LexMOHD. AYUB DAR versus STATE OF J & K
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2010] 8 S.C.R. 916 MOHD. AYUB DAR V. STATE OF J & K (Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 2009) JULY 21, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989 (AD 1932) - ss. 302 C and 1208 r/w s. 3(3) of TADA Act - Conviction under - By designated court - On appeal, held: Conviction is justified - Prosecution was able to prove the homicidal death - The confession made by the accused was voluntary and truthful and hence reliable - The confessional statement was also D corroborated by oral and documentary evidence - Once confession made uls. 15 of TADA Act is accepted, no other evidence is required - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 3(3) and 15. E F G H Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Held: Can be used for proving non-TADA offences - Ranbir Penal Code,, Samvat 1989 - ss. 302 and 1208. s. 15 - Confessional Statement under - Evidentiary value - Need for corroboration - Held: If the confession is voluntary and truthful and relates to accused himself, no corroboration necessary - Conviction can be solely based on it. J & K .Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989 (AD 1933) - s. 374 - Applicability of - Conviction of accused for the offences under TADA Act and RPC, by designated court - Life imprisonment - Appeal to Supreme Court without confirmation of the order of imprisonment by High Court - 916 MOHD. AYUB DAR v. STATE OF J & K 917 Power of Supreme Court to look into legality of life A imprisonment in view of s. 374 - Held: In view of ss. 2(b), 14, 19 and 25 of TADA Act, for the trial before designated court, Cr.P.C., 1973 is applicable and not Cr.P.C., Samvat 1989 - Thus, s. 374 is not applicable - Therefore, Supreme Court can look into the legality of life imprisonment - Terrorists and B Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 2(b), 14(3), 19' and 25 - Ranbir Penal Code, Sam vat 1989 - ss. 302 and 120 B. Appellant-accused, alongwith four other accused C persons, was prosecuted uls. 3 (3) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and u/s. 3o2 and 1208 of Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989. As per the prosecution case, two terrorist groups were apprehensive that the deceased would assume political leadership of Kashmir and that he was an agent of Indian D Government. The accused pe_!§ons, who were members of one of the militant groups, entered. into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. On the fateful day, the appellant-accused alongwith two of the accused went to the office of the deceased. One of the other two E accused fired at the deceased, while the other, accused fired in the air. Thereafter the three accused as per the direction of their head went underground. The appellant- accused was arrested in Delhi in some other case. Thereafter, he was arrested in the instant case. In his F statement u/s. 15 of the TADA Act, made before PW-2, he confessed his crime and the involvement of other accused persons. The post-mortem of the dead body could not be carried out as a very serious law and order situation arose due to death of the deceased and on the G demand of the followers of the deceased, the dead-body was handed over to them without the post-mortem being carried out. Two of the assailants died during pendency of the H 918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A trial, while the other two were untraceable. Appellant- accused alone came to be charged. The designated court, relying on the evidence of the witnesses and the confessional statement of the appellant-accused, convicted him u/s. 3(3) of TADA Act and u/s. 302 of RPC B and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine with default stipulation. The instant appeal was filed against the order of the designated court by the accused. Dismissing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that the life imprisonment ordered by the trial court was liable to be confirmed by the High Court and the same having not been done, this Court could not look into the question of legality of the life imprisonment because u/s. 374 of D Cr.P.C., Samvat 1989, as applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, even if a life imprisonment ordered by the court is that State is required to be confirmed, it is specifically provided in Section 14(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act that the designated cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.