SIMON AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 16-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SIMON AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
OCTOBER 16, 2003 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 120B, 148, 143, 307, 149 and 302: 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Sections 
3, 4, 5 and 15 : 
C 
Arms Act, 1959-Section 25 : 
Procecution for offences u/ss. l 20B, 148, 302 and 307 lPC and 
Section 25.of Arms Act-Assault by fire arms on police party-Resulting D 
in 7 deaths and injuries to many-16 eye-witnesses to the incident-
lndentification of 3 of the accused by 2 eye-witnesses-Accused not 
identified by complainant who was accompanying the 2 eye-witnesses-
Name of the accused not in original but in the altered FIR-Confessional 
statement by one of the accused-Cofession made in the presence of 
· Investigating officer immediately after his arrest-Confessional statement E 
of accused interpreted to Recording Officer by Investigating Officer-
Conviction by Designated Court relying on the confessional statement of 
the accused and evidence of the 2 eye-witnesses-On appeal, held : 
Conviction of accused is not sustainable and they are entitled to benefit 
of doubt-Evidence of two eye-witnesses and the confessional statement do F 
not inspire confidence-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
Rules, 1987-Rule 15(1). 
Prosecution under Sections l 20B, 143, 302, 307, 149 /PC and 
Section 25 of Arms Act-Name of accused in FIR-No other evidence to G 
connect him to the crime-Another accused had the same name-Conviction 
by Designated Court-On appeal, Held : On the facts of the case, 
conviction not maintainable-Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. 
Prosecution u/s. 5 of TADA Act-Accused found in possession of gun, 
gun powder and pellets-Conviction by Designated Court-On appeal, H 
869 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A held : Jn the facts of the case conviction not sustainable as prosecution 
failed to prove possession of gun by accused. 
Section I 5 of TADA Act-Confessional statement-Recording of-
Requirement of amount of time given to accused to think whether he 
B wanted voluntarily to make the statement-Held: there cannot be general 
practice, in such matters-Time for thinking would depend upon facts of 
each case and likely to differ from one accused ~o another. ' 
On getting information about Veerappan and his gang, police 
party, 5 in a car and 22 in a lorry proceeded. The car and lorry were 
C allegedly attacked by the appellant alongwith others with bombs and 
firearms, resulting in death of 7 people and injuries to many. 76 
persons including the appellant-accused were prosecuted. There were 
16 eye-witnesses to the incident including PWs 31, 32 and 33. PW33 
had lodged the complaint on the basis of which FIR was lodged. 
D Initially FIR was lodged on the day of incident itself: Thereafter 
altering the Original FIR second FIR was recorded. FIR contained the 
name of appellant No. 4. PW-33 had seen appellant No. 4 on the scene 
of incident but he did not identify him in the Court or at any other 
point of time. PWs 31 and 32 had identified appellant Nos l, 2 and 3. 
E However, their names did not find place in FIR. Appellants 4 and 5 
were not identified by any of the witnesses. There was also another 
accused by the same name as that of appellant No. 4. Prosecution relied 
upon 59 confessions. The confessional statement of appellant No. 2 was 
recorded immediately after his arrest and in the presence oflnvestigating 
Officer. He was given only 5 minutes to think as to whether he 
F voluntarily wanted to make the confessional statement. The Investigating 
Officer alone could understand as to what the accused was stating in 
Tamil and translated it to the Officer recording the confession in 
Kannada and again he translated the statement from Kannada to 
Tamil and read over to the appellant. There was no attempt on the part 
G of the Recording Officer to arrange for an independent interpretor. 
The statement was not produced before the Magistrate on the next date 
when the accused was produced before him, but the same was filed 
later. The copy of the statement was not supplied to the appellant for 
nearly 7 years. As per PW 120, in the altered FIR, names of some of 
H, the accused were collected by referring to previous FIRs. 
SIMON v. ST A TE 
871 
Appellant No. 5 was prosecuted for the offence for being found A 
in possession of country made gun, gun powder and pellets. The gun 
was marked as M0-112. According to the testimo

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