LexMOHMED SALEEMLIAS CHUHO MOHMED SHAKOOR versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MOHMED SALEEM A LIAS CHUHO MOHMED SHAKOOR A v. STATE OF GUJARAT JULY 19, 1994 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] Terrorist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 3(1)-Ambit and Scope of-No evidence that injury caused to complainant with intention contemplated by Section 3(1}-Conviction u/s 3(1) not sus- tainable. Indian Penal Code, 1860--Section 324-injuries on abdomen and back caused by a sharp knife-Conviction u/s 324 sustainable. B c The appellant was put up for trial for offences under·Section 324 IPC. Section 3(1) of TADA and Section 135(1) of the Bomahy Police Act. D The Trial Court found that the charge for the offence u/s 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act was not made out and consequently the appellant was acquitted of the said charge. In this appeal under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the Complainant alleged that while he E was returning after visiting his brother, be found some unknown person coming towards him. On reaching the complainant, that person took out a knife and gave him a blow on bis abdomen. While being dragged towards the Chawl, he was given one more blow on bis neck. The assailant was also inflicted a knife blow on bis back. The complainant however managed to F escape. Disposing of the matter, this Court HELD : 1.1. The complainant sustained an Injury on his abdomen apart from an injury on his back. The injuries had been caused by him by G a sharp knife and the designated court was right in coming to the con· cluslon that an offence under section 324 IPC had been made out against the appellant. The appreciation of the evidence in so far as the offence u/s 324 !PC was concerned, is proper. (804-C, D] 1.2. The designated court convicted the appellant for an offence H _... 801 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A under Section 3(1) of TADA. The court fell in error in finding that the offence u/s 3(1) had been made out against the appellant. In the estab· lished facts and circumstances of the case recourse to Section 3(1) of TADA disclosed a clear misuse of the provisions of that Act. There was no an iota of evidence that the injury was caused to the complainant with the B intention contemplated by Section 3(1) to achieve the objective envisaged by the said section. The complainant had not stated that at any point of time, any of the assailants belaboured him only because they believed him to be a "non-Muslim" or had attacked him for that reason. That apart, the complainant on his own admission "managed to escape from the clutches of the assailants". In the absence of any evidence from which even an C inference could be drawn that the assault was made on the victim with the requisite intention as envisaged by Section 3(1) of TADA to achieve the objective as envisaged by that section, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 3(1) TADA is not at all sustainable. (804-E, F, 805-A, C, 806-A) D Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1994) suppl. 1 SCR, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Crl. Appeal No. 197/94. E From the Judgment aod 0,der dated the 31st December 1993 of the Additional designated Court at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Criminal case No. . ., ... , .... 6 of 1993. W.A Nomani & lrshad Ahmed for the Appellant. F R.P. Bhatti, Anip Sachthey and S.K. Sabharwal for the Respondents. G The following Order of the Court was delivered by : This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter TADA). The prosecution story, as emerging from the record is that a com- plaint was lodged by one Jugal Kishore Puran Lal Gupta complainant, with Gomtipur Police Station on 10th July, 1992 alleging that when he was returning after visiting his brother's Video Cassette Library Located near Vivekanada Mills on a bicycle, near Arbuda Mills, he found one unknown H person coming towards him. On reaching near the complainant, that ,J • MOHD. SALEEM v. STATE OF GUJARAT 803 person took out a knife and gave him a blow on his abdomen. Two or three. A more persons came out from a nearby Chaw! and asked the assailant to drag the complainant into the Chaw!. While being dragged towards the Chaw!, he was given one more blow on the left side of this neck. The assailant was also inflicted a knife blow on his back. The complainant, however, manage
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.