LAL SINGH ETC. ETC versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 111 · Decided: 09-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

LAL SINGH ETC. ETC. 
A 
\( 
STA TE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
JANUARY 9, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Terrorisl and Disruptive Aclivities (Prevention) Ac!, 1987--Section 
3(2) u11d 3(3)-0f/ences under-Nature o/-Convil:lion under-Held. un 
accused rnn be com·icted under Section 3(3) ll'ithout conl'icting any other 
uccu.W!d under Section 3(2)·-Section 3 ( 3) constitutes an independent ojfi'nce. C 
Section 3-Benefit of doubt-Accused charged with conspiracy to 
commit terrorist acts-Recove1J· of arms on the hasis of the confessional 
statement of co-accused-Accused facilitating the activities of the co-
accused-Held, presumption of innocence ceases lo ex isl-Accused lo explain D 
the recovelJ'· 
Section I 5-Confessional starement-Validity of-Statement recorded 
while the accused was in police custody-A/legalion that guidelines laid 
down in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab not followed-Held, the confessional 
statement is admissible in evidence-Can be relied upon against !he E 
accused-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987-Rule 
15. 
Terrorist and Disruplive Activities (Prevenlion) Rules, 1987-Rule /./-
Search-Validity of-Search carried out prior to registration of a case under 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Search by a 
Superintendent of Police without warrant issued by the District Magistrale-
Held, not vitiated-Code of Criminal Procedure-Sec/ion 165. 
F 
Penal Code-Section I 20-B-Cri111inal conspiracy-Burden of proof-
Conspiracy for commission ofterrorisl activities-Confession by the accused- G 
Held, proof reqz1ired is of such degree that a prudent 111an on its basis 111ay 
believe in the existence ofthefacl in issue-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Ac1, 1987--Section 3. 
Twenty-one persons, including the Appellants, were tried jointly for 
H 
111 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) I S.C.R. 
A commission of offences under Sections 3(3) and 5 of the Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 120-B of the Indian 
B 
Penal Code, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the 
...,, 
Arms Act. 
The case of the prosecution was that Accused No. I was arrested on 
16.7.1992 at Dadar Railway Station in respect of RC 5/92. The Bombay 
police recorded the confession of Accused No. I and on coming to know that 
his associates were operating from Baroda and other cities of Gujarat, the 
Commissioner of Police, Baroda was informed. The Baroda police interrogated 
Accused No. I and came to know that arms and ammunitions had been stored 
C by the accused persons in two premises in Ahmedabad, i.e at Paresh 
Apartment and at Usman Harun Society. The premises were raided by the 
Superintendent of Police, CID (Crime) in front of p1111cl111s and huge quantities 
of arms, ammunitions and explosives were recovered from there. Thereafter, 
RC-6/92 was registered and investigations were carried out. 
J.. 
D 
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons had hatched a criminal 
conspiracy to undertake subversive and terrorist activities in India and abroad 
between September 1988 to July 1992 for facilitating the creation of Khalistan 
and liberation of Jammu and Kashmir. Accused No. 2 was a Pakistani national 
and an agent of the Pakistani military intelligence, who had entered into 
E India for getting information regarding defence base of India and for collecting 
other inside information in connection with defence personnel and army 
positions in India. For this purpose he contacted Accused Nos. I, 3 and 4. 
Accused Nos. I and 2 entered into India, lodged at different places in order 
to achieve the goal. Both of them created contacts in India with Accused No. 
20 at Aligarh and Accused Nos. 3 and 4 at Bombay. Accused Nos. I and 2 
F visited various places of India including Ahmedabad and Bombay under their 
fake names. The modus operandi of these two accused persons was to have 
their activities ur:der false identity. Their targets were to create hideouts, 
to have their own agents, to have their contacts with the agents in Pakistan, 
UK·, Canada etc. and to have hideouts elsewhere. Accused Nos. I and 4 visited 
G Madras to survey the stock exchange building to find out the possibility of 
a bomb blast there. The accused persons were using various types of vehicles 
out of which vehicles, one jeep and scooter were recovered from Ahmedabad 
and one Gypsy was recovered from Bombay. During interrogation of Accused 
No. 1, h

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