# SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY

- **Citation:** [2013] 16 S.C.R. 368
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-03-21
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2007
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, Dr. B.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sanjay-dutt-a-117-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-through-cbi-stf-bombay-29006
- **Pages:** 174

## Headnote

Terrorist and Destructive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- ss. 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 - Penal Code, 1860 - 1208, 302, 307, 326, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 - Arms Act,
1959 - ss. 3, 7 and 25(1-A}, (1-B)(a) - Explosives Act, 1884
D - s.98(1)(a)(b)(c) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3,
4(a}(b), 5 and 6 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 - s. 4 - Prosecution under - Designated Court
convicted A-117 under the provisions of Arms Act and
sentenced him to 6 years imprisonment; convicted A-118
E under the provisions of Arms Act and u/s. 201 /PC and
sentenced him to 5 years Rl-A-124 was convicted u/s. 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and s.201 /PC and sentenced to 2 years
RI - Acquittal of A-120 - Conviction of A-53 u/s. 3(3) TADA
and sentenced of 9 years RI - Conviction of A-119 u/ss. 3(3)
F and 5 of TADA and sentenced to 5 years RI - All the
appellants-accused preferred appeal - The State filed appeal
against acquittal of A-120 and cross-appeals in respect of A53 and A-119 - Held: Order of the Designated Court upheld
as regards conviction/acquittal of the accused persons -
G However, in the circumstances of the case, sentence of A-117
reduced to 5 years RI from 6 years RI; sentence of A-124
reduced to 1 years RI from 2 years; and sentence of A-53
reduced to the period already undergone.
H
368
SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 369
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Evidentiary value A
of..., Held: A confessional statement is a substantive piece of
evidence and can be the sole basis for conviction, if recorded
in accordance with the provisions of TA!::A - A voluntary and
truthful confessional statement requires no corroboration - But
if such statement is to be used against the co-accused, the
B
Court may look for corroboration as a matter of prvdence -
Minor and curable irregularities in recording such statement
do not affect the admissibility of the said evidence.
s. 15 - Confessional statement - Retraction of..., Effect
- Held: A voluntary and free confession even if retracted later,
C
can be relied upon.
s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Reliance on -
Permissibility- When accused is acquitted of TADA charges
- Held: Confession recorded u/s. 15 can be relied upon in D
case of a joint trial, even if the accused is subsequently
acquitted of TADA charges.
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - Scope of - Held: s.27 is
attracted even when identification is of the person, instead of E
place where the article is to be found.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
s. 4 - Scope of - Held: s. 4 is intended to attempt
possible reformation of an offender instead of inflicting upon F
him the normal punishment - Such exercise of discretion
needs a sense of responsibility, by taking into consideration
the attendant circumstances -
In the present case,
circumstances of the case and nature of the offence are so
serious that they do not warrant A-117 benefit of provisions G
of the Act.
s. 4 - Effect of - Held: The provision will have overriding
effect and shall prevail, if conditions prescribed therein are
fulfilled - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 360.
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A
As a retaliation to demolition of Babri Masjid at
Ayodhya 'DI' 'TM' and 'MD' all absconding accused (AA),
formulated a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in the city
of Bombay. In pursuance of the said objective 'DI' (AA)
sent arms and ammunitions from abroad and 'TM' (AA)
B received those arms and ammunitions in India. Pursuant
to the serial bom_b blast in the city of Bombay, a common
charge of conspiracy was framed against all the coconspirators including the appellants in the present
appeals.
c
The appellants in appeal Nos. 1060/2007, 1102/2007
and 1687/2007 (A-117, A-118 and A-124), in addition to the
common charge, were charged u/s. 3(3) for acquiring and
keeping in their possession 3 AK-56 rifles, its
ammunitions and one 9 min pistol and its cartridge~ and
D handgranades unauthorisedly, u/

## Text

_Characters 0–37,379 of 315,087. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=37379 for what follows._

A
B
c
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 368
SANJAY DUTT (A-117)
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF),
BOMBAY
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2007 ETC.)
PART- 6
MARCH 21, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Terrorist and Destructive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
- ss. 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 - Penal Code, 1860 - 1208, 302, 307, 326, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 - Arms Act,
1959 - ss. 3, 7 and 25(1-A}, (1-B)(a) - Explosives Act, 1884
D - s.98(1)(a)(b)(c) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3,
4(a}(b), 5 and 6 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property
Act, 1984 - s. 4 - Prosecution under - Designated Court
convicted A-117 under the provisions of Arms Act and
sentenced him to 6 years imprisonment; convicted A-118
E under the provisions of Arms Act and u/s. 201 /PC and
sentenced him to 5 years Rl-A-124 was convicted u/s. 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act and s.201 /PC and sentenced to 2 years
RI - Acquittal of A-120 - Conviction of A-53 u/s. 3(3) TADA
and sentenced of 9 years RI - Conviction of A-119 u/ss. 3(3)
F and 5 of TADA and sentenced to 5 years RI - All the
appellants-accused preferred appeal - The State filed appeal
against acquittal of A-120 and cross-appeals in respect of A53 and A-119 - Held: Order of the Designated Court upheld
as regards conviction/acquittal of the accused persons -
G However, in the circumstances of the case, sentence of A-117
reduced to 5 years RI from 6 years RI; sentence of A-124
reduced to 1 years RI from 2 years; and sentence of A-53
reduced to the period already undergone.
H
368
SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 369
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Evidentiary value A
of..., Held: A confessional statement is a substantive piece of
evidence and can be the sole basis for conviction, if recorded
in accordance with the provisions of TA!::A - A voluntary and
truthful confessional statement requires no corroboration - But
if such statement is to be used against the co-accused, the
B
Court may look for corroboration as a matter of prvdence -
Minor and curable irregularities in recording such statement
do not affect the admissibility of the said evidence.
s. 15 - Confessional statement - Retraction of..., Effect
- Held: A voluntary and free confession even if retracted later,
C
can be relied upon.
s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Reliance on -
Permissibility- When accused is acquitted of TADA charges
- Held: Confession recorded u/s. 15 can be relied upon in D
case of a joint trial, even if the accused is subsequently
acquitted of TADA charges.
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - Scope of - Held: s.27 is
attracted even when identification is of the person, instead of E
place where the article is to be found.
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
s. 4 - Scope of - Held: s. 4 is intended to attempt
possible reformation of an offender instead of inflicting upon F
him the normal punishment - Such exercise of discretion
needs a sense of responsibility, by taking into consideration
the attendant circumstances -
In the present case,
circumstances of the case and nature of the offence are so
serious that they do not warrant A-117 benefit of provisions G
of the Act.
s. 4 - Effect of - Held: The provision will have overriding
effect and shall prevail, if conditions prescribed therein are
fulfilled - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 360.
H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A
As a retaliation to demolition of Babri Masjid at
Ayodhya 'DI' 'TM' and 'MD' all absconding accused (AA),
formulated a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in the city
of Bombay. In pursuance of the said objective 'DI' (AA)
sent arms and ammunitions from abroad and 'TM' (AA)
B received those arms and ammunitions in India. Pursuant
to the serial bom_b blast in the city of Bombay, a common
charge of conspiracy was framed against all the coconspirators including the appellants in the present
appeals.
c
The appellants in appeal Nos. 1060/2007, 1102/2007
and 1687/2007 (A-117, A-118 and A-124), in addition to the
common charge, were charged u/s. 3(3) for acquiring and
keeping in their possession 3 AK-56 rifles, its
ammunitions and one 9 min pistol and its cartridge~ and
D handgranades unauthorisedly, u/s .• 5 and 6 of TADA, and
u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w. ss.25(1-A) and (1-S)(a) of Arms Act, 1959.
The appellants (A-118 and 124) were also charged u/s. 201
.IPC for destroying the unauthorisedly possessed arms.
E
Designated court convicted A-117 u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w.
ss.25(1-A)(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him
to 6 years RI alongwith fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default
clause. He was acquitted of rest of the offences for which
he was charged. A-118 was convicted u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w
F ss.25(1 ·A)(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and was sentenced to 5
years RI and fine. He was further convicted u/s. 201 IPC
and sentenced to 2 years RI. A-124 was also convicted
u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w. ss. 25(1-A), (1-B)(a) of Arms Act and u/
s. 201 IPC and was sentenced to 2 years RI on each count
G and fine of Rs.25,000/- was imposed. Hence the present
appeals were filed by A-117, A-118 and A-124.
H
The respondent-accused (A-120) in the appeal No.
596/2011, apart from common charge of conspiracy, was
charged u/ss. 3(3), 5 and 6 of TADA and u/ss. 3 and 7 r/
SANJAYDUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 371
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
w. ss.25(1-A)(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. Designated Court A
acquitted him of all the charges. Hence the appeal was
filed by CBI.
,
Accused No.53 (A-53), in addition to common charge
of conspiracy was charged u/ss. 3(3) and 6 of TADA. He. 8
was convicted by Designated Court u/s. 3(3) of TADA and
sentenced to 9 years RI and fine of Rs. one lakh with
default clause. Hence the cross-appeals (appeal No.1104/
2007 and 1026/ 2012) were filed by the accused as well
as CBI.
c
The accused (A7119), apart from general charge of
conspiracy, was also charged u/ss. 3(3), 5 and 6 of TADA.
He was convicted u/s. 3(3) and 5 of TADA and was
acquitted of the general charge of conspiracy. Hence the
cross-appeals (Appeal Nos.1001/2007 and 392/2011) by D
the accused as well as CBI.
It was interalia contended that reliance on
confessional statement of A-117 to the police was
impermissible for the offences other than TADA offences, E
as he was acquitted of the charges under TADA; that
identification of person, instead of the place where the
article is to be found does not attract the provisions of
s.27 of Evidence Act; and that A~117 was entitled to
benefit of s.4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Partly allowing the appeals by A-117, A-124 and A-53
a.nd dismissing the appeals by A-118 ·and 129 and the
appeals by the State, the Court
HELD:
Criminal Appeal Nos.1060 of 2007; 1102 of 2007 and 1687
of 2007:
1.1. A confessional statement duly recorded by a
F
G
H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A Police Officer is a substantive piece of evidence and the
same can be relied upon in the trial of such person or of
the co-accused, abettor or conspirator if the requirements
of Section 15 of TADA, and the rules framed thereunder
·are complied with. The police officer, before recording the
B confession, has to observe the requirement of Section
15(2) of TADA. A voluntary and truthful confessional
statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA requires
no corroboration. However, as a matter of prudence, the
court may look for some corroboration if confession is
c to be used against co-accused. Whether such confession
requires corroboration or not is a matter for the court to
consider such
confession
on
the facts
and
circumstances of each case. If the confession made by
an accused is voluntary and true, it is admissible against
co-accused as a substantive piece of evidence and minor
D and curable irregularities in recording of confession,
such as omission in obtaining the certificate of the
competent officer with respect to the confession do not
affect the admissibility of the said evidence. [Para 37)
E [427-E-H; 428-A-B]
1.2. The corroboration can be found in the present
case both in the nature of substantive evidence in the
form of the confessions of the co-accused, as well as in
the oral testimony of witnesses, including the eye
F witnesses to the incident who have identified the
appellant-A-117, as well as the co-accused viz., A-41 and
A-53.Apart from the evidence contemporaneous to the
arrest of the abovesaid three accused and the recovery
made from A-124 and subsequent recovery at the
G instance of A-124 from A-120, are also relevant in respect
of all the three appellants i.e. A-117, A-118 and A-124.
[Paras 56 and 57) [438-E-G]
1.3. A voluntary and free confession, even if later
retracted, can be relied upon. In the case of the appellant
H
SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 373
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
A-117, the retraction statement was not made at the first A
available opportunity. After the recording of his
confession, within 10 days, the accused was releas~d on
bail by the High .Court, and the accused remained free for
a considerable period oftime. The retractions were made
many months after the recording of the c.onfession.
B
[Paras 38 and 39] [428-C-E]
1.4. The appellant A-117 not only implicates himself
in his confessional statement but also amongst others the
appellant A-118. The confession was duly recorded by C
PW-193 who has proved the compliance with the
provisions of law while recording the confession. The
confession is a substantive piece of evidence and the
confession can be the sole basis of conviction, if
recorded in accordance with the provisions of TADA.
Further, the confessional statement establishes the
D
unauthorized possession of weapons in the notified area
of Bombay. The confession of the appellant (A-117) i~
also substantiated and corroborated with the confession
of other co-accused, namely, A-53, A-41, A-89, A-40, A-118
and A-124. [Paras 20 and 21] [405-D-G]
E
1.5. In view of the confessional statement of A-118, it
is seen that the appellant (A-118), upon instructions,
caused destruction of evidence related to an offence,
which were unauthorisedly possessed automatic
F
firearms/weapons in a notified area, attracting the
provisions of the Arms Act. The confession of A-118 not
only involves and implicates him, but also implicates A124. The confession of A-118 corroborates with the
confession of A-117 as well as A-124. [Para 25] [414-F-G]
G
1.6.The confession of appellant A-124 establishes the
charge framed against A-124 that he knowingly
destroyed evidence related to an offence. A-124 was
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A thereafter in unauthorized possession of the fire-arm. The
abovesaid confession also corroborates in material
particulars, the confession of A-118. [Para 28] [417-G]
1.7. The sequence of events after the arrest of A-117
8 till the recovery of pistol from A-120, forms part of an
unbroken chain inseparably connected to each other. No
foul play can be assumed in view of the fact that the
events happened in quick succession one after the other,
lending credibility and truthfulness to the whole episode.
The role and the part played by A-118 and A-124 is also
C clear from the evidence relied upon by the prosecution
in respect of A-117, which corroborates with each other
in material particulars and is t.hus a substantive piece of
evidence. [Para 58] (438-H; 439-A-B]
D
1.8. The confessions of the appellants, viz., A-117, A118 and A-124 have been recorded by PW-193, who has
proved that the said confessions were recorded after
following the requirements of the provisions of Section
15 of TADA. Notwithstanding vigorous crossE examination of the witness (PW-193), he stood firmly
without being shaken. [Para 29] [417-H; 418-A]
Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao vs. State of Mharashtra
(2001) 10 SCC 109: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 54; Ravinder
F Singh @ Bittu vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 9 SCC 55:
2002 (3) SCR 622; Mohmed Amin vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2008) 15 SCC 49: 2008 (16) SCR 155; Jameel
Ahmeid and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 9 SCC 673;
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Ga fur vs. State of Maharashtra (2010)
14 SCC 641: 2009 (12) SCR 1093; State of Maharashtra vs.
G Bharat Chaganlal Raghani (2001) 9 SCC 1: 2001 (3) SCR
840; Manjit Singh vs. CBI (2011) 11 sec 578: 2011 (1) SCR
997; Wariyam Singh vs. State of U.P. (1995) 6 SCC 458: 1995
(3) Suppl. SCR 807; S.N. Dube vs. N.B. Bhoir and Ors.
(2000) 2 SCC 254: 2000 (1) SCR 200; Lal Singh vs. State
H
SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 375
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 221: 2001 (1) SCR 111; State of A
Maharashtra vs. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani, (2001) 9 SCC
1: 2001 (3) SCR 840; Devender Pal Singh vs. State of NCT
of Delhi (2002) 5 SCC 234: 2002 (2) SCR 767; Ravinder
Singh vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 9 SCC 55: 2002 (3)
SCR 622; Nazir Khan vs. State of Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 461:
B
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 884; Sukhwant Singh vs. State (2003)
8 SCC 90; Mohd. Ayu/J Dar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
(2010) 9 sec 312: 2010 (8) SCR 916; Manjit Singh vs. CBI,
(2011) 11 sec 578: 2011 {1) SCR 997 - relied on.
2. It cannot be said that u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act,
C
only recovery of object is permissible and identification of
the person instead of the place where the article is to be
found cannot attract the provisions of Section 27. The rod
and the spring recovered from the possession of A-124
were sent to FSL for examination. The experts opined that D
the said articles correspond to that of an AK-56 type rifle,
but did not correspond to similar components used in AK47 rifle. The requisition and the report show that the seal
on the packet containing the object was perfect and had
not been tempered with. In that event, the said anomaly
E
may not be of much consequence. The prosecution has
also established through one independent witness PW265 that A-118 and A-124 further made statement to the
police and pursuant whereof the gas cylinder used in
destroying AK-56 was recovered at the instance of A-124
F
and some of the ammunition of AK-56 were recovered at
the instance of A-118. [Paras 61 and 63 to 65] [449-F-G;
451-G-H; 452-B·D]
Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of Maharashtra (1969)
G
2 SCC 872: 1970 (2) SCR 332; State (NCT of Delhi) vs.
Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR
79 - relied on.
3. Even if the accused was to be acquitted of the
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A TADA charges, still in a joint trial, the confessions
recorded under Section 15 of TADA can be relied upon
in respect of the said accused. The stage at which the
trial can be separated is at the stage of cognizance and
not subsequently. In the present case, at the time of
B taking cognizance by the Designated Court, there were
sufficient evidence against the appellants to proceed
against them in the joint trial. In the case of A-117, the
Designated Court rightly took a view on the basis of his
own confession that the weapons were not acquired for
c any terrorist activity but they were acquired for selfdefence, therefore, acquittal was rightly recorded in
respect of charge under Section 5 of TADA. In *Sanjay
Dutt (//) case wherein this Court considered the entire
case of the appellant-A-117 at that stage and opined that
0 although the offence was complete by the unauthorized
possession of a weapon in the notified area, a defence
would be available to the accused to be taken at the time
of the trial and the Trial Court can consider the same by
virtue of Section 12 of TADA. [Paras 67 and 70] [452-GE H; 453-A-C; 460-D-E]
*Sanjay Dutt vs. State (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410: 1994 (3)
Suppl. SCR 263; Prakash Kumar@ Prakash Bhutto vs. State
of Gujarat (2005) 2 sec 409: 2005 (1) SCR 408 - relied on.
F
4.1. The Probation of Offenders Act, was enacted with
a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain
categories on Probation or alter due admonition and for
matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to
prevent the conversion of offenders into obdurate
G criminals as a result of their association with hardened
criminals. The scope of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act is much wider. It applies to any person
found guilty of having committed an offence not
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. [Paras 79
H and 80] [463-C-D, G]
SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 377
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
4.2. Section 360 Cr.P.C. does not provide for any role
A
for probation officers in assisting the courts in relation
to supervision and other matters while the Probation of
Offenders Act does make such a provision. While Section
12 of the Probation of Offenders Act states that a person
found guilty of an offence and dealt with under Section . B
3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, shall not suffer
disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction of an
offence under any law. Cr.P.C. does not contain parallel
provision. Two statutes with such significant differences
could not be intended to co-exist at the same time in the
C
same area. Such co-existence would lead to anamolous
results. The intention to retain the provisions of Section
360 CrP.C. and Probation of Offenders Act as applicable
at the same time in a given area cannot be gathered from
the provisions of s.360 or any other provisions of Cr.P.C.
0
[Para 81] [463-H; 464-A-C]
4.3. Sub-section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
contains the words "Notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force". The above
non obstante clause points to the conclusion that the
E
provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act
would have an overriding effect and shall prevail if the
other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled. Those
conditions being (i) the accused is found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or
F
imprisonment for life; (ii) the Court finding him guilty is
of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances
of the case, including the nature of the offence and the
character of the offender, it is expedient to release him
on probation; (iii) the accused in such an event enters
G
into a bond with or without sureties to appear and receive
sentence when called upon during such period not
exceeding three years as the court may direct and, in the
meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
H
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A The underlying object of the above provisions obviously
is that an accused person should be given a chance of
reformation, which he would lose in case he is
incarcerated in prison and associates with hardened
criminals. The provisions of the said Act are beneficial
8 provisions and, therefore, they should receive wide
interpretation and should not be read in a restricted
sence. [Paras 83 and 84] [464-E-H; 465-A-C]
4.4. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act applies
to all kinds· of offenders, whether under or above the age
C of 21 years. This section is intended to attempt possible
reformation of an offender instead of inflicting upon him
the normal punishment of his crime. Such exercise of
discretion needs a sense of responsibility. The section
itself is clear that before applying the same, this Court
D should carefully take into consideration the attendant
circumstances. The circumstances and the nature of the
offence are so serious, that they do not warrani A-117 the
benefit of the provisions of the.Probation of Offenders Act,
however, taking note of various aspects, the sentence is
E reduced to minimum period, viz., 6 years to 5 years. [Paras
85 and 86] [465-D-G]
Ratanlal vs. State of Punjab (1964) SCR 676; Chhani
vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 396: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR
F 305; /shar Oas vs. State ofPunjab 1973 (2) SCC 65: 1972
(3) SCR 312 - relied on.
G
H
Ved Prakash vs. State of Haryana 1981 (1) SCC 447:
1981 (1) SCR 1279; Jugal Kishore vs. State of Bihar (1972)
2 SCC 633: 1973 (1) SCR 875 - referred to.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
conviction and sentence awarded to A-118 by the
Designated Court is confirmed. [Para 87] [466-A-B]
SANJAY oun (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 379
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
Sanjay Dutt vs. State (/) (1994) 5 SCC 402: 1994 (2) A
Suppl. SCR 729;Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3
SCC 569: 1994 (2) SCR 375; Sanjay Dutt vs. State (1994) 5
SCC 410: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 - referred to.
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra B
Bhimraj Bijayal (1990) 4 SCC 76: 1990 (3) SCR 633 - cited.
6. The Designated Court has convicted A-124 u/ss.
3 and 7 r.w ss. 25(1-A)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, as
well as u/s. 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI
for 2 years on both the counts separately. A perusal of C
all the materials relating to A-124 shows that the
Designated Court itself convicted and sentenced A-124
under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act along with
Section 201 of IPC. While clarifying the same, it is held
that there is no substantive evidence for convicting him D
u/s. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, though the Designated Court
has referred to the same while awarding sentence to him.
Also, considering his age, i.e. 82 years as on date and
taking note of the fact that the minimum sentence for the
offence u/s. 25(1-B)(a) being one year, wl:lile confirming E
his conviction, the sentence awarded to A-124 u/s. 25(1·
B)(a) as well as u/s. 201 IPC is reduced to 1 year which
shall run concurrently. [Para 88] [466-B-E]
Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2011:
7 .1. The respondent A-120 has not made any
confession and the co-accused A-125 relied on by the
prosecution has also not made any confession and even
the confessional statements of other co-accused failed
F
to disclose any involvement of A-120 in any manner. The G
only allegation against the present accused was that of
seizure of a box coritaining a pistol from his house. The
Designated Court, after considering the evidence of
panch witness (PW-211) regarding the statement made
H
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A by A-125 and after finding that there was lot of variation
in their statements and bereft of materials about the role
of A-120 and further finding that different stories had been
projected by the prosecution, refused to accept the
same. After analyzing the entire statement of A-125, the
B trial court came to a conclusion that the same were
insufficient to connect A-120 as being the person who
had received the same pistol and rounds. [Para 94) [470D-G]
7.2. The Designated Court, has rightly observed that
C mere recoveries of a .9mm pistol and the rounds from the
bungalow of A-120 would not be sufficient to connect him
with the said articles. It is settled law that the recoveries
made must be found to have been made as a
consequence ofhe statement made by the accused in
D custody. If the nexus in between is not established, the
said statement made would be inadmissible in evidence.
The Designated Court, after considering the well settled
principles and the materials placed concluded that "it will
be further necessary to say that scrutiny of the evidence
E also does not reveal A-120 having purchased .9mm pistol
and rounds ...... " The Designated Court has also
concluded that even if the statement made by A-125 is
acceptable, in the absence of any supporting oral and
documentary evidence and taking note of the
F improvement made by panch witness as well as in the
statements of witnesses stage by stage "hardly there
would be any evidence to connect A-120 with the relevant
contraband articles" and rightly discarded the same. In
the light of the categorical finding by the trial court and
G after analyzing the materials placed by the prosecution,
the conclusion reached by trial court is correct and with
the above said insufficient evidence, the order of
acquittal cannot be lightly interfered in the present appeal.
Hence, the appeal, filed by CBI, fails. [Paras 95 and 96)
H [470-G-H; 471-A-E]
SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE.OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 381
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1104/2007 and 1026/2012:
8.1. A perusal of the confessional statement of coaccused A-41 shows that the appr:'.lant (A-53) helped the
co-accused persons to look for a garage where the
weapons could be off-loaded and after that they were to
be distributed to various persons. [Para 104) [479-A-B]
A
8
8.2. Upon perusal of the entire evidence, it. is clear
that the appellant-A-53 was closely assoC:iated with 'TM'
(AA) and 'AIK' (AA). Further, inspite of the unwillingness
shown by his partner A-40, the appellant helped the co- c
accused search for garages where the weapons were to
be off-loaded and concealed whereafter they were to· be
distributed to A-117 and other persons. In addition to the
same, the appellant was also associated with co-accused
even after the blasts, which fact is clearly discernible from
0
the confession of A-96 wherein she stated that after
coming back to her house, her father informed her that
A-53 had come and gave Rs. 50,000/- for help. [Para 106]
[480-E-H]
.
8.3. It is not correct to say that only on the ground of
D
acquaintance with the main conspirators, the appellant
has been erroneously convicted under Section 3(3)
TADA. It was on the instructions of 'AIK' (AA) that the
arms were delivered to A-117 and because of the
relationship of 'AIK' (AA) and 'TM' (AA) and 'DI' (AA), it
E
·establishes a strong link between A-53 and 'AIK' (AA).
Materials relied on by the prosecution clearly prove
relationship between 'AIK' (AA) and A-53. Further, their
relationship cannot be simply construed as a business
relationship. The materials placed on record by the
F
prosecution, relied on and accepted by the Special
Judge show that the appellant was guilty of distributing
arms to persons other than A-117. The finding recorded
by the trial Judge was that A-53 not only distributed
weapons to A-117 but also to third parties. [Para 107]
G
[479-A-B]
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A
State vs. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253: 1999 (3) SCR 1 -
referred to.
8.4. The CBI has successfully placed materials to
show that the appellant was responsible for arranging
8 garages for the storage of weapons. In the confessional
statement of A-41, in categorical terms it was asserted
that A-53, the present appellant, along with A-41 and A139 searched for garages at different places in Mumbai
where the weapons could be off-loaded and after that
they were to be distributed to various persons as
C suggested by Anees Ibrahim. The confessional statement
of A-41 also shows that the appellant helped the coaccused persons to look for garages. In such
circumstance, it cannot be claimed that at no point of time
A-53 was ever aware of what was to be stored in the
D garages. [Para 108) [481-E-H]
8.5. The Designated Court, on going through the
evidence of the officer who recorded the confession of A-
'53, the procedure followed, opportunity given to the
E appellant, rejected the similar objection raised before him.
In view thereof, there is no flaw in the procedure while
recording the confession of the appellant. [Para 109) [4828)
8.6. The materials available establish involvement of
F A-53 only to the extent of the smaller conspiracy and the
Designated Court was justified in arriving at such
conclusion. Hence, the appeal filed by the State is liable
to be dismissed. [Para 11 OJ [482-D-E]
G
8.7. Taking note of all the aspects viz. appellant is a
sick person; he has ~ stents in his arteries; he is a
diabetic coupled with a serious heart ailment; he has
already faced protracted trial for 13 % years on day to day
basis; his entire business and goodwill has been lost; he
H nas already served about 6 % (six and a half) years and
SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 383
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
of the fact that the CBI was not able to establish the A
charge relating to major conspiracy and taking note of
the fact that the minimum sentence prescribed is 5 years,
while confirming the conviction, th.: sentence is reduced
to the period already undergone. [Para 112] [483-D]
Criminal Appeal Nos.1001/2007 and 392/2011:
B
9.1. The Designated Court convicted the appellant (A119) u/s. 3(3) and Section 6 of TADA only on the basis of
the confessional statement of A-89 and the evidence of
PW-283 (watchman in the building). Admittedly, the C
appellant, at no point of time, had made any confession
admitting her guilt. Equally, it is not in dispute that no
recovery has been affected from her house. The only
incriminating circumstance against her is the statement
'
of A-89 that while handing over a plastic bag, he D
mentioned that it contains AK-56 rifle and other arms. It
is also his claim that after knowing the contents, she
received the same and kept it in her house. In view of
these aspects, there is no case insofar as the main
conspiracy against her and the Designated Court has
E
rightly acquitted her of the main charge of main
conspiracy. However, upon perusal of the entire
evidence, the judgment passed by the Designated Court
is upheld to the extent of Charge u/ss. 3(3) and 6 of TADA.
[Paras 124 and 125] [492-E-H; 493-A]
F
9.2. In view of the minimum sentence of 5 years
prescribed under Sections 3(3) and 6 of TADA, the
conviction and sentence as awarded by the Designated
Court is confirmed, [Para 126) [493-B-C]
Mohd. Ayub Dar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2010)
9 sec 312: 2010 (8) SCR 916 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
G
1994 (2) Suppl.· SCR 729 relied on
Para S(o)
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 relied on
Para 67
1994 (2) SCR 375
relied on
Para 5(p)
2005 (1) SCR 408
relied on
Para 67
B
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 relied on
Para 9
1990 (3) SCR 633
relied on
Para 10
2008 (16) SCR 155
relied on
Paras 33, 41,
53
c
2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 54
relied on
Para 31
2002 (3) SCR 622
relied on
Para 32
(2003) 9 sec 673
relied on
Para 34
D
2009 (12) SCR 1093
relied on
Para 36
2001 (3) SCR 840
relied on
Para 40
2011 (1) SCR 997
relied on
Para 42
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 807 relied on
Para 44
2000 (1) SCR 200
relied on
Para 45
2001 (1) SCR 111
relied on
Para 46
2001 (3) SCR 840
relied on
Para 47
F
2002 (2) SCR 767
relied on
Para 48
2002 (3) SCR 622
relied on
Para 49
(2003) 9 sec 673
relied on
Para 50
G
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 884 relied on
Para 51
(2003) 8 sec 90
relied on
Para 52
2010 (8) SCR 916
relied on
Para 54
H
2011 (1) SCR 997
relied on
Para 55
SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 385
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY
2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 79
relied on
Para 61
A
1970 (2) SCR 332
relied on
Para 62
1981 (1) SCR 1279
relied on
Para 77
1973 (1) SCR 875
relied on
Para 78 /
B
(1964) SCR 676
relied on
Para 79
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 305 relied on
Para 80
1972 (3) SCR 312
relied on
Para 84
c
1999 (3) SCR 1
referred to Para 107
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No (s). 1060 of2007 etc.
From the Judgment and Order date 31.07.2007 of the
D
presiding Officer of the Designated Court under TADA (P) Act,
1987 for Bomb Blast Cases, Greater Bombay, Maharshtra in
Bombay Blast Case No. 1 of 1993
WITH
Crl.A. Nos. 1102, 1687 of 2007, 596 of 2011, 1104 of
2007, 1026 of 2012, 1001 of 2007 & 392 of 2011
E
Harin P. Raval, ASG, Harish N. Salve, Surender Singh,
Ranjit Kumar, Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advs., Hari Sanker K., Vikas
F
Singh Jangra, B.H. Marlapalle, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Kuna!
Cheema, Satyakaam, Anubhav Kumar Anando Mukherjee,
Harsh N. Parekh, Annirudh, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Ajay Sharma,
Sanjay jain, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Anjali Jha, Advs., with them
for the appearing parties.
G
The Judment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1060, 1102 and
1687 of 2007. 1. Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. B.H.
Marlapalle learned senior counsel appeared for A-117, A-118,
H
-
386.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A A-124 respectively and Mr. Raval, learned ASG duly assisted
by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel appeared for the
respondent-CBI.
2. The abovesaid appeals are directed against the final
B judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
28.11.2006 and 31.07.2007 respectively by the Designated
Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater
Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993.
c
D
E
F
G
H
Charges:
3. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant
portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder:
"During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993
at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District
Thane in India and o.utside India in Dubai (U.A.E.)
Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/oc, were
members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object
was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed
to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist
acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law
established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate
sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony
amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and
Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, handgrenades and
other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable
substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols
and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause
or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or
persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies
of services essential to the life of the community, and to
achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed
to smuggle fire-arms, ammunition, detonators,
handgrenades and high explosives like ROX into India
and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your
SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 387
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist
A
acts and for the said purpose to conceal and storE;l all
these arms, ammunition and explosives at such ·safe
places and amongst yourselves and with your men of
confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and
achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose
B
off the same as need arises. To organize training camps
in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons
training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives
to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/
co-conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly c
facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the ·
commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance
financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the
conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any
other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the
0
aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on.
12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions
at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea
Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at
Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar
at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza
E
Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu
Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport
which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and
property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and
attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross
Road and. Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its
F
. suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby
committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of
TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with
Sections 3(2)(i)(ii}, 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act,
G
1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427,
435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences
under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1-A), (1B)(a} of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B (1)(a)(b}(c} of
the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a){b), 5 and 6 of
H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 16 S.C.R.
A
the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and
within my cognizance."
In addition to the above-said principal charge of
8 conspiracy, the appellants were also charged on other counts
which are as under:
c
D
E
F
G
H
Sanjay Dutt (A-117):
At head Secondly; The appellant, in pursuance of the
aforesaid criminal conspiracy and during the period from
January, 1993 to April, 1993, agreed to keep in his
possession and acquired 3 AK-56 rifles and its
ammunition, one 9mm pistol and its cartridges and
handgrenades, unauthorisedly, which were part of the
consignments smuggled into the country by Dawood
Ibrahim Kaskar and his associates knowingly and
intentionally that these were smuggled into the country for
the purpose of committing terrorists acts and that he
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
3(3) of TADA.
At head Thirdly; The appellant, by doing the aforesaid
act, unauthorisedly, in Greater Bombay which is specified
as a Notified Area under Clause (f) of Sub Section (1) of
Section 2 of TADA and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 5 of TADA.
At head Fourthly; The appellant possessed the above
mentioned arms and ammunitions with an intent to aid
terrorists and contravened the provisions of the Arms Act,
1959 and the Arms Rules, 1962, the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 and
thereby committed an offence punishable under Section
6 of TADA.
At head Fifthly; The appellant, by doing the aforesaid act,
committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7
SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 389
CBI, (STF), BOMBAY [P.