ADAMBHAI SULEMANBHAI AJMERI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 16-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 48 
ADAMBHAI SULEMANBHAI AJMERI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2295-2296 of 2010) 
MAY 16, 2014 
[A. K. PATNAIK AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002: 
s. 3(3), 5, 32, 50 and 52 - Penal Code 1860 - Arms Act, 
1959 - s. 25 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908- s. 4 - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 164, 162 - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Article 136 - Terrorist attack in Akshardham 
temple, Gujarat resulting in death of 33 persons including 
0 
commandos and injuries to 85 people - Prosecution case 
based on some articles received from the head of NSG which 
were collected from the clothes of the dead bodies of the 
fidayeens including two letters written in urdu language, found 
in the pocket of each one of the fidayeens; and car in which 
one of the accused allegedly brought fidayaans and weapons 
E 
to the place of incident - Conviction under the aforesaid Acts 
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, life imprisonment 
and death sentence for the various offences under the Acts 
- Upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Courts below did 
F 
not examine the evidence with 'more than ordinary care' as 
needed under POTA - Courts below perverse in conducting 
the case at various stages, right from the investigation level 
to the granting of sanction by the State Government to 
prosecute the accused persons under POTA - Sanction was 
not a valid sanction uls. 50 of POTA -
While recording 
G confessional statements statutory mandates laid down u/ss. 
32 and 52 of POTA not followed - Confessional statements 
of accused persons obtained under torture, highly 
contradictory and improbable in nature - Statements of 
H 
accomplices disclosing evidence of the offences, and the 
48 
ADAMBHAI SULEMANBHAI AJMERI v. STATE OF 
49 
GUJARAT 
connection of the accused persons to the offence, cannot be 
A 
relied upon to corroborate their confessional statements -
Prosecution case with respect to recovery of the alleged 
letters in Urdu from dead bodies of the fidayeens and that 
these letters were written by one of the accused, rendered fatal 
- Further no evidence apart from the retracted confessional 
B 
statement of A-6 which connects him to the offence - No 
independent evidence on record apart from the confessional 
statements recorded by the police, of the accused persons 
and the accomplices, to hold them guilty of the crime - Also, 
accused cannot be held guilty of criminal conspiracy under c 
Section 120-B /PC -
Thus, concurrent findings of fact of 
Special Court (POTA) and High Court erroneous in fact as 
also in Jaw and fit case for interference u/Art 136 - Order of 
conviction and sentence against the accused set aside -
Evidence. 
s. 50 - Cognizance of offence - Previous sanction by 
Central Government - Compliance of - Held: All the relevant 
documents collected during the course of investigation with 
respect to the crime required for granting sanction should be 
presented before the sanctioning authority so that the 
sanction can be granted on basis thereof -
On facts, 
sanctioning authority did not apply its mind to the satisfaction 
as to whether the instant case required granting of sanction 
- Failure of prosecution to prove that sanction was granted 
by the Government either on the basis of an informed 
decision or on the basis of an independent analysis of fact 
on consultation with the Investigating Officer - Clear non-
application of mind by Home minister in granting sanction -
Thus, sanction void and not a legal and valid sanction uls 
50 of the Act. 
s. 32 - Procedure for recording of the confessional 
statements of the accused persons under - Compliance of 
- Held: Police officer recording confessional statements is 
required to explain in writing to the accused that he is not 
D 
E 
F 
G t 
H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A bound to make confessional statement and once such 
statement is made, the same can be used against him -
Accused is to be assured that if he does not make the 
confessional statement, it would not jeopardize his well-being 
while in police custody and also to ensure that such 
B statements are made before a competent police officer in a 
threat-free environment - On facts, process of intimation did 
not precede the recording of confessional statements police 
officer-DCP as a continuous process - Accused persons were 
making confessions after a period almost 11 months after the 
C incident - Mere peri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.