# STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. BHARAT CHAGANLAL RAGHANA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2001] 3 S.C.R. 840
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 628 of 1998
- **Bench:** K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-maharashtra-v-bharat-chaganlal-raghana-and-ors-18003
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : Sections
3(2), 3(3). 3(5), 5 and 6.
C
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987
Rule
I 5(5).
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections : 302, 307, 120-B and 384
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 222
D
Contract killing-Murder-Accused-Confession-Rule 15(5)-
Procedure for recording confession-Compliance with-Confession
voluntarily made and legally recorded-Confession also stood corroborated
on facts-Rejection of such a confession held not valid-Confession held
sufficient to hold the accused guilty of hatching the con;piracy for commission
E of offences with which charged--Death penalty-Substituted by life
imprisonment-Held on facts not rarest of rare cases.
F
lnvestigation~eiwre-Factum of recove1y-Rejection of-Ground-
. Contradiction because of subsequent statement of accused-Held not valid.
Criminal trial-Accused-Charged with offence-But facts proved that
he committed a minor dffence-He can be convicted of such a minor offence
though not charged.
I
Crime-Crime by underworld--'Organised crime' -'Professional Crime'
G -Need to curb emphasised.
H
Wordv and Phrases :
'Contradiction '-Connotation of
The Respondents, alongwith other co-accused, were charged under
840
·}
)(
~
....._
)-
,._
-~
-"I
STATE OF MAH/\l{/\SllTR/\ 1·. B.C. RAGH/\NA
841
sections 1208, 23, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were also A
charged under section 3 read with section 25(1-B) (a), Section 5 read with
section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(2) (i), 3(2), (ii), 3(3), 3(5)
and sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1987. Prosecution story disclosed that it was a case of mercenary killing
by hired goons. The accused persons pressurised and coerced a business man
and his brother to sell his property and on their refusal the business man B
was murdered and his brother injured in the attack. By the intended
transaction of property immediate beneficiary was A-3 who engaged the
services of A-4 a broker for completion of the deal. To prove its case the
prosecution relied upon oral testimony of various witnesses. However, the
epicentre of all the prosecution evidence was the confessional statements of C
A-5 and A-6 which was recorded by a DCP (PW 38) in exercise of his power
under Section 15 of the TADA Act. Their confessional statements stood
corroborated. Recovery of weapons was also made from the accused persons.
The Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The
confessional statements were not relied upon and excluded from the evidence D
by the Trial Court on the grounds that (1) the Magistrate (PW 44) before
whom the accused were directed to be produced alongwith original statements
of confession in terms of Rule 15(5) of the Rules framed under the TADA
,!
Act had failed to inquire from the accused as to whether they had made
voluntary statements before police officer and to record the replies of the
accused; (ii) that as the ACP (PW 48) had received a call on 27th August, E
1995 to carry the confessional statements to •.• ..: Magistrate its recording on
28th August, 1995 was highly improbable, and that there were interpolations
. in the original confessional statements recorded by DCP (PW 38). The Trial
Court also held that factum of recovery of weapons was not proved as there
was contradiction in it because of a subsequent confessional statement of the F
accused. Against the judgment of the High Court appeal was preferred before
this Court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD. 1. The trial court committed a mistake oflaw in not relying upon G
the confessional statements of AS and A6 to ascertain their involvement in
the commission of crime with which they were charged. Confessional
statements having been made voluntarily and legally recorded, which generally
stood corroborated, were sufficient to hold that the aforesaid persons were
guilty of hatching the conspiracy for com mission of offences with which

## Text

_Characters 0–39,989 of 108,624. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39989 for what follows._

A
B
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
BHARAT CHAGANLAL RAGHANA AND ORS.
JULY 11,2001
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : Sections
3(2), 3(3). 3(5), 5 and 6.
C
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987
Rule
I 5(5).
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections : 302, 307, 120-B and 384
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 222
D
Contract killing-Murder-Accused-Confession-Rule 15(5)-
Procedure for recording confession-Compliance with-Confession
voluntarily made and legally recorded-Confession also stood corroborated
on facts-Rejection of such a confession held not valid-Confession held
sufficient to hold the accused guilty of hatching the con;piracy for commission
E of offences with which charged--Death penalty-Substituted by life
imprisonment-Held on facts not rarest of rare cases.
F
lnvestigation~eiwre-Factum of recove1y-Rejection of-Ground-
. Contradiction because of subsequent statement of accused-Held not valid.
Criminal trial-Accused-Charged with offence-But facts proved that
he committed a minor dffence-He can be convicted of such a minor offence
though not charged.
I
Crime-Crime by underworld--'Organised crime' -'Professional Crime'
G -Need to curb emphasised.
H
Wordv and Phrases :
'Contradiction '-Connotation of
The Respondents, alongwith other co-accused, were charged under
840
·}
)(
~
....._
)-
,._
-~
-"I
STATE OF MAH/\l{/\SllTR/\ 1·. B.C. RAGH/\NA
841
sections 1208, 23, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were also A
charged under section 3 read with section 25(1-B) (a), Section 5 read with
section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(2) (i), 3(2), (ii), 3(3), 3(5)
and sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1987. Prosecution story disclosed that it was a case of mercenary killing
by hired goons. The accused persons pressurised and coerced a business man
and his brother to sell his property and on their refusal the business man B
was murdered and his brother injured in the attack. By the intended
transaction of property immediate beneficiary was A-3 who engaged the
services of A-4 a broker for completion of the deal. To prove its case the
prosecution relied upon oral testimony of various witnesses. However, the
epicentre of all the prosecution evidence was the confessional statements of C
A-5 and A-6 which was recorded by a DCP (PW 38) in exercise of his power
under Section 15 of the TADA Act. Their confessional statements stood
corroborated. Recovery of weapons was also made from the accused persons.
The Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The
confessional statements were not relied upon and excluded from the evidence D
by the Trial Court on the grounds that (1) the Magistrate (PW 44) before
whom the accused were directed to be produced alongwith original statements
of confession in terms of Rule 15(5) of the Rules framed under the TADA
,!
Act had failed to inquire from the accused as to whether they had made
voluntary statements before police officer and to record the replies of the
accused; (ii) that as the ACP (PW 48) had received a call on 27th August, E
1995 to carry the confessional statements to •.• ..: Magistrate its recording on
28th August, 1995 was highly improbable, and that there were interpolations
. in the original confessional statements recorded by DCP (PW 38). The Trial
Court also held that factum of recovery of weapons was not proved as there
was contradiction in it because of a subsequent confessional statement of the F
accused. Against the judgment of the High Court appeal was preferred before
this Court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD. 1. The trial court committed a mistake oflaw in not relying upon G
the confessional statements of AS and A6 to ascertain their involvement in
the commission of crime with which they were charged. Confessional
statements having been made voluntarily and legally recorded, which generally
stood corroborated, were sufficient to hold that the aforesaid persons were
guilty of hatching the conspiracy for com mission of offences with which they
were charged. The Designated Judge has also erred in holding that the H
x
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
-\''
STATE OF MAI IARt\Sl-lTRA r_ 13.C. R!\GI IANA
843
15 of the TADA Act. There is no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the A
confessional statements were strictly in accordance with the mandate of the
TADA Act as interpreted by this Court from time to time.
1865-B-C; 865-G; 868-C-EI
Mr. Sharafathussain Abdul Rahaman Shaikh & Ors v. State of Gujarat
& Anr., 11996) 4 Crimes 244 SC, Explained and distinguished.
B
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 11994) 3 SCC 569 and S. N. Dube v.
N.B. Bhoir & Ors .. 120001 2 SCC 254, referred to.
State v. Nalini, 11999) 5 SCC 253 and Kalpnath Rai v. State, 1199718
sec 732, cited.
4. The confessional statements were recorded in Marathi language in
Devnagri script. The statements were typed wherein some names and dates
have been shown in bold letters. However, the use of bold letters does not make
c
the confession doubtful justifying the conclusion that there had been
interpolations. The bold letters are intended to highlight the importa~ce of D
the names and words. In his evidence PW 38 replied that there were no blanks
filed in, but the typist might have pressed the fingers hard so that those
writings appeared a bit darker. He categorically denied that the confessional
statements were already typed by leaving the places blank and subsequently
his office did the job of only filling the blanks under his directions.1867-C-G I
5. Referring to the investigating officer - ACP (PW 48), the Designated E
Court wrongly held that the confessional statements could not have been made
on 28th August, 1995 -as the said witness had stated to have received
telephones message from DCP on 27th August, 1995 directing him that
arrangements should be made for carrying the packets to Metropolitan
Ma~istrate containing the confessional statements recorded by him. It is clear F
from the evidence of PW 38 that the statements of the accused were recorded
on 21st August, 1995 and on 28th August, 1995. It is further clear that PW
38 knew that the accused had to make a statement on 28th August, 1995
whether confessing the crime or retracting from making the confessional
statement. In order to ensure that the statements to be recorded on 28th G
August, 1995 are immediately sent to the concerned Magistrate, PW 38
appears to have directed on 27th August, 1995 in the evening to ACP (PW
48) that arrangements should be made on the next date for carrying the
packets containing the confessional statements to the Metropolitan
Magistrate. Consequently, it cannot be said that the confessional statements
were not made on 28th August, 1995 particularly when the accused had not H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A taken a stand that any statements of theirs was recorded on 27th August,
1995. Therefore, the trial court rejected the confessional statements of AS
and A6 by adopting a hypertechnical approach on the basis of its imaginative
thoughts without having regard to the actual .evidence led in the case.
B
186S-H; 866-A-HJ
6. There is no denial of the fact that the judicial confessions made are
usually retracted. Retracted confessions are good confessions if held to have
been made voluntarily and in accordance with the provisions of law, as AS and
A6 are proved to have rriade. Corroboration of the confessional statement is
I
not a rule of law but a rule of prudence. Whether in a given case corroboration
J_
C is sufficient would depend upon the facts and circumstances of that case. In
order to sustain a conviction on the basis of a confessional statement, it is
sufficient that there .is general corroboration. In this case looking at the record
inclu~ing the testimony of witnesses and the documents produced,' there is
sufficient general corroboration of the confessional statements made by AS
and A6. 1876-C-D; 878-D-E)
D
7. The trial court adopted a technical approach in appreciating the
factum of recovery of weapons and wrongly held that the evidence relating to
the seizure has to be totally kept aside. The panch witnesses have fully proved
the panchnamas._ If the prosecution had successfully proved the panchanamas,
E it was not proper for the court to fish out a contradiction regarding the
recovery and seizure of the weapons on the ground of subsequent confessional
statement of the accused. If in a statement recorded after about two months
the accused tried to mislead the court by making a different statement
regarding the recovery of the weapon of offence, no credit of it should have
been given to him. The Court was only concerned with the corroboration of
F the factum of recovery mentioned in the confessional statements. }fthe weapons
had actually been recovered, no fault can be found with the confessional
statements on account of alleged contradiction. The statement of A6 relating
to recovery of weapons from the ·house of AS could not have been made a basis
for holding that there existed contradiction which persuaded the court not to
G believe the recoveries as a piece of corroborative evidence. Much has been
made out from the display of seized weapons at the Press Conference held by
the police after the arrest of the accused. The seized weapons were shown in
the office of Cl D crime in the same building where the office of the Joint
Commissioner of Police, who held the press conference, is also located. There
was no cause or occasion for the court to disbelieve the testimony of the Joint
H Commissioner of Police. Holding that the only seized weapons were shown to
-~
ST/\ TE OF M/\H/\R/\SI ITRA v. 13.C. RAGHANJ\
845
the press, the trial court committed a mistake and it has unnecessarily tried A
to make a mou':ltain out of mole on such a frivolous ground.
1879-A-H; 880-A-EI
8. The word "contradiction" is ofa wide connotation which takes within
its ambit all material omissions and under the circumstances of the case a
court can decide whether there is one such omission as to amount B
contradiction. 1872-C-DI
Tahsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 119S9J SC 1012, referred
-r
to.
9. There is no substance in the submission that AS and A6 were not C
properly identified in the test identification parade. In view of the finding that
·their confessional statements were made voluntarily,and legally admissible
in evidence, there is no much significance of the identification parade.
(880-G)
to. AS and A6 are convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 D
read with Sections 1208, 23, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read
with Sections 25(1-B) (a), Section S read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Sections 3 (2) (i), 3(2) (ii), 3(3), 3(S), S and 6 of the Terrorist an,d Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. However, being mislead youth\ they do ~ot
deserve the maximum penalty imposable under law and the case is not the
rarest of the rare cases warranting death sentence. They are, therefore, E
sentenced to life imprisonment. (881-B-C)
11. Sub-section (2) of section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
provides that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved
which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of a minor offence,
>-
although he is not charged with it. It is established by the prosecution that by F
the intended transaction of property deal the immediate beneficiary was A3.
A3 is proved to have forged documents for the purposes of completing the
sale for which he procured the legal services of respondent No.I. He is also
proved to have got the services of A4, a broker for completion of the deal. A4
helped him in the transaction. The prosecution has placed on record sufficient G .
evidences to show that A4 had been visiting the deceased and her Brother
and compelling them to complete the transaction by executing the release deeds
in favour of A3. On the basis of this evidence A3 cannot be held to be a party
to the conspiracy of killing or for the com mission of other offences under
the TADA Act but it is equally true that his involvement in the transaction
having been proved needs the determination of the nature of offence committed H
846
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[200 I] 3 S.C.R.
A by him. A3 was charged for offence by resorting to extortion. The offence of
extortion is a lesser offence which, under the circumstances of the case, was
so connected with the main transaction that no failure of justice can be caused
if A3 is convicted and sentenced for the said offence. The prosecution failed
to prove so far as the major offence is concerned but succeeded in showing
the commission of the minor offence punishable under Section 384 read with
B Section 34 IPC. A3 intentionally put deceased and his brother in fear of injury
and availing the services of A4 dishonestly induced them in fear to deliver
their valuable property. Therefore, A3 though not as a conspirator but sharing
common intention with A4 committed the offence of extortion. He is guilty of
offence of extortion, punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 IPC.
C
1874-H; 873-F-H; 874-B; 875-F-H; 876-AJ
Shamnasheb M. Multani v. State of Karnataka, 12001 J 2 SCC 577 and
lakhjit Singh v. State of Pzmjab, f1994J Supp. 1 SCC 173, referred to.
12. In the absence of any threat or any other circumstance indicating
D the intention of Al, A2, and A3 to kill deceased and his brother it would not
be safe to hold them guilty of murder on shaky and unreliable evidence. No
overt and covert act in this regard is attributed to A2. Al is shown to have not
observed the professional norms by calling the deceased and his brother in
his office to facilitate the execution of release deeds in unprofessional way
but cannot be described to be criminal warranting a conviction under any
E provisions of the IPC or TADA. Therefore, Al and A2 were not involved in
the commission of the crime for which they were charged or any other crime
of lesser effect. There is no need of returning a finding against A4 who is
stated to have died in a police encounter, unless his complicity is required for
the purpose of determining the guilt of any other accused. 1873-C-EJ
F
13. Nowadays a woeful situation is prevalent in the society where writs·
of the organised criminal gangs run which affect the peaceful and innocent
citizens of the country. This world of gangsters, popularly known as the
\underworld\, comprises of various gangs headed by notorious dons for whom,
the only valuable thing in life is 'wealth' and the useless thing, the 'life' of
G others. Deaths are sold by these dons at their asking price and purchased by
those who resort to have immediate results for their enrichment with the
deflation of their otherwise inflated money bags. Mumbai, (with its erstwhile
name Bombay) known as the commercial capital of the country, is at the top
where such crimes arc committed cve11' now and then. Such on going activities
of the underworld arc problems faced not only in Mumbai and this country
H but all over the globe. Generally known abroad as 'organised crime' has been
STATE OF MAH/\R/\SllTRA v. B.C. RAGl-IANA fSETHI, J.l
847
found to be a subject of fascination in popular culture and a major criminal A
justice concern in the .Western World. Such organised crime pose various
problems to th~ world community concerned to combat and fight it out.
1847-E-H; 848-El
14. In Europe, the terms 'organised crime' and 'professional crime' are
largely interchangeable. The eruption of organised crime in India is of recent B
origin and is at the initial stage. It is the need of the hour to control such
criminal activities which tempt the persons involved to amass huge profit Such
crimes have not only a legal facet but has a social and economic aspect which
is required to be felt and dealt with by all concerned including the judiciary,
the executive, the politicians, the social reformers, intelligentia and the law
enforcing agency. 1848-Fl
C
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 628
of 1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25/28/29/30/31.7.97, 1/2/4 and 5.8.97
of the Designated Court Brihan Mumbai in Tada Special Case No. 22of1995. D
V.S. Katwal, U.U. Lalit, S.S. Shinde, S.V. Deshpande, Ms Aparajita Singh,
Sushil Kr. Karanjakar, A. Venkatesh, Vishawajit Singh, N.M. Sakhardande
)"
(AC), R.C. Kohli (N. P.), Meenakshi Sakhardande for V. D. Khanna, Bhaskar
and Y. Kulkarni for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SETHI, J. Under the heaps of voluminous record in the form of various
paper books spread over thousands of pages lies the hidden story relating
E
to the new 'merchants of death and destruction', upon dissection, when
peeped into, it reflects the woeful situation prevalent in the society where
writs of the organised criminal gangs run which affect the peaceful and F
innocent citizens of the country. This world of gangsters, popularly known
as the 'underworld', comprises of various gangs headed by notorious done
for whom, the only valuable thing in the life if 'wealth' and the useless thing,
the 'life' of others. Deaths are sold by these dons at their asking price and
purchased by those who resort to have immediate results for their enrichment
with the deflation of their otherwise inflated money bags. To this underworld, G
the unemployed, thoughtess and objected youths are attracted and the bosses
of the gangsters leave no stone unturned to utilize the services of such
frustraie and misled youth for the commission of crimes, to further their evil
designs Contract killings by employing mercenary killers, after receipts of
consid ration known as 'supari' are the orders of the day, particularly in H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[200 I] 3·s.C.R.
A commercial cities of the country where the race for getting enriched overnight
is going on at jet speed.
Mumbai, (with its erstv,,:hile nam·e Bomb~y) known as the commercial
I
capital of the country, is at the top where such crimes are committed every
now and then. Piling of the cases in the courts of law without their disposal
B particularly with respect to disputes relating to property is reported to have
created settle centres of unusual trade where private courts are held by the
gangsters and disputes are solved according to the will of those who can pay
as per demand of the criminal dons. It is said that the unaccounted
accumulation of black money in the hands of a few have encouraged the
gangsters to widen the scope of their activities. Because of the money and·
C muscle power, they are in a position of procuring highly sophisticated weapons.
Such gangs collect money rrom various businessmen, land developers, persons
carrying on the illegal_,activities in gambling dens, drug traffickers, etc. Such
collected money is termed as "protection money" which in Marathi referred
to as "Khandani" (Khandani is a Marathi word which relates to long past
D. history where the rulers used to collect Khandani from their subjects). A
fee1ing is prevalent in the city that it is not the State alone which can protect
the life and property of the rich and influential, but it is the criminals who
render protection to such people for the consideration of the "protection
money" recei~ed by thetn ..
E
Such on going activities of the underworld-are problems faced not only
in Mumbai and this country but all over the globe. Generally known abroad
as 'organised crime' has been found to be subject of fascination in popular
culture and a major criminal justice concern in the Western World. Such
organised crimes pose various problems to the world community concerned
F to combat and fight it out.
In Europe, the terms 'organised crime' and 'professional crime' are
largely interchangeable. As compared to American standards, the European
criminal organisations are small-scale and short-lived. Such crimes are defined
as; involving a system of specifically defined
relationships with mutual
G obligation and privileges and association of a small group of criminal for the
execution of the intended crime. The eruption of organised crime in India is
of recent origin and is at the initial stage. It is the need of the hour to control
such criminal activities which tempt the persons involved to amass huge
profit. Such crimes have not only a legal fact but has a social and economic
aspect which is required to be felt and dealt with by all concerned including
H the judiciary, the executive, the politicians, the social reformers, interlligentia
'-·
--
STATE OF f\1AllARASllTRA v. B.C. RAGllANA [SETHI, J.]
849
and the law enforcing agency.
This appeal relates to a case of one such mercenary killing by hired
goons at the behest of criminal dons operating from aboard but rendering
their services of criminal actions in this country on payment of huge amounts.
A
In this case the respondents herein were charged of having committed
offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 120B, 23, 114 B
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to an "the IPC"), Section 3 read
with Sections 25(1-B)(a), Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act,
Sections 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the TADA Act")
for having committed the murder of one Pradeep Jain, a young businessman, C
on 7.3.1995 in the commercial capital of India. i.e., Mumbai at about 7.30-8.00
p.m. and also attempting to murder the other brother, Sunil Jain. The deceased
was murdered and his brother injured in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched
by the respondents with other absconding accused. The crime was committed
in the office of the company of the Jain Brothers, known as "Kamla
Constructions". The accused persons, namely. Salim Abdul Salim (A8), Abu D
Salem (A9), Rajesh Igwe (A I 0), Sun ii Nair (A 11 ), Udai Pawar (A 12) and San jay
Kadam (Al3) were declared absconders and have not faced the trial yet.
)'
Bharat Chaganlal Raghani Respondent No. I (A I) is a Solicitor, Rajan
Robert Fernandes, respondent No. 2 (A2) and Shaukatali Jamal Mistry @
Chauhan, respondent No. 4 (A4) are the brokers, Subbedarsingh Ramadas E
Singh Yadav, respondent No. 3 (A3), is the alleged purchaser and ultimate
beneficiary of the intended sale of property.
The mercenary ~illers are stated to be belonging to the gang of a
notorious gangster by name Dawood Ibrahim. It may be noticed, at this
stages, that A4 who faced the trial had since died in a police encounter. p
Similarly A8, A I 0, A 12andA13 are stated to have been killed in the encounters
with the police during the years 1995-96. A 7, A9andA11 are still absconding.
In the commission of the crime the respondents are alleged to have used
sophisticated weapons such as AK rifles, revolvers and pistols. Seventeen
bullets are stated to have been pumped into the body of Pradeep Jain, the
deceased.
er
Pradeep Jain was eliminated by the hired gangsters and Sunil Jain
attempted to be killed for their fault of not succumbing to the pressure of
parting with their landed property, situated at Koldongir in Andheri (East),
Mumbai of which they were owners in possession. This property originally
belonged to one Matabadal Yadav who had four sons, namely, Garib, Kal!u. H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A Ballu, Jayanand. Fekuram was the grandson of Mun nan. Jagannath, Dudhnath,
Baijnath and Lal Chand were the sons of Kallu. Ramadhar, Ramnan and
Ramkewal were the sons of Ballu. Mulai, Bhola and Laltaprasad were the sons
of Jayanandan. The said landed property comprised of three categories shown
as A, B & C in the sketch plan (Exhibit 49 at page 380, Vol. II of the
paperbook). The property (A) measured 5000 sq. yards was purchased by
B
Kam la Constructions, the company of the deceased Pradeep Jain, from the
successors and heirs of Matabadal Yadav vide Agreement of Sale dated 21st
December, 1979 where they had constructed two multi-storeyed buildings.
The Property (8) is the land which the Kamla Constructions had procured
from all the 13 Yadavs vide Agreements executed between the years 1981-82.
C Such Agreements of Sale have been proved by the prosecution and exhibited
at the trial as Exhibits SOA, 52A, 54A, 56A, 58A, 60A, 62A, 64A and 66A.
Separate agreements were executed by Ramroop, Lal Chand, Baijnath and
Dudhnath on 18.2.1986 for which they received the earnest money vide
receipt Exhibit 69A. Property (C) is the subject matter of an Agreement to Sell
executed by Fekuram Yadav in favour of Kamla Constructions vide Exhibit
D 69A executed on 20th October, 1986. It is admitted that the disputes arose
with respect to the disposal of the property referred to as the property (B)
which ultimatly resulted in the commission of the crime of murder.
A3 claiming to be the owner of the property, referred to as Property (B)
E wanted to dispose of it to Labh Constructions of Ahmedabad for which an
Agreement Exhibit 93 was executed on 1.11.1994. A3 claimed that he and
Matbadal Yadav had purchased the landed property from Dastur Narayan
Ramchander and Lawrence Winston Misquetta. He referred to various
agreements allegedly executed by Matabadal Yadav and his heirs and
represented to the Labh Constructions that in the premises mentioned in the
F
agreement Exhibit 93, he had a right in the l?roperty which he wan_ted to
transfer 011 the terms and conditions specified therein. The property was
agreed to be sold for the lumpsum price of Rs. I 0. 93 crores to be paid to A3
in the manner specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Condition No. I of the
Agreement. Condition Nos. 3 and 4 .of the Agreement provided :
G
"3. Upon the said certificate under Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax
Act having been obtained, the purchaser shall deposit with the
Vendor's Advocates & S~licitors Messrs. Haridas & Co. the said sum
of Rs. 3,80,00,000 as set out in Clause I (b) herein above, giving an
authority to the kendor to utilise the said amount firstly only for the
H
purpose of getting the said tenants/occupants/the tenants of the
..
STATE OF MAHJ\R/\SHTRA v. B.C. RAGHANA I SETI II, .1.J
851
khillas as well as the structures and godowns vacated from the A
respective premises let out to or occupied by them and to obtain
release, transfer, or assignment of the claim of the said Mis. Kam la
Construction in respect of the said property more particularly described
in the Second Schedule hereunder written as hereinafter provided on
such terms and conditions as the Vendor may deem fit The Vendor
covenants that as long as the tenants/occupants do not vacant and
surrender their respective title and interest in the said premises situated
in the said property, the Vendor shall not utilise any amount from out
of this amount for his purpose.
B
4. The Vendor shall remove all such tenants within period of one
month from the date of the purchaser depositing the said amount as C
aforesaid. The Vendor further declares that one Messrs. Kamla
Construction is claiming to be the purchasers of the said property and
the Vendor shall also settle the claim of the said Messrs. Kamla
Constructions at his own costs by obtaining from them release and/
or assignment and/or transfer of their right title and interest in the said D
property more particularly described in the Second Schedule hereunder
written before the payment of the amount under clause I (b) above is
paid to the vendor, the vendor shall also discharge all the liabilities
or to ensure the same as arising cut of the said agreements entered
into between he said owners of the said property and the vendors."
The aforesaid agreement is stated to have been prepared by A I who
is the partner of the Solicitors Firm known as Haridas & Company. As earlier
noticed, according to the terms of the Agreement, A3 had taken the
responsibility to settle the claim of Kamla Constructions at his cost by
obtaining release deeds.
Criminal conspiracy is alleged to have been hatched for the purposes
of getting the release deeds executed by the Jain Brothers of Kamla
Constructions by resort to persuasion, threat, duress and ultimately killing.
E
F
In furtherance of the conspiracy, A I is alleged to have prepared the desired
release deeds. The Jain Brothers are stated to have been pressurised to sign G
the aforesaid release deeds for which various meetings are shown to have
been held in the office of A I. In those meetings, A I is alleged to have told
the Jain Brothers that there was no substance in their documents. In one of
J"1
the meeting A4, allegedly belonging to the gang of Dawood Ibrahim, threatened
Jain Brothers that unless they signed the deeds prepared by A I, they would
not be allowed to leave the office alive. Such threats are stated to have been ·H
852
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A given in the presence of A 1, who despite protest from the deceased, did not
take any action against anyone nor did he disassociate himself from the said
accused.
Anand Bhat (PW14), another solicitor was initially engaged by Labh
Constructions for the purposes of getting the deal completed with A3. In
B October, 1994 Anand Bhat is stated to have received a document Exhibit 78
purpotiing to be a draft agreement prepared by Haridas & Company, the firm
of solicitors of A 1. By letter (Exhibit 79), Labh Constructions directed the
solicitor firm of PW14 to hand over a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs to the solicitor firm
of A I. PW 14 went to the office of A I and personally handed over the cheque
C of Rs. 45 lakhs.
It is in the evidence that sometime in August, I 994 A4 visited the office
of Jain Brothers situated in Brijkamal Building, where he met Ashok Jain (PW
45) and informed him that a builder from Ahmedabad (Labh Constructions)
had purchased the old Koldongri property and their firm, namely Kamla
D Constructions should give up that property. When Ashok Jain told A4 that
he and his brothers were in possession of title deeds and not prepared to give
up the property, the said accused told Ashok Jain that the purchaser party
had connections with the underworld and if the Jains did not surrender their
rights in the property, the consequences would be very bad. In October, 1994,
E Ashok Jain (PW 45), Suresh Jain (PW13), Pradeep Jain, the deceased and
Sunil Jain (PW45) attended the office of A I where A2, A3, A4 and some other
persons were also present. The Jain Brothers handed over their title documents
to A I and asked him to go through the papers.
A4 continued to meet the Jains in the office of Kamla Constructions
F
besides giving telephonic calls every now and then. A I sometimes thereafter
telephoned Ashok Jain (PW45) asking him that the Jain Brothers should visit
his office to discuss over the matter. Consequently a second meeting was
held in the office of A I which was attended by Ashok Jain (PW45), Pradeep
Jain, the deceased, Sun ii Jain (PWI 5) from the side of Kam la Constructions
G and A I, A2, A3 and A4 represented the other side in the meeting. It is alleged
that when Al told the Jains that "your documents are not having any
substance," the arguments followed. A4 used abusive language and warned
the Jain Brothers that they were wasting everybody's time and their such dilly
dalling tactics would not succeed. Pradeep Jain is stated to have reacted very
sharply to the threats given by A4 and told A 1 "You are a solicitor of well
H repute and how can you tolerate this Hangama in your office". It is further
..
.
(
....._.
STATE OF l'vl/\IIJ\RJ\SllTR/\ v. 13.C. RAGHANA [SETI-II, .I.]
853
alleged that A4 threatened the Jain Brothers that they should accept the A
amount being given to them or else ultimately lose their lives. In the third
...,
meeting held in November, 1994 attended by Jain Brothers and A I to A4 an
intimation was given to the partners of Kam la Constructions that A I had
received the money from intended purchasers for being paid to them. The
insistence of Jain Brothers to know the name of the intending purchasers :ind
their desire to meet them was retorded by A I telling that the party was so B
big that they had no time to meet the Jains. When Pradeep Jain stated that
he was not interested in getting the money, A4 threatened by saying that if
he did not accept the money and surrender the rights, the said money would
L
I
be treated as "Supari" for the murder of Jain Brothers (Supari is a marathi
word which stands for beetle put and in common parlance it has gained the C
 _,,_,
meaning of money for contract killing). In all the six meetings which were held
in the office of A I, the Jain Brothers were insisted to take decision quickly
for surrendering their rights. As the Jain Brothers did not give up their claims
at any cost, the transaction in favour of Labh Construction did not materialise.
The immediate loser on account of delay was A3.
A2, A3 and A4 are stated to be having maintained a regular liaison with
Abu Salem (A9), known to be the right hand man of Dawood Ibrahim. The
said A9 was contacted by A2, A3 and A4 on telephone Nos. 226670, 242939
at Dubai.
One day in the second week of February, 1994 at about 10 p.m. telephone
D
E
bell rang in the house of Pradeep Jain, when Jyoti Pradeep Jain (PW23), the
widow of the deceased picked up the telephone, the caller told her that he
was Abu Salem and was speaking from Dubai. As he wanted to speak to
Pradeep Jain, Jyoti Pradeep .Jain handed over the receiver to her husband.
Pradeep Jain was heard telling Abu Salem that he, along with his brothers F
were legal occupants of the land and could not be removed there from. When
Pradeep Jain appeared upset, his wife inquired for the cause. Pradeep Jain told
her that the person calling from Dubai had told him to sign the documents
which had been kept ready in the office of A 1 or face the consequences.
On 7 .3.1995, the day of occurrence at about 8-8.15 p.m. A4 telephoned
the office ofKamla Constructions and inquired from Sunil Jain (PW15) as to
who all were present in the office. When told that besides PW 15, Pradeep Jain
G
and A nil Kumar Pillai (PW 11) were in the office, A4 asked him as to _whether
everything was alright. PW 15 observed that A4 was exceedingly polite on
that day. 15 minutes thereafter two boys entered the office of Jains with H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[200 I] 3 S.C.R.
A pistols in their hands. One of the two persons had caught hold of the
watchman Vishnu from his neck and the other was waiting outside the gate
of the office. The persons who had pistols in their hands and had entered ·
the office inquired, "who is Pradeep?". When Pradeep Jain replied that he was
Pradeep Jain, both the aforesaid persons showered bullets on him. They also
fired at Sunil Jain (PWI 5) and went away. During investigation the aforesaid
B two persons have been identified to be Rajesh Igwe (A IO) and Sunil Nair
(A 12). As already noticed, A 10 has died in an encounter with the police on
27. I 1.1995 and Sun ii Nair (A 12) is absconding. The person who stood outside
the cabin of the deceased has been identified to be Subhash Bind (A5). After
tlie shots had been fired at and the accused walked away, the witnesses
C found both the brothers in the pool of blood. Anil Kumar Pillai (PWI I)
thereafter rang the Police Control Room from the cabin of the deceased and
informed about the incident. Ashok Jain (PW45) who was in the bunglow
upstairs also reached on the spot. PW! I, PWl5, PW45 and Watchman Vishnu
put Pradeep Jain in the car and took him to the Cooper Hospital, where
Pradeep Jain was declared brought dead. However Sunil Jain, injured was
D admitted in the hospital as Indoor Patient.
E
F
After registration of the case and during investigation, after their arrest,
AS and A6, made confessional statements which were recorded by the Deputy
Comm issio11er of Police on 21st August, 1995 and 28th August, 1995 in
exercise of powers vested in him under Section 15 of TADA Act.
A4, while in custody of the police, made disclosure statements pointing
out a number of communication centres from where he made telephone calls
to Abu Salem on various occasions. Consequently, the police collected bills
Exhibits 200, 203, 204, 205, 206 and 207 from those communication centres.
Exhibit 200 indicated that a call was made on 7.3.1995 on telephone No. 226670
of Dubai at about 5.35 p.m. On 12.4.1995 A4 pointed out certain other
communication centres, in consequence of which Bills Exhibits 2 IO, 211 212
were collected.
Dr. Ashok Shinde who conducted the post mortem on the body of the
G deceased noticed in all 29 fire arm wounds of entry and exit altogether. In his
post-mortem notes Exhibit 122, the Doctor stated that the cause of death was
due to fire arm injuries. The injury certificate in respect of Sunil Jain (PWI 5)
is Exhibit 124 which indicates that there a gun wound on the anterior and
posterior aspect of the right arm.
H
After the fra-;-hing of charges for the offences as noticed earlier, all the
-.......,..
STATE or MAl-IJ\RASHTRA \I_ 13.C. RAGHANA [SETI-II, .I.]
855
six accused persons, facing the trial, denied the charges and claimed to be A
tried. A 1 admitted the genealogical tree of the Yadavs and claimed that
~-
Koldongri property was not a joint family property ofYadav Brothers, namely,
Garib, Kallu, Ballu and Jayanandan. According to him the property belonged
to Ballu Yadav alone during his lifetime and after his death had devol·1ed
upon his sons, namely, Ramdhar, Ramkeval and Ramroop. He denied of having B
seen the draft documents in favour of A3. He admitted to have seen some
documents executed in favour of Kamla Constructions, such as Agreement
Exhibit 50, copy of the conveyance executed by Bhola Yadav, Exhibit 56 and
copy of the conveyance executed by Laltaprasad Exhibit 58. He also submitted
.l
that copies of the proceedings in the City Civil Court being Suit N?. 260 of
~
1987 were shown to him. He denied his knowledge about other documents c
allegedly executed by Yadavs in favour of Kam la Constructions. He admitted
that Anand Bhat (PWl4) had agreed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to A3. He admitted
the preparation of drafts of Exhibits 76 and 77. He also admitted that a cheque
of Rs. 45 lakhs was deposited with him by Wadia Gandhi & Company. He
denied of having any contact with Dawood Ibrahim whom he described as
D
notorious underworld don responsible for continuing with criminal activities
in the city of Bombay through his hirelings. He also knew that Anees Ibrahim,
the brother of Dawood Ibrahim and Abu Salem (A9) were helping Dawood in
collecting money by extortion through their hirelings. He admitted the holding
./
of six meetings but denied that A4 had ever attended any meeting.
E
A2 admitted that Kamla Constructions had purchased some property
out of Koldongri property but denied his knowledge about the area of that
property. He admitted of having attended the meetings with Bharat Shah (A I)
and Subedarsingh (A3) for negotiation of a deal with Labh Constructions. He
denied that A3 insisted in any meeting for payment of Rs. 50 lakhs as initial
payment. According to him he had read in the newspapers about the activities F
>--
of the notorious underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and had no knowledge
about his associates. He admitted having attended only one meeting in the
office of A I. He denied his contacts with A4 whom he claimed to have seen
for the first time in police custody. He denied of having any knowledge about
....
the occurrence of 7.3.1995 and submitted that he was falsely implicated .
Q,
A3 also admitted the genealogical tree of the Yadav Family and claimed
that Koldongri property was not the joint family property of the four Yadav
Brothers. He claimed that all the documents referable to him Exhibits I 07. 108,
~,,..,,.
109. IIO, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 131and138werethegenuinedocuments.He
claimed his interest in the property as of right and not on the basis of fake H
856
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001) 3 S.C.R.
A documents.