LexBABA PEER PARAS NATH AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BABA PEER PARAS NATH AND ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AUGUST 21, 1996 [G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 307 and 341109. Ten-orist and Dismptive (Prevention) Activities Act, 1987 : Sections 3(3) and 15. A B c Criminal Trial-Accused persons-Confession made by ac- cused-Retraction of co11fessio11-Appella11ts-acwsed not charged for any offences under TADA-Confessional statements made by appellants not relied upon against them-Designated Cowt relying on confessional state- D ments made by other accused who were charged under TADA offences convicted the appellants-Held the confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of the TADA is admissible against the co-accused or abettor or conspirator provided an acwsed is Uied with other co-accused abettor or conspirator in the same t1ial in respect of offence under TADA-Such con- fessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible against the accused if E· he is not t1ied for any offence under TADA-1he confessional statements were not admissible so far as the appellants-accused were concemed-As there was 110 reliable evidence en the basis of which they can be convicted for the offence under Section 107 read with Sections 34 and 109 !PC, the conviction and sentence passed against them cannot be sustained. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, JT (1994) 2 SC 423, distinguished. TADA-Conviction unde1~Validity of-Accused-Retracted conf es- F sion--(;01roboration-Recove1y of money paid by accused for engaging ter- G rorists to commit murder of complainant and also to create te1Tor in society and to bring dishannony between Hindu and Sikhs-Recovery of motor· cycle used by te1mlists from the place of occu1Tence-The confessional statements though retracted, lend supporl to the other evidence led in the case about the complicity of the appellants in the offences alleged against them-Held conviction of accused under section 3(3) was justified. H 51 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.· B c 297 of 1996 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.96 of the Additional Judge, · Designated Court Karna! at Kurukshetra in Sessions Case (TD) No. 27 of 1992, Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1995. U.R. Lalit, R.K. Talwar, Goodwill Indeever, Uma Datta and Jasbir Malik for the appearing Parties. Kamaljeet Kochhar and J.L. Jain for complainant in Cr!. A. No. 637/96. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Both these appeals are directed against the decision dated 20.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Karna! at Kurukshetra in Sessions Trial No. 39/95. The appellants in Cr!. Appeal No. D 297/96 namely Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath were tried with the appellants Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur in the other Crl. A. No. 637 of 1996 and also with two other accused Kaka alias Charanjit Singh and Sukhpal Singh Alia:, Khushbal Singh. E F It appears that the appellants Baba Peer Paras Nath and Baldev Nath Chela were charged for an offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants Kashmir Singh and Jaswant Kaur were charged for offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 and 109 of the I.P.C. and also offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive (Prevention) Activities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA). It may be stated here that confessional statements were made by all the six accused persons befote the Superintendent of Police under Section 15 of the TADA but later on, the accused retracted with confessional statements. The prosecution case in short is that the appellants Baba Peer G Paras Nath and Baldev wanted! to kill the complainant Peer Govind Nath in order to take control of Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple at Railway Road, Kurukshetra and for the said purpose through the appellant Jaswant Kaur they had approached two terrorists Puran Singh and Karnail Singh (since deceased) on payment of money and the appellants Kashmir Singh H · and Jaswant Kaur and Kala alias Charanjit Singh and Sukhbal Singh alias BABA PEER PARAS NATH v. STA TE 53 Khi.Jshpal Singh, in order to execute the said plan contacted the said two A terrorists on 19.6.92. At about 7.30 P.M. the complainant alongwith Om Prakash, Dr. Narinder Prakash and Arnn were sitting in a room in the temple. At that time, two young Sikhs came inside the r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.