LexRAVINDER SINGH @ BITTU versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F RA VIN DER SINGH @ BITTU v. THE ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA APRIL 30, 2002 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 120 !PC-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34 and 392 read with 34. Explosive Substances Act, 1984- s.3.-Arms Act, 1959-s.25. Prosecution under-Reliance on corifessional statements of accused, co-accused and on prosecution witnesses-Conviction-- On appeal conviction upheld. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987-Section 15--Corifessional statements-Reliance on-Corroboration for-Held, voluntary and truthfal statement does not require corroboration. Appellant-accused and co-accused were convicted by Designated Court under Sections 3 and 4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Section 120 IPC, Under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 34, Section 392 read-with Section 34 IPC; under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1984; and under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959, for having committed robbery, firing at police resulting in killing of 3 police personnel, having caused bomb blast in train resulting in death of 12 and injuries to 65 persons. The conviction was based on confessional statements of the appellant and the co-accused, on evidence of PWl, the approver and PW-3. PW-3 was witness to the Bomb blast case, who had identified the appellant in test identification parade. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that confessional statement of appellant could not be relied on as there was inherent G contradiction in his statement when compared to the statement made by co-accused; and that identification by PW-3 was doubtful and there were contradictions in her statement and there was delay of few months in test identification parade. H Dismissing the appeal, the Court 622 )-,__ 7- ~ ~ ~ - RA VIN DER SINGH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 623 HELD: 1. The conviction deserve to be maintained. There is no reason A to discard confessional statement of the co-accused, the evidence of PW-3 and the confessional statement of the appellant. 1631-DJ 2. A voluntary and truthful confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 B requires no corroboration. It deserves the highest credit. It is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt. In view of the facts of the case confession made by the appellant is voluntary and truthful and was recorded by due observations of all the safeguards provided under Section 15 and the appellant could be convicted solely on the basis of his confession. 1628-H; 629-A] C Kalpnath Rai v. State (Through CB/), 11997] 8 SCC 732, distinguished. State through Superintendent of Police, CBl/S!Tv. Nalini and Ors., 11999] 5 SCC 253; S.N. Dube v. NB. Bhoir and Ors., 12000) 2 SCC 254; State of Maharashtra .v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani and Ors., 120011 9 SCC 1; D Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra, JT (2001) 9 SC 605 ~ and Devender Pal Singh v. State of N. C. T. of Delhi and Anr., JT (2002) 3 SC • 264, relied on. 3. It cannot be said that the confessional statement of appellant could E not be relied upon in view of contradictions in his statement with reference F to the confessional statement of the co-accused. Firstly, the confessional statement made by the appellant is not required to be examined with reference to the confessional statement made by co-accused and, therefore, there is no question of contradictions between the two confessions. Independently, it could not be shown as to why the conviction of the appellant could not be maintained on the basis of his confessional statement. Secondly, the confession made by the appellant requires no corroboration. Thirdly, the confession has been found to .be truthful and voluntary. Fourthly, there is general corroboration regarding the implication of the appellant in the confessional statement made by the co-accused and there G are no material contradictions in the two confessional statements. The minor contradictions in the statement of the co-accused when compared with that of the appellant are of.no consequence. It has not even been shown that the confession was not voluntary. 1629-C-EJ 4. The version given by the appellant in his confessional statement H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.