# " • RA VINDRA SHANTARAM SAW ANT v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA - **Citation:** [2002] 3 S.C.R. 881 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2002-05-08 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1997 - **Bench:** R.P. Sethi, Bisheshw Ar Prasad Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ra-vindra-shantaram-saw-ant-v-st-a-te-of-maharashtra-18577 - **Pages:** 30 ## Headnote Penal Code, 1860/Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987/Arms Act, 1959-Sections 120-8, 307 and 333/Sections 3(2){ii), 3(5), A B 5 and 6125(1-B){a) and 27-Prosecution under-Accused identified by irifured C eye-witnesses who were police officials-Conviction of appellant-accused under the provisions except Sections 120-B /PC and 3(5) TADA-Acquittal of co-accused of all the charges-On appeal conviction upheld, ·since the evidence led by prosecution is consistent and trustworthy-The offence under TADA is established since the intention ef the accused was not only to kill the victim but also to strike terror. Crilninal Trial : D Evidence of police officials who 1vere injured eye witnesses-Noncorroboration by independent witnesses-Effect of-Held, evidence of such witnesses does not require independent corroboration if otherwise their E evidence is found to be truthfol and reliable. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987Applicability of-Held, the provisions of the Act need not be resorted to if the nature of the activities of the accused can be checked and controlled under ordinary law. F Appellant-accused No. 1 was tried for various offences under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Arms Act, 1959 and IPC. Prosecution case was that appellant-accused No. 1 alongwith other co-accused entered into a conspiracy to commit terrorist act with a view to eliminate the victim and hence the appellant attempted to commit his murder and injured him in the premises of Sessions Court. At the time of committing the offence, appellant-accused was dressed in the attire of an advocate. He also fired at police officials and some of them i.e. PWs 3, 4, and 6 who were escorting the victim were injured. Appellant-accused also got injured during the incident, 881 G H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R. A when police retaliated. The weapon of offence i.e. revolver was seized from him. The report of the ballastic expert was that some of the bullets were fired from the revolver seized from him. Appellant-accused made confessional statement and before making such statement he was duly informed that he was not bound to confess and that the statements might be used against him. During trial, the police officials i.e. the injured eye-witnesses categorically stated to have B seen the accused firing at them from his revolver and that he was dressed in the attire of an advocate. All t:.e independent Panch witnesses turned hostile. Defence of appellant-accusP:! was that he was falsely implicated in the case and though such an occurrence did take place, it was another person who after firing a few shots from his revolver ran away throwing his revolver which was C planted on him; that the injury on him was the result of a stray bullet hitting him in the course of the incident; and that the actual culprit was not seen by the eye-witnesses. The trial court convicted appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 3(2)(ii), 5 and 6 of Terro4t-ist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) D Act, 1985; under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 307 and 333 IPC. However, he was acquitted under Sections 120-B IPC and Section 3(5) of TADA. The co-accused were acquitted of all the charges on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case of conspiracy of which all the accused were members. E In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that prosecution case cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration of the evidence of police witnesses; that since after removal of the bullet from the wound of PW3 neither the investigating officer was informed about it nor was the bullet sent for further action; prosecution had failed to give account of F bullet shots fired in the course of the incident and had not explained as to how one buliet got tucked in the collar of the coat of the accused; that in view of the finding of the trial court that there was no conspiracy to c ## Text _Characters 0–39,948 of 79,476. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39948 for what follows._ " • RA VINDRA SHANTARAM SAW ANT v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA MAY 8, 2002 [R.P. SETHI AND BISHESHW AR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987/Arms Act, 1959-Sections 120-8, 307 and 333/Sections 3(2){ii), 3(5), A B 5 and 6125(1-B){a) and 27-Prosecution under-Accused identified by irifured C eye-witnesses who were police officials-Conviction of appellant-accused under the provisions except Sections 120-B /PC and 3(5) TADA-Acquittal of co-accused of all the charges-On appeal conviction upheld, ·since the evidence led by prosecution is consistent and trustworthy-The offence under TADA is established since the intention ef the accused was not only to kill the victim but also to strike terror. Crilninal Trial : D Evidence of police officials who 1vere injured eye witnesses-Noncorroboration by independent witnesses-Effect of-Held, evidence of such witnesses does not require independent corroboration if otherwise their E evidence is found to be truthfol and reliable. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987Applicability of-Held, the provisions of the Act need not be resorted to if the nature of the activities of the accused can be checked and controlled under ordinary law. F Appellant-accused No. 1 was tried for various offences under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Arms Act, 1959 and IPC. Prosecution case was that appellant-accused No. 1 alongwith other co-accused entered into a conspiracy to commit terrorist act with a view to eliminate the victim and hence the appellant attempted to commit his murder and injured him in the premises of Sessions Court. At the time of committing the offence, appellant-accused was dressed in the attire of an advocate. He also fired at police officials and some of them i.e. PWs 3, 4, and 6 who were escorting the victim were injured. Appellant-accused also got injured during the incident, 881 G H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R. A when police retaliated. The weapon of offence i.e. revolver was seized from him. The report of the ballastic expert was that some of the bullets were fired from the revolver seized from him. Appellant-accused made confessional statement and before making such statement he was duly informed that he was not bound to confess and that the statements might be used against him. During trial, the police officials i.e. the injured eye-witnesses categorically stated to have B seen the accused firing at them from his revolver and that he was dressed in the attire of an advocate. All t:.e independent Panch witnesses turned hostile. Defence of appellant-accusP:! was that he was falsely implicated in the case and though such an occurrence did take place, it was another person who after firing a few shots from his revolver ran away throwing his revolver which was C planted on him; that the injury on him was the result of a stray bullet hitting him in the course of the incident; and that the actual culprit was not seen by the eye-witnesses. The trial court convicted appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 3(2)(ii), 5 and 6 of Terro4t-ist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) D Act, 1985; under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 307 and 333 IPC. However, he was acquitted under Sections 120-B IPC and Section 3(5) of TADA. The co-accused were acquitted of all the charges on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case of conspiracy of which all the accused were members. E In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that prosecution case cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration of the evidence of police witnesses; that since after removal of the bullet from the wound of PW3 neither the investigating officer was informed about it nor was the bullet sent for further action; prosecution had failed to give account of F bullet shots fired in the course of the incident and had not explained as to how one buliet got tucked in the collar of the coat of the accused; that in view of the finding of the trial court that there was no conspiracy to commit the offence and that it was not established that the co-accused belonged to a terrorist gang and that accused did not share common intention to commit the offence, the G substratum of the prosecution case vanished and nothing remained on the basis of which the appellant could be convicted; and that the facts proved did not answer the description ofa terrorist act under Section 3 of TADA. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H HELD: 1.1. Evidence led by the prosecution about the occurrence that y - .. ... _, - r RA VIND RA SHA NT ARAM SA WANT 1•. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 883 took place on that date is consistent and trust-worthy. It leaves no manner of A doubt that appellant-accused fired at' A' and in the process injured two police constables as well. In retaliation PW2 fired from his carbine causing injury to appellant-accused. The witnesses are clear and categoric that they had seen the accused firing at them. There appears to be no reason why the witnesses would falsely implicate appellant-accused. Moreover one fails to understand B why appellant-accused was there in the attire of an advocate. There appears to be no other reason for him to put on the dress of an advocate but for he fact that his movement in the Court was facilitated by his wearing the attire of an advocate. Witnesses have stated that h·e was wearing the dress of an advocate. Even PW.11 who reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the report of gun shots, stated that he saw PW.2 struggling, with a per*in who was dressed C as an advocate. (90~E-F; 901-B, D-E) 1.2. Evidence of the police witnesses, who are also the eye witnesses, some of them injured, is worthy of credence and can be acted upon. The failure to examine independent witnesses in the facts and circumstances of this case D would not reflect on the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. In the instant case three of the police witnesses, namely, PW3, PW4 and PW6 are also injured witnessess. The police party in the instant case was the victim of assault launched by appellant-accused. They cannot, therefore, be described as official witnesses interested in the success of the investigation or prosecution. They are eye witnesses who were injured in the course of the incident. In fact the E testimony of such witnesses, does not require independent corroboration, if otherwise their evidence is found to be truthful and reliable. This is not a case where police witnessess have been introduced to bolster the case of the prosecution for its success. Therefore, independent corroboration of their testimony was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. In a F case of this nature, where two gangs are fighting for supremacy, it was hardly possible for the prosecution to secure independent witnesses being members of the public who had witnessed the incident In fact the evidence is to the effect that though many persons must have seen the occurrence, they were not willing to speak as they were totally terrorized. Moreover, all the independent witnesses who were associated with the investigation as panch witnesses, G turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Whatever may be the legal effect of their turning hostile, it is clear that they were afraid to depose against the accused. The defence of the appellant-accused that he was hit by a stray bullet must be rejected outright. (903-B; 902-D-G; 903-A-B, CI 1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Court is satisfied H 884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R. A that the weapon of offence, namely, the revolver was seized from appellantaccused. 1904-C) 1.4. The fact that the occurrence took place cannot be disputed. In an incident of this nature it would be impossible for the prosecution witnesses to B account for each and every bullet fired in the course of the incident. The prosecution is not expected to account for all the empties and the bullets fired in the course of '"'~·1rrence. It is also not possible for the prosecution in an incident of this nature to explain each and every injury suffered by the witnesses. It is not permitted to conjecture as to how injuries may have been caused in an incident of this nature where firing has taken place from both C directions. It was neither necessary nor was it possible for the prosecution to explain how the holes were caused in the coat of the accused, and by what process one bullet was tucked in the collar of the coat. Moreover these are hardly matters which will cast a reflection on the case of the prosecution. D E [904-G; 905-A, B; 906-D, EJ 1.5. State is right in submitting that no fault can be found with the investigating agency when the evidence discloses that after removal of the bullet from the wound of PW.3, neither the Investigating Officer was informed about it nor was the bullet removed from the wound sent to him for further action. "' [906-B, CJ 1.6. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case as against accused Nos. 2 and 3. The confessional statements which implicated accused Nos. 2 and 3 have not been accepted by the trial court as being voluntary. But even so there is nothing to discredit the evidence that F the incident took place within the precincts of the Sessions Court. The occurrence was witnessed by several witnesses. Though all of them belong to the police force, three witnesses are injured witnesses whose presence cannot be doubted and whose testimony has been found to be truthful. In these circumstances even if the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against accused Nos. 2 and 3 it has certainly proved its case as against appellantG accused. The evidence which implicates appellant-~ccused has been found to be reliable and trustworthy and, therefore, even if accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them, on the basis of the evidence on record the conviction of appellant-accused can be sustained. 1906-G-H; (907-A, BJ H 2.1. It is no doubt true that even though the crime committed by a - RA VINORA SHANTARAM SAW ANT ''·ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 885 -> "terrorist" and an ordinary criminal would be overlapping to an extent, it is A not the intention of the legislature that every criminal should be tried under TADA, when the fall out of his activity does not extend beyond the normal frontiers of the ordinary criminal activity. The provisions of the Act, need not be resorted to if the nature of the activities of the accused can be checked and controlled under the ordinary law of the land. It is only in those cases where E the law enforcing machinery finds the ordinary law to be inadequate or not -· sufficiently effective for tackling the menace of terrorism and disruptive • activities that resort should be had to the drastic provisions of the Act. Some difficulties, however, arise when the intended activity of the offender results in striking terror or creating fear and panic amongst the people in general or a section thereof. It is in this situation that the Courts have to be cautious to c draw a line between the crime punishable under the ordinary criminal law and the ones which are punishable under Section 3(1) of TADA. 1907-D-FJ - Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State ofMharashtra and Ors., 1199414 SCC 602 and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj D Bijaya and Ors., 11998) 4 SCC 76, referred to. -" Jayawant Datta/ray Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra, JT (2001) 9 SC 605, relied on. 2.2. The blatant manner in which the plan was executed in the instant E case leaves no manner of doubt that the intention of the perpetrator was not merely to kill the victim, but also to send a terrorising message to the people in general, so that there was no defiance of their command in future. An attempt was also made on the lives of three policemen which reinforces the conclusion that the intention was to strike terror and the killing was attempted to achieve F , " the objective. The facts proved to establish the commission of offences under TADA. (909-G, H; 910-AJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.9.96 of the Designated Court in G TADA Special Case No. 31 of 1994. Sushil Kumar, Makrand D. Adkar, Tripurari Ray, Rishi Agarwal, S.D. Singh and Vishwajit Singh for the Appellant. H.W. Dhabe and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent. H 886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by "-- BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, J. This appeal has been preferred by Ravindra Shantaram Sawant (hereinafter referred to as accused No. l) against the judgment and order of the Designated Court at Brihan. Mumbai in TADA Special Case No. 31of1994. B Accused No. 1 was tried for various offences under the Indian Penal Code; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. l 987 (hereinafter .... referred to as the "TADA") an{l under the Arms Act. :a Accused No. I was put up for trial alongwith two others namely Nagesh c Vishnu Mohite (for short accused No. 2) and Arun Guiab Gavli (for short accused No. 3). The fourth accused, namely Sada Pawale could not be put up for trial, as he remained absconding. Accused No. l has been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 3(2j(ii) of TADA and has also been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months' .- D rigorous imprisonment. He has also bee~ sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo one month' rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 5 and 6 of TADA. He has also been found '-- guilty of the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Similarly, E he has been found guilty of the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. He has also been found guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit the murder of the victim Ashwin Naik, ASI Gangadhar Bhau F Waghchaure. PW.4 and two other constables, namely- Dayanadeo Bhagyawan "" ..,. Nikam, PW.6 and Sanjay Shankar Bhingardive, PW. 3 and has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He has been also found guilty of the offence under Section 333 l PC and sentenced to ten G years ·rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Accused No. I has however, been acquitted of the charges under Section 120-B IPC and 3(5) of TADA. The ramaining two accused had been acquitted of all the charges levelled against "" them. H Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that with a view to eliminate -> • -- RAVINDRA SHANTARAM SA WANT •'. ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BISHESHW AR PRASAD SINGH, J.] 887 Ashwin Naik, all the three accused herein together with Sada Pawale A (absconder) entered into a conspiracy with a view to commit a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 3(1) of TADA and in pursuance thereof accused No. I attempted to commit the· murder of Ashwin Naik within the precinents of the Sessions Court, Brihan, Mumbai. The said Ashwin Naik, who was facing trial before the Sessions Court had been produced before the Sessions Court on the date of occurrence under police escort. Accused No. 1 fired at B Ashwin Naik and injured him. In the process he also fired at the police officials escorting Ashwin Naik and injured them as well. He was, however, over-powered by the police and apprehended on the spot. His revolver was seized and thereafter the case was registered against them. As earlier noticed, accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges levelled against C them primarily on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the various acts were committed pursuant to a conspiracy of which all the three accused were members. The case of the prosecution is that accused No. 3 is the leader of a gang of criminals which indulges in criminal activities such as murder, extortion etc. D It is the case of the prosecution that Ashwin Naik, the injured is also a leader of a similar gang. Accused No. 2 is a member of the gang of accused No. 3. Accused No. I had come in contact with accused No. 3 with a view to join his gang and this was the first assignment given to him by the leader of the gang. On account of gang rivalry as well as personal enmity between Ashwin Naik and accused No. 3, accused No. 3 decided to eliminate him and with that E in view, conspired with the remaining three accused to get him murdered on the date of occurrence. According to the prosecution, the conspiracy was hatched while accused No. 3, was in the Yerwada Central Prison as an undertrial prisoner. Sada Pawale (absconder) was also detained in the same prison. It is the prosecution's case that in December, I 993, accused No. I alongwith F ·PW.18 Anil Gavkar went to the Yerwada Central Prison and after making a ficitious entry met accused No. 3 and expressed his desire to join his gang. He was asked to wait and was assured that in due time, he will get a message. A few days late, he got a message from accused No. 3 to meet Sada pawale (absconder) who had since been released from ajil. He met him, and thereafter G they continued to meet over the next two months. Small payments were made to accused No. I by Sada Pawale to meet his daily expenses. Sada Pawale (absconder) took into confidence accused No. 2 and assigned to him the duty to keep a watch on Ashwin Naik and the proceedings pending against him in Court. He was directed to keep a watch on the dates on which Ashwin Naik was required to be produced in Court. He was told that Ashwin Naik was to H 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A be murdered and this was being done with a view to facilitate his murder. Accordingly accused No. 2 kept a watch on the proceedings pending in the Courts .and kept himself informed of the dates on which Ashwin Naik was required to be produced before the Court in cases in which he was involved. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused No. 2 alongwith Sada Pawale visited the Court on one occasion and saw the elaborate police B arrangements made for protecting Ashwin Naik. It was, therefore, decided that the person deputed for the job should put on the attire of an Advocate so as to facilitate his movement in the Court premises. Accordingly accused No. 2 is alleged to have purchased a black coat from PW.5 and a pair of bands which he handed over to Sada Pawale. c Ashwin Naik and five others were the accused in TADA Special Case No. 76 of 1992 which was pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Court under TADA. It was fixed for hearing on 18th April, 1994 in Court No. 33 of the Sessions Court which is on the 5th floor of the new building. Ashwin Naik was to be brought from Adharwadi Jail from D Kalyan and for that purpose a police van had been provided. An escort party led by PW. I Laxman Bhau Thorawat, ASI and consisting ofBhagwat Saundane, PW.2, a commando anned with Carbine, Sanj~y Bhingardive. PW.3 and Bhagywan Nikam. PW.6 was deputed to Escort Ashwin Naik from the jail at Kalyan to the Sessions Court. The remaining five co-accused were similarly E brought in a separate van escorted by another police party headed by PW.4 Gangadhar Waghchaure. Ashwin Naik as also the other five accused were brought before the TADA Court in the morning session but were told by the Sheristedar of the Court that the case will be taken up in the afternoon session. PW.6 Gangadhar Waghchaure took the five accused persons under his charge to the ground floor of the building where a provisional lock-up has F been provided in the barracks to the South of the new court building. However, Ashwin Naik was made to sit in the passage in front of the court hall. All this was being watched by accused No. 2. When he found that Ashwin Naik had been brought to the Court at about 12.30 p.m. he went to Dagdi Chawl and met Sada Pawale whom he found talking to accused No. I near a temple. He G informed them about the arrival of Ashwin Naik in the court premises. Sada Pawale asked him to get a taxi. Accused No. 2 then told accused No. I that Ashwin Naik was to be finished on the same day. He loaded three rounds in a .38 caliber revolver and took accused No. I to an uninhabited room i!l the Chawl and asked him to fire the shots. This he did with a view to satisfy himself that accused No. I was in a position to execute the job entrusted to H him. It is the case of the prosecution that in the said room, accused No. I used .. -> • • RA VIND RA SHA NT ARAM SA WANT ,, ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BISHESHWARPRASAO SINGH, J ] 889 to do target practice so as to equip himself with sufficient accuracy to execute A the job. Thereafter he loaded six live cartridges in the revolver which he handed over to accused No. I and instructed him to murder Ashwin Naik in the TADA Court itself, and if that was not possible, within the precincts of the Sessions Court. He also instructed him to run away immediately after the completion of the job, but in case that was not possible, to raise his hands B and surrender so as to avoid retaliation by the police. He also gave him the black coat, white shirt etc. so that he could dress himself up as an Advocate. In the meantime accused No. 2 brought a taxi. Sada Pawale instructed accused No. 2 to point out Ashwin Naik to accused No. I so that he could do the job. Accused Nos. I and 2 thereafter came to the old Sessions Court ~~~ c Accused No. 2 alongwith accused No. I entered the Sessions Court building. Accused No. I was shown by accused No. 2 the connecting bridge leading to the new Court building. He also described to accused No. l, the clothes being worn by Ashwin Naik and assured him that he will be watching the happenings from the old Court building. Accused No. I entered the D TADA Court and saw that Aswin Naik was sitting on a bench in the passage. He sat in the Court room for a while, but when he noticed that a number of policemen were guarding Ashwin Naik, he decided not to take a chance in the TADA Court as that may not be wise. He therefore, returned to the old Court building and met accused No. 2 and told him that he will do the job E when Ashwin Naik comes down. At about 3.00 p.m. Ashwin Naik as well as other five co-accused were produced before the TADA Court but the case was adjourned to 22nd April, 1994. The police parties thereafter proceeded to the ground floor with a view to take the accused to the waiting police vans for being taken to jail. The case F of the prosecution is that PW.4 was ahead of the police party escorting Ashwin Naik. While Ashwin Naik was proceeding towards the police van, accused No. 2 again identified Ashwin Naik for the benefit of accused No. l and thereafter hide himself behind a pillar. PW.4 Gangadhar Waghchaure was a few steps ahead of Ashwin Naik. Ashwin Naik was handcuffed and the G rope was held by PW.3 San jay Bingardive who was to the left of Ashwin Naik while PW.6 Dayanade Bhagyanwan Nikam was to his right. PW.I laxman Bhan Thorawat was just behind Ashwin Naik and to his right was PW.2 Bhagwat Saundane armed with a carbine. While they were so proceeding, accused No. I aimed at Ashwin Naik when he came within his range and fired at him. The shot hit Ashwin Naik on the back of his head and he fell down on the ground. H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A PW. I Thorawat as well as other members of the escorting party noticed that accused No. I had fired at him. Accused No. I fired two more shots which injured police constables, PW.3. Sanjay Bhihgardive and PW.6 Dayanade Bhagyawan Nikam. On account of the injuries suffered on their legs, they fell down. PW.4 Gangadhar Waghchaure rushed towards accused No. I. In the B meantime PW.2. Bhagwat Saundane, who was armed with a carbine, fired 25 rounds from his carbine. While PWs. I, 2 and 4 rushed towards accused No. I, one of the shots fired by accused No. I, injured PW.4, Waghchaure on his left thumb and index finger. However, PW. 4 pounced upon accused No. I and over-powered him with the help of PW.2. One of the shots fired by PW.2 caused injury to accused No. I on the right side of this neck. PW. I who C had also rushed to the aid of other police officials snatched from the hands of accused No. I the revolver. While all this was happening, the case of prosecution is, that accused No. 2 fled away from the Court premises and reported the matter to Sada Pawale who advised him to leave Mumbai immediately and to go to his native place in the District of Satara. D PW.I I, Police Inspector Ratansingh Rathod and Police Im1pector Bhgwat had also come to attend the TADA Court in connection with some other case. When they heard shots being fired, they rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the scuffle between accused No. 1 and PW.2 . Accused No. I was wearing the attire of an Advocate. They took into custody the accuse~ No. E I and also asked PW.2 to sit in the jeep. They came to the Cuff Parade Police Station but there they were told that the Sessions Court fell within the jurisdiction of Colaba Police Station. They, therefore went to the Colaba Police Station and handed over accused No. I and his revolver to Police Inspector Issaq Bhagwan. F The further case of the prosecution is that on 18th April, I 994, since the police inspector of Colaba Police Station was on leave, PW-i 9 Police Inspector A.R. Gaikwad was holding charge in his absence. At about 3.15 p.m. he received a wireless message from the control room reporting the incident which had taken place in the precincts of the Sessions Court. He along with G API Jadhav and API Pathan, PW.14 and other officers and staff left for the scene of occurrence and reached the Sessions Court, which was hardly two minutes drive from the police station. By the time they reached the court premises, the injured namely, Ashwin Naik, PW.3, PW.6 and PW.4 had been removed to the St. Georges Hospital for medical aid. At the St. Georges Hospital they were examined by Dr. Bakshi, the casualty medical officer. Since H the injury of Ashwin Naik was found to be serious in nature, he was shifted y I- ,> -> • RAVINDRA SHANTARAM SA WANT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BISHESHWARPRASAD SINGH,J.] 891 to JJ. Hospital for further treatment. PW.19 Inspector Gaikwad after directing A PW.14 AP! Pathan to guard the scene of occurrence also rushed to the St. Georges Hospital. In the meantime PW.20 ACP Vasant Gosavi of Colaba Division, on receiving the message from the C<>ntrol room, rushed to the scene of offence. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Incharge of Colaba Zone, and the Additional Commissioner of Police had also reached the scene of occurrence and made necessary enquiries. All of them went to St. Georges Hospital where B PW. I ASI Thorawat and PW.19 Police Inspector Gaikwad were also present. After some discussion, DCP Mr. Verma directed PW.19, Inspector Gaikwad to record the F.l.R. under TADA, since he was the competent authority to grant such approval under TADA. Accordingly, PW.19 Inspector Gaikwad recorded the statement of PW. I Thorawat. Ext. IO, on the basis of which First C Information Report was drawn up. He rang up the Colaba Police Station and secured the running crime number. After deputing AP! Jadhav at the St. Georges Hospital he came to the place of occurrence and then proceeded to the Colaba Police Station. In the meantime at the Colaba Police Station, PW. 12 Samson Barse on D the instruction of Duty Police Inspector lssaq Bhagwan drew up the panchnama relating to the seizure of the revolver and the clothes of accused No. 1. He also noticed 5 empties and one live cartridge in the chamber of the revolver and that the clothes of the accused were blood stained. He also noticed two holes in the coat of the accused near the right shoulder and two holes on the rear side of the coat on the right side below the shoulder. One E cupro 'jacketed bullet (article 7) was tucked in a hole by the side of the collar of the coat. There were also two holes in the shirt. He also noticed that accused No. I had an injury on the chin and an injury on the index finger of the right hand, apart from the injury on the neck near the shoulder joint. There were also some abrasions near the right knee. It appears that panch F witness PW.7 Raju Vaze, in whose presence the seizure was made, was declared hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The other panch witness was already dead. At the Colaba Police Station, PW.19 recorded the statement of PW.I Thorawat. PW. I I Ratansingh Rathod and PW.2 Bhagwat Saundane. He again G came to the St. Georges Hospital and reco•ded the statements of PW.3 Bhingardive, PW.4 Waghchaure and PW.6 Bhagyawan Nikam and the driver of the escort vehicle. AP! Jadhav, after preparing the panchnama relating to seizure of clothes of the injured went to the Sessions Court and prepared the panchnama H y 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. A relating to the scene of offence witnessed by PW. I 0. Here again PW. I 0. Vijay 4- _ B Kaleshwar Rauth, panch witness, was declared hostile while the other panch witness could not be found. The clothes of victim Ashwin Naik were seized under panchnama Ex.24. Since the accused No. 1 had also suffered injury, PW.12 brought him to the St. Georges Hospital for medical treatment where he was examined by Dr. Bakshi, PW.11 at 5.45 p.m. At the hospital, PWs. 4, 3 and 5 again continued that he was the same person who had fired at Ashwin Naik and the police party. PW.19 therefore recorded their supplementary statements. C Accused No. 1, who was admitted in the hospital was discharged on the next day i.e. 19th April, 1994. PW .19 made several attempts to record the statement of Ash win Naik but the hospital authorities certified that he was not in a position to make the statement. Certificates to this effect were issued between 19th April, 1994 to D 13th May, 1994. In fact the statement of Ashwin Naik was recorded long after his discharge from the hospital with the permission of the Court on 25th January, 1996, even after the charge sheet was filed. Having regard to antecedents of Ashwin Naik, it is not surprising that he was not traceable and therefore not available for examination as a witness in the trial. E PW.19 the Investigating Officer took charge of all the seized articles. He also requested the Thane Police Head Quarters to send the carbine which was used in the occurrence by PW.2 and on his request the same was sent to him which was seized under panchnama Ext. 16. The weapon was kept in safe custody. The muddemal properties were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory F through Hawaldar Uma Kant, PW.17. This was done on 28th April, 1994. Accused No. 2 was arrested on 18th May, 1994 at the Mumbai Central Railway Station. In the test identification parade on 31st May, 1994, he was identified by PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. G The reports submitted by the Chemical Analyser were produced at the trial as Exts. 27, 28, 29 and 30. The clothes were found stained with human blood. The .38 caliber revolver was found to be in working order. Similarly the carbine was also found to be in working order and the residue of the fire ammunition nitrite was detected in the barrel washings which showed that the weapons had been used. The bullets, on examination, were also found to have H been fired from .38 caliber revolver and that they had been fired from revolver, RA VIND RA SHANT ARAM SA WANT v. ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH. J.J 893 article I. The empties which were seized from the scene of occurrence had A - > been fired from the carbine, article 14. On 23rd July, 1994, ACP Gosavi took over the investigation of the case. Efforts were made to arrest accused No. 3 and he was ultimately arrested on 9th August, 1994 when he was released from jail. It is the case of prosecution that in the course of interrogation on 14th August, 1994 accused No. I had expressed his desire to make a truthful statement. He was again interrogated on 16th August, 1994 and he again expressed his desire to make a clean breast of the matter. PW.20 ACP Gosavi B got in touch with DCP, PW.16 Mr. Yadav and met him in his office and requested him to record the statement of accused No. I. PW.19, Inspector C Gaikwad was directed to produce accused No. I before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, PW.16. Accordingly at about 6.00 p.m. PW.19 Inspector Gaikwad produced accused No. I before DCP Yadav, PW.16. Several questions were put to the accused No. l by the DCP to ascertain whether he wanted to make a voluntary statement. He was told that he was not bound to confess D and was further warned that if he makes a confessional statement, that may be used against him. Despite all this, accused No. I insisted on making the confessional statement. DCP, PW.16 Mr. Yadav then directed him to be detained in Azad Maidan Police Station and to be produced before him on 18th August, I 994 at 4.00 p.m. This, according to the prosecution, was done with a view to give him enough time to reconsider his decision as also to ensure E that he was not in any manner influenced or pressurised by the officers of the Colaba Police Station. Thereafter on I 8th August, I 994, the accused No. I was produced before the D.C.P. He made a confessional statement which was recorded by PW.16 marked, Ex.46. Similarly the voluntary statement of accused No. 2 was recorded on 30th August , 1994. The charge sheet in the F ce