under - _Held: It should be credibly proved that the discovery made was a C relevant and material discovery which proceeded in pursuance of information supplied by accused in custody - In the instant case, bombs, wires, ammonium nitrate and other i\ems were recovered at the instance of accused - The accused has stated about the fact of planting of bomb at a D particular site in the stadium and led. to the said place from which the bomb was recovered - The said fact is a relevant fact and admissible in evidence. Explosive Substances Act, 1908: E s.2 - Explosive Substance - Ammonium nitrate, fuse wire, empty boxes, Dynamite, Detonator, Gulla etc. - Seized from the possession of accused persons - Held: Possession of these articles in such large quantity by the accused gave credence to the prosecution version that possession was F conscious and intended to be used in blast - Explosive Act, 1884 - s.4(d}. s. 7 - Consent by District Magistrate for prosecution - Held: s. 7 does not require a sanction but only consent for G prosecuting a pf}rson for an offence under the Explosive Substance Act - Approval/consent granted by District Magistrate cannot be treated as vitiated - Document of consent of District Magistrate showed that the same was proved by the competent authority - Examination of District H magistrate to prove consent is not necessary. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 821 Code _of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Non-framing of A specific charges - Held: The purpose of-framing of charges is that accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy of charge brought against him - There should not be vagueness - Accused must know the scope and particulars in detail - In the case at hand, the charges were B framed - That apart, neither any prejudice was caused nor there was any failure of justice .. Criminal Law: Criminal conspiracy - While dealing with the fact of criminal conspiracy, it has to be kept in mind that C in case o ## Text _Characters 0–39,546 of 101,172. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39546 for what follows._ [2014] 6 S.C.R. 819 CHANDRA PRAKASH A V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1155 of 2014) MAY 9, 2014 B [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 307, 427 rlw s. 1208; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: s.3; Explosive Substances Act, 1908: s. 3; Explosive Act, 1884: s. 98 - c Conviction under - Evidence of approver that all accused used to meet at one place and bring explosive substance and the approver himself used to carry the boxes of substance along with other accused - Approver implicated himself in the crime and did not make any effort to give any exculpatory D statement - On the basis of evidence of approver, accused was arrested and search conducted - Recovery of explosive substance was made at the instance of accused - Deposition of expert witness to the effect that ammonium nitrate seized from appellant's godown was in such a condition that it could E be used to prepare bomb - Recovery of fuse wire, live bomb, ammonium nitrate and other items made at the instance of appellants - Chain of events and participation of the accused persons which had the genesis in the discussion and meetings, the purchase of ammonium nitrate and other items, F carrying of the boxes and all other·factors showed that there was conspiracy - Charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt - No interference called for with the order of conviction. : Test Identification Parade: Object of - Delay in conducting TIP - Held: The purpose of TIP is to provide G corroborative evidence and is more confirmatory in nature -- Delay per se cannot be fatal to validity of holding an identification parade in all cases without exception. 819 H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A Evidence: Testimony of accomplice/approver - Evidentiary value of - Held: Testimony of accomplice/ approver can be relied upon if it is corroborated by independent evidence either direct or circumstantial connecting the accused with the crime - While looking for B corroboration, one must first look at the broad spectrum of approver's version and then find out whether there is other evidence to lend assurance to that version. ' Evidence Act, 1872: s. 27 - Discovery under - _Held: It should be credibly proved that the discovery made was a C relevant and material discovery which proceeded in pursuance of information supplied by accused in custody - In the instant case, bombs, wires, ammonium nitrate and other i\ems were recovered at the instance of accused - The accused has stated about the fact of planting of bomb at a D particular site in the stadium and led. to the said place from which the bomb was recovered - The said fact is a relevant fact and admissible in evidence. Explosive Substances Act, 1908: E s.2 - Explosive Substance - Ammonium nitrate, fuse wire, empty boxes, Dynamite, Detonator, Gulla etc. - Seized from the possession of accused persons - Held: Possession of these articles in such large quantity by the accused gave credence to the prosecution version that possession was F conscious and intended to be used in blast - Explosive Act, 1884 - s.4(d}. s. 7 - Consent by District Magistrate for prosecution - Held: s. 7 does not require a sanction but only consent for G prosecuting a pf}rson for an offence under the Explosive Substance Act - Approval/consent granted by District Magistrate cannot be treated as vitiated - Document of consent of District Magistrate showed that the same was proved by the competent authority - Examination of District H magistrate to prove consent is not necessary. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 821 Code _of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Non-framing of A specific charges - Held: The purpose of-framing of charges is that accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy of charge brought against him - There should not be vagueness - Accused must know the scope and particulars in detail - In the case at hand, the charges were B framed - That apart, neither any prejudice was caused nor there was any failure of justice .. Criminal Law: Criminal conspiracy - While dealing with the fact of criminal conspiracy, it has to be kept in mind that C in case of conspiracy, there is no direct evidence - Circumstances proved before, during and after the occu"ence have to be considered to decide about complicity of accused - Such conspiracy is never hatched in open and, therefore, evaluation of proved circumstances play a vital role in establishing the criminal conspiracy. D Foreigner Act, 1946: s. 14 - Accused of Pakistan nationality - Neither having passport nor visa - No y_alid document to be in India - Offence under the Act proved. E F The prosecution case was that on the Republic day i.e. on 26th January, 1996, an explosion took place in Jaipur Stadium. The trial court convicted all the accused and sentenced them individually in respect of all the specific charges framed against them under the Foreigner Act, 1946, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Penal Code, Explosive Act, 1908 and Explosive Substance Act, 1884. The trial court held that during the course of investigation, appellant-AM was arrested from Srinagar and no passport or visa was found in his possession and, therefore, the offence punishable G under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act was established beyond reason"ble doubt. From the evidence of the approver, PW-1 and the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it concluded that prior to 26.1.1996, two time bombs were implanted by appellant-AM and the H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A charge of crime punishable under Section 9B of the1 Explosive Act levelled against ~ppellant-AM was proved beyond reasonable doubt. In respect of appellant-RB and appellant-AH, the trial court held that appellant-AH had been visiting appellant-CP quite frequently and both the B accused persons had helped appellant-AM and conspired in the commission of the offence. The trial court further held that the explosive substances including gelatin and dynamite in huge quantity were recovered from the possession of appellant-CP on 1.8.1997 which c were used in both the bombs; that approver PW-1, was an associate and colleague of appellant-AM and prior to the incident, the explosive substan~e was brought by appellant-CP in village Farah, where PW-1 used to live with him; that 28 kattas of ammonium nitrate wasl 0 recovered from possession of appellant-CP. The High Court confirmed the order of conviction. In the instant appeals, it was contended for the appellants that sanction under section 7 of the 1908 Act was not given and, therefore, the trial was vitiated; that E there was delay in holding of Test Identification Parade; that the testimony of the PW-1 was not admissible in evidence; that recovery made from the appellant-CP at the instance of information given by PW-1 was not admissible in evidence; that Section 27 of the Evidence F Act, 1872 was not applicable to the facts of the case as appellant-CP was not arrested by the time the alleged discovery took place; that the recovery of ammonium nitrate is not punishable either under Section 1908 Act or under the 1884 Act; and that the prosecution has failed G to prove the nexus of appellants-AH and RB with appellant-AM in the crime. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The consent as required under the H Explosive Act, 1908 was given by the concerned District CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 823 Magistrate as ~xt. P-277/278. His authori~y was not A questioned. It was urged before. the Court that there had been no application of mind inasmuch as the relevant materials were not placed before him while according sanction. When such a point was not raised, the consequences have to be dilferent. The District B Magistrate had the authority to. give consent for the prosecution. Section 7 does not require a sanction but ·only consent for prosecuting a person for an offence under the Explosive Substances Act. The object of using the word "consent" instead of "sanction" in Section 7 is c to have a purely subjective appreciation of the matter before givi.ng the necessary consent. The approval/ consent granted by the District Magistrate in the obtaining factual matrix cannot be treated as vitiated. A perusal of the document of consent of District Magistrate 0 showed that the same has been proven by the competent person and the document has been marked as Ext. P277/278. The examination of the District Magistrate to prove his consent is really not necessary. [Paras 24, 25, 26, 28 and 29] [847-8, C, F; 848-C-D-F-H; 849-A] Erram Santosh Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 206; State of Tamil Nadu v. Sivarasan alias Raghu alias Sivarasa and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 682: 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 243 - relied on. State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh (2000) 1 SCC 555: 2000 (1) SCR 104 - referred to. E F 2. No dispute, appellant-AH arid appellant-RB were arrested on 8.6.1997 and the test identification parade was \... held on 25.6.1997. Thus, it is evident that they were G arrested long after the occurrence but the test identification parade was held within a period of three weeks from the date of arrest. The analysis of the trial ' court showed they could not have been arrested as the materials could not be collected against them and things H 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 ~.C.R. A got changed at a later stage. That apart, the witnesses, PW-78, and PW-30 identified them in the Court. The delay per se cannot be fatal to the validity of holding an identification parade, in all cases, without exception. The purpose of the identification parade is to provide 8 corroborative evidence and is more confirmatory in its nature. The witnesses had identified the accused persons in court and nothing was elicited in the crossexamination even to create a doubt. [Paras 31, 32, 33 and 34) [849-C-F; 850-0-G] c . Ramanand Ramnath v. State of MP. (1996) 8 SCC 514; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471: 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215; Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (2003) 3 SCC 569: 2003 (1) SCR 1067; Munna Kumar Upadhyay alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh through' D Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 174: 2012 (6 ) SCR 611 - relied on. 3. It is established as a rule of prudence that the conviction could only be based on the testimony of the E accomplice if it is thought reli.able as a whole and if it is corroborated by independent evidence either direct or circumstantial, connecting the accused with the crime. While looking for corroboration, one must first look at the broad spectrum of the approver's version and then find F out whether there is other evidence to lend assurance to · that version. The nature and extent of the corroboration may depend upon the facts of each case and the corroboration need not be of any direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. The corroboration even by G circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. PW-1 has clearly deposed that appellant-AM used to visit the Madarsa at village Farah. AH and AM were seen at village Farah many times without any reason before the incident. As far as appellant-AH and appellant-RB were concerned, he deposed that both the accused used to go to the H CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 825 house of appellant-CP in Roopwas to collect the A "masala" in a cover box. Both of them used to meet appellant-AM in the Madarsa at village Farah on a number of occasions. He used to contact appellant-AM from Firozabad ma!ly times and the watches fixed with bombs as timers were given at Farah by appellant-AH to make B the bomb. It also came out in his evidence that he along with appellant-RB and other accused persons used to visit the Madarsa at village Farah. His ~vidence also showed that RB and PW-1 used to br:ing expfosive from Roopwas to village Farah and he mentioned that c appellant-RB had brought five boxes of "masala" for Rs.10,000/- from the house of appellant-CP and those boxes were unloaded at the Madarsa in Farah. PW-1 was asked to carry the boxes along with appellant-RB and appellant.AH. He clearly deposed about the conspiracy 0 that was told to him by appellant-AM. As far as appellantCP ,Was concerned, it came in the evidence that though PW-1 used to visit his house at Roopwas along with other accused persons, yet he used to stay outside- the house of CP and the others used to go to bring "masala'~ from the house of appellant-CP. The alleged "masala" u·sed to be brought in boxes from time to time to the associates of appellant-RB anCI appellant~AH who used to come to Madarsa at Farah. From -the analysis of the said evidence, E it is clear that PW-1 implicated himself in the crime. He . has not made any effort to give any statement which is F exculpatory. He has spoken quite graphically about the involvement of all the accused persons. [Paras 42, 46, 47 and 48) [855-A-B; 856-B-G; 857-A-D] Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC G 599: 1963 SCR 830 ; Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra etc. v. K.S. Dalipsinghji and Anr. etc. (1969) 3 SCC 429: 1969 (3) SCR 130; Saryvan Singh S!o Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637: 1957 SCR 953; Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (1975) 3 SCC 742: 1975 (3) SCR 453; Mrinal H 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2014] 6 S.C.R. A Das and Ors. v. State of Tripura AIR 2011 SC 3753: 2011 (14) SCR411; Devendran v. State of T.N. (1997) 11 SCC 720: 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 591; Raman/al Mohan/al J~andya v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 961; Tribhuvan ~:~h- ,,.,..)II··.• . .. !bJath. v. State of Maharashtra. (1972) 3 SCC 511; Ram Narain B v. State ofRajasthan (1973) 3 SCC 805: 1973 (3) SCR 463; Ba/want Kaur v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1988) 1 SCC 1: 1988 (1) SCR 745; Chandan and another v. State of Rajasthan (1988) 1 SCC 696: 1988 (2) SCR 599; Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra A_IR 19t)8 SC 832: 1968 c SCR 641 ; Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 1762: 1962 SCR 195; Renuka Bai alias Rinku alias Ratan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 7. SCC 442: 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 643; Ranjeet Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1988) 1 SCC 633 - relied on. D 3.2. On the basis of the evidence of PW-1, appellantC P was arrested on 1.8.1997. On the basis of the information of the appellant-CP, the Investigating -Officer searched hit; house and godown and recovered 28 boxes E of ammoniurn o!trate. It came out in the evidence 'that appellant-CP opened tile lock-of the godown the key of which was in his possession; PW-32, an eye witness t~ the seizure of articles from the godown of appellant-CP categorically stated that the accused CP led to th recovery of red and blue coloured bundles from th , F godown of the building. The office of PW-32 was also in the said building. From the godown, fuse wires and five kilograms of grey coloured material was also recovered. The Investigating Officer PW-71, has also proven the factum of recovery. PW-22, who had accompanied the G investigating team deposed that the explosive which was used in the live bomb had ammonium nitrate/gelaltine. I PW-34, who is an expert witness in respect of explosives ; deposed that the ammonium nitrate that was seized from 1 the godown of appellant-CP was in such a condition that : ' . . H CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 827 it could be used to prepare a bomb. [Para 49) [857-F-H; A 858-A-C] 4.1. The essence of the proof of a discovery under S~ction 27 of the Evidence Act is only th\t it should be credibly proved. that the discovery made was a relevant 8 and material discovery which proceeded in pursuance of the information supplied by the accused in the custody. How the prosecution proved it, is to be judged by the court but if the court finds the fact of such information having l;>een given by the accused in custody is credible C and acceptable even in the absence of the recorded statement and in pursuance of that information some material discovery has been effected then the aspect of discovery will not suffer from any vice and can be acted upon. [Para 50] (858-E-G] · Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) ·13 SCC 621: 2011 (10) SCR 56 ; Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (201O)"3 SCC 56: 2010 (2) SCR 22; State D of Uttar Prad~sh v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125; Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 657: 2004 E (2) SCR j23; Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthao (1978) 4 SCC 435; Mohd. Aslam v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 9 SCC 362; Pulukuri Kottaya v.. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67; Prabhoo v. State of U.P. AtR 1963 SC 1113: 1963 Suppl. SCR 881; Mohd. lnayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828: F 1976 (1) SCR 715; State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2000) 6. SCC 269: 2000 (3) SCR 880; Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583: 2010 (1) SCR 1027 - relied on. ·iJ.2. When the accused had given a statement that G related to th~ discovery of an electric wire by which the crime was committed, the said disclosure statement was admissible as evidence. As the material brought on record would show, the accused "\'as in the custody of the investigating agency and the fact whether he was H . 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R. '· A · formally arr~sted or not will not vitiate the factum of leading to discovery. However, the accused was also arrested on that day. As regards recovery from appellant- . AM was concerned, it is born9' out from the record that after his arrest on 28.6.1997, he gave information at 6.00 B · a.m., about another bomb and on the basis of the said Information the Investigating Officer, PW-71, visited the spot along with the accused and at his instance a live bomb was recovered which was underneath the earth. In the said information the accused had stated that the two c . bombs were inside the SMS Stadium and he could verify the places by going inside the stadium. In the evidence of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-22, it has come on record that the bombs were recovered at the instance of appellant-AM on 28.6.1998. This fact was corroborated by PW-16 and PWD 10 who also accompanied the investigating team. PW-22 had clearly stated that the bomb recovered was high explosive time bomb and the battery was inside the timer\ and the same was switched on and he further confirmed 1 that electric detonator was used in the bomb. PW-16 also E' stated that the electric detonator was found in the bombJ' and the same was neutralized. PW-67, in his deposition, gave description of loss caused due to the explosion of.' the time bomb. He had further deposed that lid of stainless steel of casio watch had been recovered from' 1 the scene of crime. The said accused has stated about\ F the fact of planting of bomb at a particular site in the stadium and led to the said place from which the bomb 1 was recovered. The said fact is a relevant fact which is admissible in evidence. [Paras 56, 57, 58, 59 & 61) [861G F, G; 862-A-H; 863-A; 864-A] Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396: 2011 (6) SCR 330 ; Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of De.I hi) (2010) 6 SCC 1: 2010 (4) SCR 103; Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 3 SCC 90: 1979 (2) H SCR 330 ; Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 829 (1972) 1 SCC 249: 1972 (2) SCR 765; A.N. Venkatesh and A Anr. v. State of Kamataka (2005) 7 SCC 714 - relied on. 5. The seizure report showed that apart from ammonium nitrate, fuse wire and empty boxes were also seized. That apart, 17 packs containing blue coloured 8 fuse wire kept in plastic (polythene) bags and four boxes containing blue coloured fuse wire, one carton of explosives detonating fuse measuring 1500 meters in length and 38 kg in weight, containing four wooden logs of red colour, 375 meter wire in each Gattha and black C coloured cap fitted on the tip of the wire, three cartons of explosive Belgelative 90 (Gulla Dynamite) net weight of each being 25 Kg. with "Division I Class ll safety distance category Z:Z. Bhar~t Explosive Ltd. 9 KM lalitpur (U.P.), four packets of O.D. Detonator containing 1600 detonators, a substance of light yellow colour kept inside D a carton of paer in a plastic bag weighi!lg nearly 5 kg and 16 empty cartons, one of gulla and 15 of fuse wire, were seized. Section 2 of the 1908 Act has a deeming provision which states that explosive substance would include any materials for making any explosive E substance. Similarly, Section 4(d) of the 1884 Act has a broader spectrum which includes coloured fires or any other substances, whether single chemical compound or a mixture of substances. Apart from ammonium nitrate other articles were seized. The combination of the same, F as per the evidence of the expert witness, was sufficient to prepare a bomb for the purpose of explosion. In addition to the same, huge quantity of ammonium nitrate was seized and it was seized along with other items. The cumulative effect is that the possession of these articles G . in such a large quantity by the accused gave credence to the prosecution version that the possession was conscious and it was intended to be used for the purpose of the blast. [Paras 64 & 65] [865-D-H; 866-A-C] H 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 6 S.C.R. A 6. The next aspect dealt is non-framing of specific charge. A perusal of the record showed the Judge has framed the charges specifically by putting the charges to the accused. The purpose of framing of charges is that the accused should be informed with certainty and B accuracy of the charge brought against him. There should not be vagueness. The accused must know the scope and particulars in detail. In the case at hand, the charges were framed. That apart, neither any prejudice was caused nor there was any failure of justice. [Paras c 66 and 68) [866-D-F; 867-G; 868-A] Santosh Kumari v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ·ors. (2011) 9 SCC 234: 2011 (13) SCR 1054; K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003) 1 SCC 217: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 339; State of U.P. (2004) 5 SCC 334; State D of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh (2009) 6 sec 372: 2009 (8)' SCR 85; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P (2009} 12 sec 546: 2009 (6) SCR 755 - relied on. 7. The trial Judge inappositely drew certain E inferences to show that there was a criminal cons'piracy and the High Court concurred with the same. The deposition of PW-11, 12, 13, and PW-17 showed that appellant-AM, appellant-RB and appellant-AH used to meet at the Madarsa at village Farah. That apart, PW-1 F also deposed implicating himself that when there used to be discussion at madarsa in the village Farah about the suitable place for planting the bomb, the timer of the bomb was supplied. The chain of events and the participation of the accused persons which had the G genesis in the discussion and the meetings, the purchase of ammonium nitrate and other items, carrying of the boxes to the Madarsa and all other factors cumulatively showed that there was conspiracy. While dealing with tht facet of criminal conspiracy, it has to be kept in mind that in case of a conspiracy, there cannot be any direc· CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 831 evidence. Express agreement betw~en the parties A cannot be proved. Circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. Such a conspiracy is never hatched in open and, therefore, evaluation of proved circumstances play a vital role in establishing the B criminal conspiracy. Ttie opinion expressed by the trial Judge as well as by the High Court that there has been conspiracy between the parties to commit the blast on a particular day cannot be found fault with. [Paras 69, 70 and 73] [868-B-H; S69-D, E] · · 'c Yogesh · alias Sachin Jagdish. Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2008) .10 SCC 394: 2008 (6) SCR 1116; Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and Anr. '(2013) 1 SCC 613: 2012 (9) S<;_!j,561; Yakub.Abdul Razak Menon v. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI, Bombay D ,2013 (3) SCALE 565 - relied on. 8. The trial Judge, analyzing the material on record, came to hold that appellant-AM was a resident of Pakistan and he had no valid document to be in India. In E !his statement under Section 313 of the Code, he had not ;disputed that he was not having passport or visa and he was of Pakistan nationality. Thus, the offence under the said Act was proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 75 .& 76] [871-D-F] F , 9. These kinds of activities by anyone breeds ;lawlessness, fear and affects the fundamental unity of our 'great country. A nation with a desire to prosper is 'required to maintain high degree of law and order G .situation apart from respecting "imperatives of· .internationalism". Certain individuals harbouring ,unacceptable notions and inexcusable philosophy and, on certain occasions, because of enormous avarice, try to jeopardize the cohesive and collegial fabric of the State. This leads to national decay and gives rise to 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A inc_omprehensible anarchy. It reflects non-reverence for humanity. Be it categorically stated, every citizen of this country is requirt::d to remember that national patriotism is founded on the philosophy of public good. Love for one's country and humanity at large are eternally · B cherished v~lues. The infamous acts of the appellants are really condemnable not only because of the dent they intended to create in the social peace and sovereignty of the nation, but also from the humane point of view as they are founded on greed, envy, baseless anger, pride, c prejudice and perverse feelings towards mankind. When a devastating activity like the present one occurs on the Republic Day of our country, it injures the nationality, disturbs the equilibrium of each individual citizen, creates a concavity in the equanimity of the peace of the State, 0 generates a stir in the sanctity and divinity of law and order situation which is paramount in any civilized State, attempts to endanger the economic growth of a country and, in the ultimate eventuate, destroys the con~eptual normalcy of any habitat. Law cannot remain silent to this because it is the duty of law to resist such attacks on E peace. It is manifest that the accused-appellants had conspired to send a savage stir among the citizenry of this country on the Republic Day. The great country like ours cannot succumb to this kind of terrorist activity as it is nationally as well as internationally obnoxious. Such F tolerance would tantamount to acceptance of defeat. The iron hands of law has to fall and in the obtaining facts and circumstances, as the charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the law has rightly visited the appellants. [Paras 77, 78} [871-G, H; 872-A-G] G R.K. 6Jalmia v. Delhi Administration AIR 1962 SC 1821: 1963 SCR" 253; Lennart Schussler and Anr. v. Director ol Enforcement and Anr. (1970) 1 SCC 152: 1970 (2) SCR 7-60; Shivanarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. Sta.te ol H Maharashtra and Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 833 Maniyar and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra." AIR 1981 SC A 1062: 1981 (3) SCR 68 - relied on. Case Law Reference : 2000 (1) SCR 104 Referred to Para 23 (1991) 3 sec 206: Relied on Para 24 B 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 243 Relied on Para 26 (1996) 8 sec 514 Relied on Para 31 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR 215 Relied on Para 32 c 2003 (1) SCR 1067 Relied on Para 33 2012 (6) SCR 611 Relied on Para 33 1963 SCR 830 Relied on Para 36 1969 (3) SCR 130 Relied on Para 37 D 1957 SCR 953 Relied on Para 38 1975 (3) SCR 453 Relied on Para 39 2011 (14) SCR 411 Relied on Para 40 E 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 591 Relied on Para 41 AIR 1960 SC 961 Relied on Para 41 (1972) 3 sec 511 Relied on Para 41 1973 (3) SCR 463 Relied on Para 41 F 1988 (1) SCR 745 Relied on Para 41 1988 (2) SCR 599 Relied on Para 42 G 1968 SCR 641 Relied on Para 43 1962 SCR 195 Relied on Para 44 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR643 Relied on Para 45 (1988) 1 sec 633 Relied on Para 46 H 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 6 S.C.R. A 2011 (10) SCR 56 Relied on Para 50 2010 (2) SCR 22 Relied on Para 51 AIR 1960 SC 1125 Relied on Para 52 B 2004 (2) SCR 123 Relied on Para 53 .(1978) 4 sec 435 Relied on Para 53 · c2001) 9 sec 362 Relied on Para,53 AIR 1947 PC 67 Relied on Para 53 c 1963 Suppl. SCR 881 Relied on Para 53 '. 1'976 (1) SCR 715 Relied on Para 53 2000 (3) SCR:c.880 Relied on Para 54 D 2010 (1) SCR 1027 Relied on Para 55 2011 (6) SCR 330 Relied on Pllra 56 2010 (4) SCR 103 Relied on Para 56 -5. We shall refer to the relevant parts of the testimonies of ttle'vital witnesses and advert to the documents s which have been stressed an.d emphasized upon by the prosecution at a later stage. 7. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 of the Code took separate plea and hence, it is obligatory C on our part to record their pleas individually. Abdul Mateen admitted that he is a Pakistani and he had remained as a Pakistani always; that he had never come to India before his arrest; that he did not know any person in India; that he never visited the places, namely, Jaipur, Farah, Roopwas, Agra Firozabad or any other city; and that he had never given any D information to the police and no recovery was made by the police at his instance and he had never identified any place. The plea of Abdul Hamid was that he never gave any information to the police during the investigation of the case and he did not furnish any information about the shop of Mohit Jain, E PW-30, situated at Delhi and he had been falsely implicated. Raies Beg took the plea that due to communal riots he had been falsely booked in the crime. Accused Chandra Prakash, apart from false implication, denied any relationship with Pappu @Saleem, PW-1, and further stated that no key was recovered F from him and he did not open any godown and room with his keys. He also took the stand that he had not taken any room on rent in Krishi Upaz Mandi or any shop near the power house on rent and disputed the recovery from any shop. The trial court, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, by G its judgment and order dated 22.04.2000 in Sessions Case no. 8/98, convicted all the accused and sentenced all of them individually in respect of all the specific charges framed against them. The offence for which each of them had faced trial has been already mentioned hereinabove. All the accused had H been sentenced separately by the learned trial Judge. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 839 [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 8. Accused Abdul Mateenwas sentenced to undergo five A years rigorous imprisonment and a. fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act; ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000, in default to further undergo two years' simple imprisonment under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act;' three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment under Section 456 IPC; to undergo ten years rigorous imprjsonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to further undergo two years' simple imprisonment under Section 307 ~read with Section 1208 IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 7,000/-, in default to further undergo one 0and half years' simple imprisonment under Section 435 read with Section 1208 IPC; five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment under Section 118 read with Section 1208 IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment under Section 98 of the 1884 Act; imprisonment for life ana a fine of Rs.20,000/-in default to furthet" undergo three years' simple imprisonment under Section 3 of the 1908 Act; seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default to further undergo one and half years' simple imprisonment under Section 4 of the 1908 Act; • and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- , in default to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment under Section 5 of the 1908 Act. 9. Accused Chandra Prakash was sentenced to undergo 8 c ' D E F . two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in G default to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment under Section 98 of the 1884 Act; ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to further undergo two years' simple imprisonment under Section 3 read with Section 6 of the 1908 Act; seven years rigorous H 840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7,000/-, in default to further undergo one and half years' simple imprisonment under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the 1908 Act; and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment under Section B 5 read with Section 6 of the 1908 Act. 10.