HARBANS SINGH versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 15-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARBANS SINGH 
A 
1( 
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 
FEBRUARY 15, 2007 
[S.B.SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
y 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002-ss . 3(5), 20, 22(2), 32, and 52-
... 
Hawala transaction to a member of terrorist group by the accused-Recovery 
of money immediately after transaction-Confessional statement by the c 
accused-Confirmed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to be as per 
provisions of s.32-Purpose of transaction not explained by the accused-
Conviction by Courts below-On appeal, held: Conviction justified-Since 
the purpose of transaction was within the knowledge of the accused alone, 
s. 106 of Evidence Act casts upon them responsibility of advancing an 
explanation for the same-Accused having failed in discharging their onus, D 
an adverse inference is attracted-ss.32 and 52 were also complied with-
.._,. 
Evidence Act, 1872-s.106 . 
;r 
The police, after receiving an information that 'A' a member of Laskar-
e-Taiba (Let) would receive an amount sent through hawala at a particular 
place, followed his movements. On the relevant day, 'A' was identified by details E 
of his clothes. Appellant-accused came to him,' A' took out a 10 rupee note, 
appellant matched the same with a paper. slip and-then gave a black polythene 
packet to 'A'. Both were immediately arrested. 'A' admitted his contacts with 
Let and receipt of the amount by hawala. The amount was found in the polythene 
packet. Police also arrested 'B' who allegedly had handed over the money to F 
the appellant. All the three were chargesheeted for offences under Prevention 
of Terrorism Act, 2002. DCP, Special Branch (PW4) recorded the 
confessional statements of the appellant and co-accused 'A'. Co-accused 'B' 
declined to make confessional statement. Appellant as well as 'A' denied to 
have made the confessional statement, when produced before Judicial 
Magistrate. During trial, PW4 described the manner in which the G 
confessional statement was recorded. Trial Court on the basis of the 
- .A 
confessional statement and recovery of the polythene packet containing the 
amount and recovery of the slip and 10 rupee note, convicted the appellant 
and co-accused 'A'. Co-accused 'B' were acquitted. Appeal against order of 
689 
H 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 2 S.C.R. 
A trial Court was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution 
has sufficiently proved that the confession of the accused was genuine and it 
B was made and confirmed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as per the 
provisions of Section 32 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. As seen from 
the record, the recovery of the money immediately after the transaction in 
question has been sufficiently proved. Admittedly, the two accused i.e. appellant 
and 'A' were strangers to each other till the time the money was being handed 
c 
D 
over. Neither of the two claimed to have had any kind of transaction with each 
other at any earlier point of time. They were neither partners in business 
nor had any occasion to deal with each other. In this situation, the purpose of 
handing over the cash is especially within the knowledge of the two accused, 
Section 106 of the Evidence Act casts upon them a responsibility of advancing 
an explanation for the same. [Para 13] [695-C, D, E, Fl 
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors., [2000] 8 SCC 
382 and Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, JT (2001) 4 SC 107, relied on. 
1.2. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied having 
made any such confession. Instead of coming out with some explanation of · 
E their own about the purpose of handing over the money, they denied that there 
was ever any transaction of giving and taking the sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. They 
even denied that they were arrested by the police on the spot and the sum of 
Rs.7 lakhs was recovered from them. Appellant who said that he was actually 
arrested fro'm the office of one 'P' has not cared to prove this allegation by 
production of evidence. [Para 14] (695-G; 696-A) 
F 
1.3. It can be seen that the entire case of the prosecution has been proved 
by the prosecution witnesses except the purpose of the transaction. In the 
absence of any explanation from the accused in this regard, an adverse 
inference is attracted. They have failed to discharge their onus. It is only for 
G this missing link that the confessional statements were used

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