MOHD. KHALID versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 03-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHD. KHALID 
V. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2002 
[B.N. KIRPAL, CJI., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code: Sections 1208, 302, 307, 326, 436/Explosive Substances 
Act, 1908; Sections 3 and 5: 
. Criminal Conspirac;~Proving of-Held, in the absence of direct 
evidence, the circumstances prov.ed before, during and after the occurrence of 
crime could be considered to decide about complicity of accused-Mere proof 
of an agreement between accused for commission of crime is enough to convict 
A 
B 
c 
them under Section 1208-Proof of overt act is not necessary. 
D 
Criminal Conspiracy-Confession by co-accused-Corroboration of-
Held, when trustworthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence 
is available, it could be taken into consideration-,-Court must consider first 
evidence adduced by the prosecution and form opinion as to quality and effect 
and then to consider such confession to arrive at the conclusion of guilt- E 
Evidence Act, 1872-Confession. 
Right to private defence-Commencement of-Held, in the absence of 
any attack, reasonable apprehension does not arise-Thus, right to private 
defence does not commence. 
Examination of witnesses-Selection thereof-Held, the prosecution can 
pick and choose with due care, honestly and fairly those witnesses who could 
be considered relevant and material in unfolding the case-Evidence Act, 
1872. 
F 
EvidenceAct, 1872: Statement made by one conspirator against another- G 
Admissibility of-Held, admissible, so long as the agreement to do illegal act 
continues or-the object is achieved. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Sections 
3(2)(1) and 3(3): Terrorizing of people .Ambit and meaning of-Held, H 
31 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A preparation of bomb and its possession would amount to terror~ing the people 
and is a terrorist act. 
According to the prosecution, accused persons conspired and 
manufactured bombs and exploded them. One building was completely 
demolished and two other adjoining buildings were partially demolished, 
B as a result of which a large number of people died and several injured. 
An F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 1208, 436, 302, 307,327 IPC and 
Sections 3 and .5 of the Explosive Substances Act. 
Two of the accused were arrested. Their confessional statements were 
recorded by the Magistrates (PWs.81 and ·82). Since accused exploded 
C bombs with intent to strike terror in the minds of the people adversely 
affecting the communal harmony amongst Hindus and Muslims, relevant 
provisions of the TADA Act were also added after seeking necessary 
sanction from the Government. Accused challenged the validity ofsanction 
for their prosecution under TADA Act. High Court quashed the order of · 
D sanction. This Court allowed the appeal against the said order and directed 
·the TADA ·cou~t to proceed in accord~nce with law with utmost 
expedition • .... 
The Designated Court examined 165 witnesses and also picked up 3 · 
star :witnesses to prove the conspiracy and the connected act. The Court 
· E · found them guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 1208 IPC, 
and Sections 3(2)(1), 3(3) of the TADA Act read with Section 34 IPC. 
However, it acq.uittei:I them of charges under Sections 302 and 406 IPC. 
Hence these cross appeals. 
. 
I 
• 
• 
• 
• 
' 
It was contended for the appellant-accused that the star witnesses 
F : were rowdy elements and were persons with doubtful antecedents, 
therefore, probablises their deposition ·as fake at the behest of police 
officers;. that statements of PWs were recorded after two days of 
occurrence of crime ,,;ithout any explanation; that many. independent. 
' 
witnesses were not examined thereby raising suspicion on the prosecution 
~ 
G . version; that accused had made retraction subsequently and so no 
importance could be given to such confessio.n;.the accused were preparing. 
to protect themselves in exercise of their right to private defence in the 
event of attack by Hindus on them; they were not aggressors; that there 
was no material to show that they had caused explosions; that confession 
by co-accused persons cannot be used against others unless other evidence 
H was convincing and ·credrble; that Section IO of the Evidence Act has no · 
.. 
MOHD. KHALID,, STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
33 
application since the act flowing from the conspiracy was over, and so the A 
confessional statement recorded in relation to the ·cons

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