LexJAYAWANT DATTATRAY SURYARAO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
. B
JAYAWANf DATIATR.AY SURYARAO
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NOVEMBER 5, 200 l
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) ·
Indian Penal Code, 1860/Artils Act, 1959-Sections 3(2)(i), (ii), (3), (4) 5 and
6/Sections 212, 1208, . 302 307 r/w Section 34/Section 27-Prosecution
C
under-Prime accused ident(fied by injured eye-witness-Confessional state-
menTs by accused corroborated by confessional statements of other accused
anti by statements of prosecution witnesses-Conviction and sentence of death
by tlesignated Court- Plea that convic:tion under TADA not just{fi.ed since rhe
case was of a gang rivalry-On appec1l, conviction co~firmed-However death
D
E
sentence converted to life imprisonment~Whether act was committed with
intent to strike terror would depend on the .facts of each case-The intent can
be inferred .from the manner and mode of commission of the act and its after-
effect including .fear psychMis-Jn the circumstances of the case it can be
inferred that crime was committed w strike terror.
Section 15 of 1987 Act-Cm!fessional statement-Evidentiary value,
Reliability and admissibility of-Held, it is a substantive evidence and can be
relied upon in the trial-Minor irregularities in rhe statement would not make it
inadmissible in evidence.
Section 20A(2) of 1987 Act-Sanction .for prosecution-Sanction granted
F
qfter considering relevant materials- Hence, no~ illegal or erroneous.
G
Sentencing-Death sentence-Converted to life imprisonment-However,
in view of heinous act, accused not entitled to any commutation or premature
release-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 433A-Prisoners Act,
1900.
24 accused including the appellants Al, A6 and A 7 were alleged to
have committed murder of one p!'isoner undergoing treatment in a hospi-
tal and two policemen who were on his guard duty and of having commit-
ted attempt of murder of PWs ll, 54, 9 and 42 and two others in the
H
hospital.
54
JAYAWANTDATIATRAY SURYARAO v. STATE
55
Accused 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were tried by the designated Court
A
for their offences under Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Ad, 1987, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Arms Act, 1959. Other accused
were absconding or shot-dead. The prosecution case was that the shoot-
out in the hospital was by the members of one gang to kiD the deceased·
prisoner, a member of rival gang. Prosecution relied on confessional state·
ments of accused-appellants. A2 Who was President of Municipal Council,
had confessed that be bad used his official vehicle on 12.9.1992 accompa·
nied by body-guard and driven by PW 17 for movement of A7, and again
on 14.9.92 due to threat of A7; and that out offear he torn off two pages of
logbook regarding entry of his movement on 12.9.1992 and instructed PW
B
c
17 to re-write the logbook; and that when the police started making
inquiries, he sent PW 17 out of city as advised by A7. A6 the prime
accused confessed his involvement in the crime including the crimes com·
mitted previously, that in the hospital he had asked another co-accused to
return back without firing; and that he retaliated after being tired by
someone; and that he had contacted A 7 to make arrangements to take one
D
injured accused to hospital after the incident. However, he did not confess
of having fi~d at the deceased or the injured. A7 confessed that he had
called the vehicle of A2 at the advice of A6 and he was informed about the
shoot-out incident by A6. Prosecution also relied on evidence ofPWs 9, 12,
17, 25, 26,37 and 42. PW9 posted on guard duty of the prisoner, who had
got injured in the incident, identified A6 as having fired gun shots and the
discription of A6 given by him was corroborated by evidence of PWs 12,
26 and 42. Evidence of PWs 12 and 26, the body-guards of A2 and of PWs
17, 25 and 37 corroborated the version of A2 with regard to the movement
of the vehicles.
During trial designated court observed that PW 42, PSI who was on
duty on the day of incident, resigned from his job, suffered mental depres·
sion and W9rried about the safety of his family even after 7 years of the
incident; and a retired Army Officer deposing before the Court started
weeping in the witness box. The Court relying on the confessional state·
ments of the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses convicted
E
F
G
A6 under Sections 3(2)(i) and (ii), (3), 5 and 6 of TADAExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.