ESHER SINGH versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 1180 · Decided: 15-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ESHER SINGH 
v. 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
MARCH 15, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARlJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections l 20A, l 20B and 302-Criminal Procedure 
Code, 1973--Section 2(b)-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
C Act, 1987 (TADA)--Sections 3(3), 4, 5, 6 and 15-Appellant was involved in 
giving provocative speeches for formation of Khalistan and inciting violence 
fanning religious feelings-Appellant and other accused charged for criminal 
conspiracy and murder of deceased under IPC and TADA-Prosecution relied 
on confession statement of one of the accused, who died without facing trial, 
in convicting the appellant-Designated Court convicted only the appellant 
D under section 4 of TADA for making provocative speeches and acquitted the 
appellant and other accused from the offence of criminal conspiracy and 
murder-Designated Court disregarded the evidences of some witnesses being 
relatives of the deceased-Correctness of-Held, use of a confessional statement 
against the accused under Section 15 of TADA is permissible when both the 
accused making the confessional statement and the co-accused are facing 
E trial after framing of charges-Designated Court was wrong in disregarding 
the evidences of witnesses merely on the ground of relationship without giving 
reasons-Evidences of such witnesses can be acted upon if they are cogent 
and credible-Ingredients necessary for conviction under section 4 of TADA 
have been clearly established by prosecution against appellant-On evidence, 
p the conviction for criminal conspiracy and murder not established by 
prosecution-Evidence Act, I 872 : Section 30-Jndian Arms Act, 1959 : Section 
27. 
Constitution of India-Article 136--Special Leave Petition by son of 
the deceased challenging the acquittal of appellant and other accused by 
G Designated Court-Maintainability of-Held, maintainable-Supreme Court 
has discretionary power to entertain such appeal to prevent serious miscarriage 
of justice. 
Appellant and other accused intended to take over the institutions 
established by the deceased and make a base for Khalistan movement. The 
H 
.llW 
( 
ESHER SINGH v. STATE OF A.P. 
1181 
appellant was involved in giving provocative speeches for formation of A 
Khalistan and inciting violence fanning religious feelings. The appellant 
and other accused were charged for criminal conspiracy and murder of 
t 
the deceased under sections 120-B and 302 read with 120-B IPC, 3(2) of 
the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) and 
Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 5 and 6 of B 
TADA . 
... 
~ 
The Designated Court, on the basis of the evid,!nce tendered by PWs 
16 and 32 and corroborated by the confessional statement of one of the 
accused (A-5), held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 
-
4 of TADA and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and. c 
a fine of Rs. 1000 with default stipulation. The Designated Court did not 
) 
rely on evidences of other .witnesses on the ground of relationship with 
the deceased; however it acquitted the appellant and other accused against 
other offences since the allegations were not established. Appeals were filed 
before this Court by the appellant challenging his conviction under section 
4 of TADA and by the State challenging the acquittal of the appellant and D 
other accused persons from other offences charged with. An appeal was 
also filed by the son of the deceased before this Court. 
The appellant contended that the evidence of PWs 16 and 32 do not 
prove the accusations against the appellant; that no specific instance of E 
fanning of religious feelings through provocative speeches for formation 
' 
of Khalistan and creating communal disharmony by the appellant was 
-~~ 
proved; that the confessional statement of the accused (A-5), who died 
before the charges were framed, was not admissible in law; and that the 
Designated Court acted upon certain statements which were made in the 
Court for the first time and were not told during investigation. The F 
~ 
appellant further contended that the appeal filed by the son of the deceased 
is not maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 
The State, in its appeal, contended that accused A-5 had categorically 
confessed about the involvement of the appellant and other accused in the 
crime; that the death of the accused A-5, before framing of charges, cannot G 
af

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