LexRANJIT SINGH @ JITA AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. RANJIT SINGH@ JITA AND ORS. v. STA TE OF PUNJAB SEPTEMBER 11, 2002 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860/Terrorist and Disruplive Activities (Prevention) Acl, 1987/Arms Act, 1959: A B Ss. 148, 3071149, 3631149/ss. 3, 5 and 15/s. 25-Alleged encounter- C Large scale firing alleged between accused and police party-Accused alleged lo have surrendered-Large number of unauthorised arms and ammunition alleged to have been recovered from accused-Accused prosecuted for respective offences-Confession recorded by police officers under s. 15 of TADA Act-During trial accused and defence witnesses denied prosecution D case and stated that they were picked up by police from the village- Independent recovery witness declared hostile-Designated Court convicted the accused for offences charged mainly on the basis of confessional statements and testimony of two police witnesses, and sentenced them accordingly-Held ,though prosecution alleged 175 rounds to have been fired by police and 157 by accused, not a single in}WJ' was found on any side-No evidence to connect E the empties with weapons-No evidence to prove the firing except that of two police witnesses-None of independent witnesses supported prosecution-There are vital discrepancies and contradictions between the statements of the two police witnesses-As regards confessional statements, only half an hour period granted to accused to consider whether they should make the statements- p Confessional statements were with regard to two incidents, out of which in respect of one incident in a subsequent case Designated Court acquitted the same accused of the charge-It is not safe to base conviction on such confessional statements-Nor can the conviction be mainlained on the sole testimony of two police officials-Judgment and order of Designated Court set aside-Accused acquitted. G Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: S. 15-Confession-Recorded by police officer-Time to be given to accused to consider whether he should make a confessional statement-Accused 247 H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 SC.R. A in police custod_i~Ojjicer recording confession giving half an hour time to accused for consideration-Held, in a given case. depending on facts, the recording officer 1rithout graming any time may straightall'ay proceed to record co11fessional statements-But in case he forms a belief that accused should be granted some time to think over the mailer. it hecomes obligatorv on him to gra/1/ reasonable time--The cooling time granted has to be B reasonable-The time of half an hour to think over before recording confessional statement cannot be said to be a reasonable period. c D SahPan Singh Ra/Ian Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR (1957) SC 637, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2002. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2002 of the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court, District Jail, Nabha in S.C. No. 4 l-T/1990. O.P. Sharma, R.C. Gubrela, K.R. Gupta, Nanita Sharma, Vivek Sharma and Abhishek Atrey, for the Appellants. V.C. Mahajan, Bimal Roy Jad and Sumita Pandit, for the Respondent. E The following Order of the Court was delivered : Six accused, including the four appellants, were forwarded by the Police to the concerned court to stand trial for offences under variou's provisions of l.P.C., The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (in sho11 'the TADA Act') and The Arms Act. One of them (Gurbachan Singh) was F declared proclaimed offender. Another (Jagmail Singh) died. The remaining four, namely appellants were convicted for the offences for which they were tried. For offences under Sections 3071149 IPC and Section 3 & 5 of the TADA Act, rigorous imprisonment for five years for each of these offences and fine was imposed on each of the appellants. For offences under Section G 148 !PC two years' rigorous imprisonment and for offences under Section 363/149 IPC and Sections 25 of Anns Act one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine was imposed on each of the appellants. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Nabha, in this appeal filed under Section 19 of the TADA Act. H .. .. - .. .. - RAN.TIT SINGH @JIT Av. STATE OF PUNJAB 249 The appel I ants have been convicted for the incident of encounte
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.