LexSANJAY DUTT (A-117) versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 16 S.C.R. 368 SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2007 ETC.) PART- 6 MARCH 21, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Terrorist and Destructive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 - Penal Code, 1860 - 120- 8, 302, 307, 326, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 3, 7 and 25(1-A}, (1-B)(a) - Explosives Act, 1884 D - s.98(1)(a)(b)(c) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4(a}(b), 5 and 6 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - s. 4 - Prosecution under - Designated Court convicted A-117 under the provisions of Arms Act and sentenced him to 6 years imprisonment; convicted A-118 E under the provisions of Arms Act and u/s. 201 /PC and sentenced him to 5 years Rl-A-124 was convicted u/s. 25(1- B)(a) of Arms Act and s.201 /PC and sentenced to 2 years RI - Acquittal of A-120 - Conviction of A-53 u/s. 3(3) TADA and sentenced of 9 years RI - Conviction of A-119 u/ss. 3(3) F and 5 of TADA and sentenced to 5 years RI - All the appellants-accused preferred appeal - The State filed appeal against acquittal of A-120 and cross-appeals in respect of A- 53 and A-119 - Held: Order of the Designated Court upheld as regards conviction/acquittal of the accused persons - G However, in the circumstances of the case, sentence of A-117 reduced to 5 years RI from 6 years RI; sentence of A-124 reduced to 1 years RI from 2 years; and sentence of A-53 reduced to the period already undergone. H 368 SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 369 CBI, (STF), BOMBAY s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Evidentiary value A of..., Held: A confessional statement is a substantive piece of evidence and can be the sole basis for conviction, if recorded in accordance with the provisions of TA!::A - A voluntary and truthful confessional statement requires no corroboration - But if such statement is to be used against the co-accused, the B Court may look for corroboration as a matter of prvdence - Minor and curable irregularities in recording such statement do not affect the admissibility of the said evidence. s. 15 - Confessional statement - Retraction of..., Effect - Held: A voluntary and free confession even if retracted later, C can be relied upon. s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Reliance on - Permissibility- When accused is acquitted of TADA charges - Held: Confession recorded u/s. 15 can be relied upon in D case of a joint trial, even if the accused is subsequently acquitted of TADA charges. Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - Scope of - Held: s.27 is attracted even when identification is of the person, instead of E place where the article is to be found. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s. 4 - Scope of - Held: s. 4 is intended to attempt possible reformation of an offender instead of inflicting upon F him the normal punishment - Such exercise of discretion needs a sense of responsibility, by taking into consideration the attendant circumstances - In the present case, circumstances of the case and nature of the offence are so serious that they do not warrant A-117 benefit of provisions G of the Act. s. 4 - Effect of - Held: The provision will have overriding effect and shall prevail, if conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 360. H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R. A As a retaliation to demolition of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya 'DI' 'TM' and 'MD' all absconding accused (AA), formulated a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in the city of Bombay. In pursuance of the said objective 'DI' (AA) sent arms and ammunitions from abroad and 'TM' (AA) B received those arms and ammunitions in India. Pursuant to the serial bom_b blast in the city of Bombay, a common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co- conspirators including the appellants in the present appeals. c The appellants in appeal Nos. 1060/2007, 1102/2007 and 1687/2007 (A-117, A-118 and A-124), in addition to the common charge, were charged u/s. 3(3) for acquiring and keeping in their possession 3 AK-56 rifles, its ammunitions and one 9 min pistol and its cartridge~ and D handgranades unauthorisedly, u/s .• 5 and 6 of TADA, and u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w. ss.25(1-A) and (1-S)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. The appellants (A-118 and 124) were also charged u/s. 201 .IPC for destroying the unauthorisedly possessed a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.