LexESSA@ ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH STF, CBI MUMBAI, PART-II
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 15 S.C.R. 621 ESSA@ ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON A vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH STF, CBI MUMBAI PART-II (Appeals relating to life sentence) B CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1178 of 2007 etc. MARCH 21, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987: SS. 3(3) of TADA ands. 120-B /PC rlw SS. 3(2)(i), 3(3),3(4), c · 5 and 6 of TADA - Serial bomb blasts in Bombay in March, 1993 - Conviction and sentence .of life imprisonment by D Designated Court - Held: The confessional statements of accused and co-accused as also the evidence of approver and other prosecution witnesses, the recoveries made and other evidences, establish the guilt of all accused-appellants - Their conviction as recorded by Designated Court, is E confirmed - Except appellants-accused A- 15, A-136 and A- 71 sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to all other accused-appellants is confirmed - Appellant-accused A-15 is suffering froin AIDS/HIV+, though sentence of life · imprisonment is appropriate, however, since he has remained F · in jail for 14 years, sentence o; period already undergone would be sufficient.- Appellant-accused A-136 wasrightly not found guilty of the common charge of conspiracy under head firstly by.Designated Court - However, his sentence of 10 years RI for conviction. of charges at heads secondly and G thirdly is confirmed~ Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120"8, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212-Arms Act,1959 - ss. 3, 7 rlw 25 (1-A), (1-B) (a) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ss. 3, 4(a), 4(b), 5 and 6 - Explosives Act, 1884 - ss. 621 H 622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A 98 (1) (a), (b) and (c) - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - s. 4. ss. 5 and 6 - Unlawful possession of huge quantity of contraband arms and explosives in Notified area - Presumption - Held: Since the presumption as to accused- B appellant (A-71) himself being in possession of arms and explosives for commission of terrorist activity, has not been rebutted, Designated Court rightly found him guilty u/s 5 - Further being in possession of such contraband arms and explosives, provisions of Arms Act and Explosives Act have C been contravened, making the appellant-accused liable u/s 6 of TADA and ss. 3 and 7 r/w s. 25(1-A) and (1-B) of Arms Act - However, there is no material to show that the recovered contraband arms and explosives were used in the crime by accused-appellant - Further, as prosecution failed to connect D the recovered contraband arms and explosives with the conspiracy for which charge was framed under head 'Firstly', accused-appellant was rightly not held liable for commission of the said offence - In the circumstances, taking into consideration the age and ailment of accused-appellant, while E confirming the conviction, sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to 10 years RI . F G H EVIDENCE: Discrepancies in narrations of witnesses - Held: Unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to disbelieve the evidence in its entirety - In the instant case, the contradictions pointed out on behalf of the appellant are minor contradictions and do not render the evidence unbelievable. Evidence of hostile witness - Held: Can be retied upon. IDENTIFICATION: Test identification parade - Held: The evidence with regard to TIP can only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence and is a test to strengthen trustworthiness of the ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 623 MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI substantive evidence of the witness before court - In the A instant case, all the witnesses have identified the appellant before court, SEM on this aspect withstood his cross examination and TIP was validly conducted and all necessary precautions were ensured by SEM. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: B Provisions in statutes to provide overriding effect - Provisions of JJ Act and TADA - Held: The principle that the latter Act would prevail over the earlier Act has consistently been held to be subject to the exception that a general C provision does not derogate from a special one - Where the literal meaning of the general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in the earlier Act, it would be presumed that the situation was intended to continue to be dealt with by the specific provision rath
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.