RAVINDRA SHANTARAM SAWANT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 08-05-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
• 
RA VINDRA SHANTARAM SAW ANT 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
MAY 8, 2002 
[R.P. SETHI AND BISHESHW AR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860/Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1987/Arms Act, 1959-Sections 120-8, 307 and 333/Sections 3(2){ii), 3(5), 
A 
B 
5 and 6125(1-B){a) and 27-Prosecution under-Accused identified by irifured C 
eye-witnesses who were police officials-Conviction of appellant-accused 
under the provisions except Sections 120-B /PC and 3(5) TADA-Acquittal 
of co-accused of all the charges-On appeal conviction upheld, ·since the 
evidence led by prosecution is consistent and trustworthy-The offence under 
TADA is established since the intention ef the accused was not only to kill 
the victim but also to strike terror. 
Crilninal Trial : 
D 
Evidence of police officials who 1vere injured eye witnesses-Non-
corroboration by independent witnesses-Effect of-Held, evidence of such 
witnesses does not require independent corroboration if otherwise their E 
evidence is found to be truthfol and reliable. 
Terrorist 
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-
Applicability of-Held, the provisions of the Act need not be resorted to if 
the nature of the activities of the accused can be checked and controlled 
under ordinary law. 
F 
Appellant-accused No. 1 was tried for various offences under Terrorist 
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Arms Act, 1959 and IPC. 
Prosecution case was that appellant-accused No. 1 alongwith other co-accused 
entered into a conspiracy to commit terrorist act with a view to eliminate the 
victim and hence the appellant attempted to commit his murder and injured 
him in the premises of Sessions Court. At the time of committing the offence, 
appellant-accused was dressed in the attire of an advocate. He also fired at 
police officials and some of them i.e. PWs 3, 4, and 6 who were escorting the 
victim were injured. Appellant-accused also got injured during the incident, 
881 
G 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C.R. 
A when police retaliated. The weapon of offence i.e. revolver was seized from him. 
The report of the ballastic expert was that some of the bullets were fired from 
the revolver seized from him. Appellant-accused made confessional statement 
and before making such statement he was duly informed that he was not bound 
to confess and that the statements might be used against him. During trial, 
the police officials i.e. the injured eye-witnesses categorically stated to have 
B seen the accused firing at them from his revolver and that he was dressed in 
the attire of an advocate. All t:.e independent Panch witnesses turned hostile. 
Defence of appellant-accusP:! was that he was falsely implicated in the case 
and though such an occurrence did take place, it was another person who after 
firing a few shots from his revolver ran away throwing his revolver which was 
C planted on him; that the injury on him was the result of a stray bullet hitting 
him in the course of the incident; and that the actual culprit was not seen by 
the eye-witnesses. 
The trial court convicted appellant-accused for the offences under 
Sections 3(2)(ii), 5 and 6 of Terro4t-ist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
D Act, 1985; under Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 
307 and 333 IPC. However, he was acquitted under Sections 120-B IPC and 
Section 3(5) of TADA. The co-accused were acquitted of all the charges on the 
ground that prosecution failed to prove its case of conspiracy of which all the 
accused were members. 
E 
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that prosecution case 
cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration of the 
evidence of police witnesses; that since after removal of the bullet from the 
wound of PW3 neither the investigating officer was informed about it nor was 
the bullet sent for further action; prosecution had failed to give account of 
F bullet shots fired in the course of the incident and had not explained as to how 
one buliet got tucked in the collar of the coat of the accused; that in view of the 
finding of the trial court that there was no conspiracy to commit the offence 
and that it was not established that the co-accused belonged to a terrorist gang 
and that accused did not share common intention to commit the offence, the 
G substratum of the prosecution case vanished and nothing remained on the basis 
of which the appellant could be convicted; and tha

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