LexMOHD. MAQBOOL TANTRAY versus STATE OF J & K
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010] 3 S.C.R. 589
MOHD. MAQBOOL TANTRAY
v.
STATE OF J & K
(Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 4, 2010·
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]
A
B
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
s.3(2)(ii) and s.364 rlw s.120-8 RPG - Out of several C
persons prosecuted for abduction and murder of an MLA, only
3 brought to trial - Two acquitted - Only one convicted u/s
3(2)(ii) TADA and s.3641120-8 RPG - Sentence of 14 years
imprisonment uls 3(2)(ii) of TADA and 5 years uls 3641120-
8 RPG imposed - Plea that in view of the convict having o
shown his remorse while making the confession before the
SSP, the sentence be reduced to the period already
undergone - HELD: It is indeed true that a conviction under
the TADA is a very serious matter and calls for a deterrent
punishment - At the same time, the facts of each case cannot
E
be ignored - In the instant case, all the co-accused of the
appellant have either been acquitted or have not been brought
to trial - Appellant has expressed his regrets for the
circumstance which had ultimately led to the murder of the
deceased - Trial court has given a positive finding that the
F
appellant was only involved with the abduction part and had
nothing to do with the murder of the MLA - Appellant has
undergone more than 11 Yz years of sentence after facing
protracted trial spread over almost 20 years - He had been
released on bail for a period of 1 Yz years and during this
G
period his conduct and behaviour had remained exemplary
- In the circumstances, while dismissing the appeal, sentence
reduced from 14 years to that already undergone - Sentence
Judgment received on 13.4.2010
589
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 3 S.C.R.
A - Ranbir Penal Code - s.364 rlw s.120-8. [para 4, 5 and 7]
Gurdeep Singh alias Deep vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 1999
(2) Suppl. SCR 693 = (2000) 1 SCC 498, relied on.
B
Case Law Reference:
1999 {2) Suppl. SCR 693
Relied on
Para 4
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 342 of 2009.
C
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.2.2009 of the 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Designated Court under
TADA) in File No. 20/Ch.
Mohan Jain, ASG, E.C. Agrawala, Amit Kumar Sharma,
D Nishant Katoch, Dinesh Thakur, Rohini Mukherjee, Prabhat
Kumar, Vibhav Mishra, T.V. Ratnam, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Jaspreet Aulakh, P.K, Dey, B. Krishna Prasad, Anis
Suhrawardy, S. Mehdi lmaz, Tabreez Ahmed for the appearing
parties.
E
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
F length.
2. The appellant Mohd. Maqbool Tantray along with 17
others was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302/
392/364 etc. of the Ranbir Penal Code [for short 'the RPC'] and
Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
G (Prevention) Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA']
for being involved in the abduction and murder of former MLA
Mir Mustafa on the 25th March, 1990. Eleven of the accused
were discharged on the statement made by the Public
Prosecutor, three died during the pendency of the trial and one
H absconded and three were brought to trial including the
MOHD. MAQBOOL TANTRAY v. STATE OF J & K
591
appellant. In the trial three co-accused of the appellant herein
A
were acquitted but the court relying on the evidence of various
prosecution witnesses and in particular on the confessional
statement given by the appellant to the SSP Mr. A.K. Suri,
convicted him for offences punishable under Section 364 read
with Section 1208 of the RPC and sentenced him to undergo
B
rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for six months and
under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in
default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for c
a period of one year, both the sentences to run concurrently.
The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of
the trial court as the appeal under TADA lies directly to the
Supreme Court.
3. Mr. Agrawala, the learned counsel for the appellant has
D
not argued the matter on merits but has pointed out that in view
of the above facts more particularly that eleven out of 18
accused had been discharged and the two co-accused· of the
appellant herein had been acquitted vide the impugned
judgment and the additional fact that the triExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.