LexABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE AND ANR. versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBL/SCB/CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 891 ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE AND ANR. A v. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBl/SCB/CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 1374 of 2007) B DECEMBER 06, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] c Penal Code, 1860 - s. 120-B rlw ss. 153A, 201, 302, 326, 324, 419, 436 - Explosives Acy 1884 - s. 9(B)(1)(b) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 3(2)(i) and (ii), s. 3(3) - Conspiracy allegedly hatched amongst D appellants and others, subsequent to Babri Masjid demolition - Alleged procurement of gelatin sticks and other materials and bomb manufactured using explosive,substances - Bomb used to destroy Headquarters of a Hindu organization .,.. Destruction of the building, death of eleven persons and E injuries to seven - Trial court convicting the appellants on basis of confessional statement as also the evidence that explosion was caused only by ROX and PETN and gelatin sticks were not used - Conviction uls. 120-B rlw ss. 153A, 201, 302, 326, 324, 419, 436, s. 9(8)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, F ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act and s. 3(2)(i) and (ii) ands. 3(3) of the TADA Act with sentence of life imprisonment - On appeal, held: No evidence to link the appellants with the explosion - Except for the confessional statements, no other independent evidence with regard to the G participation of the accused in the conspiracy and the particular role played by them - Bomb was made of ROX and PETN but no trace of gelatin was found from the scene of crime - Prosecution could only prove that the appellants had 891 H 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A procured gelatin sticks and detonators from place 'G' but traces of said explosives could not be found from the scene of occurrence - Thus, order of conviction and sentence set aside - Evidence. 8 According to the prosecution, after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the appellants alongwith the other accused entered into a conspiracy for committing terrorist acts at various places against Hindus. In order to strike terror they decided to cause explosions with the C intent to cause destruction to the property belonging to the Hindu community and the people present there. In pursuance thereof, the appellants and their accomplices went to place 'G' and procured 13 kgs of gelatin and other materials. Two explosive bombs were assembled. The first and the second attempt to explode the b.omb failed. D The conspirators succeeded in the third attempt which resulted in death of many and destruction of the Headquarters of a Hindu Organization. AS and A14 stood outside the building, the office of a Hindu Organization. A15 and A17 carried the bombs in the building and left E the place. The trial court on basis of the confessional statements made by the accused as also the evidence that explosion was caused only by ROX and PETN and that the gelatin sticks were not used, convicted the appellants under Section 120-8 IPC rlw Sections 153A, F 201, 302, 326, 324, 419, 436 IPC, Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act and Section 3(2)(i), (ii) and Section 3(3) of the TADA Act and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The other accused were held liable only G for the acts of either promoting enmity among the religious groups or harbouring the accused before and after the blast. Four accused were acquitted. Therefore, the instant cross appeals were filed. H Allowing the appeals filed by the accused and ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY i)Y. 893 SUPDT. OF POLICE dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the Court A HELD: 1. In the instant case, there is no direct evidence of the crime. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. Even in cases where no direct evidence is available in the shape of eye-witnesses etc., 8 a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone. [Para 11] [907 -F] Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M. P. 1952 SCR 1091; Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Admn. (1974) 3 SCC 668 - referred to. C 2.1 The contents of the confessional statements if true, would indicate that all the accused and the appellants, in particular, had entered into a conspiracy for committing the violent and terrorist acts against a 0 particular Hindu organization and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.