LexCHANDRA PRAKASH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 6 S.C.R. 819 CHANDRA PRAKASH A V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1155 of 2014) MAY 9, 2014 B [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 307, 427 rlw s. 1208; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: s.3; Explosive Substances Act, 1908: s. 3; Explosive Act, 1884: s. 98 - c Conviction under - Evidence of approver that all accused used to meet at one place and bring explosive substance and the approver himself used to carry the boxes of substance along with other accused - Approver implicated himself in the crime and did not make any effort to give any exculpatory D statement - On the basis of evidence of approver, accused was arrested and search conducted - Recovery of explosive substance was made at the instance of accused - Deposition of expert witness to the effect that ammonium nitrate seized from appellant's godown was in such a condition that it could E be used to prepare bomb - Recovery of fuse wire, live bomb, ammonium nitrate and other items made at the instance of appellants - Chain of events and participation of the accused persons which had the genesis in the discussion and meetings, the purchase of ammonium nitrate and other items, F carrying of the boxes and all other·factors showed that there was conspiracy - Charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt - No interference called for with the order of conviction. : Test Identification Parade: Object of - Delay in conducting TIP - Held: The purpose of TIP is to provide G corroborative evidence and is more confirmatory in nature -- Delay per se cannot be fatal to validity of holding an identification parade in all cases without exception. 819 H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 6 S.C.R. A Evidence: Testimony of accomplice/approver - Evidentiary value of - Held: Testimony of accomplice/ approver can be relied upon if it is corroborated by independent evidence either direct or circumstantial connecting the accused with the crime - While looking for B corroboration, one must first look at the broad spectrum of approver's version and then find out whether there is other evidence to lend assurance to that version. ' Evidence Act, 1872: s. 27 - Discovery under - _Held: It should be credibly proved that the discovery made was a C relevant and material discovery which proceeded in pursuance of information supplied by accused in custody - In the instant case, bombs, wires, ammonium nitrate and other i\ems were recovered at the instance of accused - The accused has stated about the fact of planting of bomb at a D particular site in the stadium and led. to the said place from which the bomb was recovered - The said fact is a relevant fact and admissible in evidence. Explosive Substances Act, 1908: E s.2 - Explosive Substance - Ammonium nitrate, fuse wire, empty boxes, Dynamite, Detonator, Gulla etc. - Seized from the possession of accused persons - Held: Possession of these articles in such large quantity by the accused gave credence to the prosecution version that possession was F conscious and intended to be used in blast - Explosive Act, 1884 - s.4(d}. s. 7 - Consent by District Magistrate for prosecution - Held: s. 7 does not require a sanction but only consent for G prosecuting a pf}rson for an offence under the Explosive Substance Act - Approval/consent granted by District Magistrate cannot be treated as vitiated - Document of consent of District Magistrate showed that the same was proved by the competent authority - Examination of District H magistrate to prove consent is not necessary. CHANDRA PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 821 Code _of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Non-framing of A specific charges - Held: The purpose of-framing of charges is that accused should be informed with certainty and accuracy of charge brought against him - There should not be vagueness - Accused must know the scope and particulars in detail - In the case at hand, the charges were B framed - That apart, neither any prejudice was caused nor there was any failure of justice .. Criminal Law: Criminal conspiracy - While dealing with the fact of criminal conspiracy, it has to be kept in mind that C in case of conspiracy, there is no direct evidence - Circumstances proved before, during and after the occu"ence have to be considered to decide about complicity of accused - Such conspiracy is never hatched in open and, therefore, evaluation of proved circumstanc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.