LexSTATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) versus NAVJOT SANDHU@AFSAN GURU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
v.
NA VJOT SANDHU@AFSAN GURU
AGUSUST 4, 2005
[P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]
Pena/Code, 1860-Sections 120-8,121, 123 r/wSection302-Prevention
of Terrorism Act, 2002-Sections 3, 32, 50 & 52-Terrorist attack on·
Parliament House Complex-Conspiracy by accused-Five terrorists killed-
A
B
)
Eight security personnel and one gardener died-13 security personnel and
C
3 others injured-3 persons convicted and sentenced to death-One acquitted-
Confirmed by High Court-Justification of-Explosive Substances Act, I 908-
Sections 3 and 4.
,. -
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 120A & 1208-Evidence Act, 1872-
Section IO-Criminal Conspiracy-Concept-Proof of by circumstantial D
evidence-Theory of Agency-Applicability of
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002-Sections 2(h) and 50-Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 196-Sanction orders-Whether
Lieutenant Governor a competent authority-Addition of offence under
Section 120-B JP(' which does not require sanction-Whether reveals non-
application of mind-Constitution of India, Articles I 20-B, 239 & 239AA.
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002-Sections 36 to 48-Telegraph Act!
Rules-Section 5(2)/Rule 419A-lnterception to telephone calls-Legality
E
and admissibility of-Procedure and conditions-Discussed
F
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 10 and 30-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 164-Confession under POTA recorded by a Police Officer-
Procedural safeguards-Evidentiary value of-Nature of corroboration
required-Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002-Sections 32 & 52.
Evidence Act, I 872-Sections 63 and 658-Cellular phone call records-
Proof and authenticity of-Admissibility of as secondary evidence.
Evidence Act, 1872-Sections J and 27-Discovery of fact--State of
things or facts-Within the knowledge of accused-Admissibility of-
79
G
H
•
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Credibility of the information-Extent of necessary caution and care-Joint
disclosures-Admissibility of-Simultaneous disclosures by more than one
accused-Reliance upon by Courts-Discussed.
B
On 13th December, 2001 five heavily armed persons practically
stormed the Parliament House complex and inflicted heavy casualties on
the security men on duty. In the gun battle that lasted for 30 mimutes or
so, these five terrorists who tried to gain entry into the Parliament when
it was i": session, were killed. Nine persons including eight security
personnel and one gardener succumbed to the bullets of the terrorists and
16 persons including 13 security men received injuries. The five terrorists
C
we.re ultimately killed and their abortive attempt to lay a seize of the
D
Parliament House thus came to an end.
After the conclusion of investigation the investigating agency filed
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the four accused persons on
14.5.2002. Charges were framed under various sections of Indian Penal
Code, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 {'POTA') and the Expiosive
Substances Act, by the designated Court. The trial concluded within a
record period of about six months. 80 witnesses were exami~ed for the
prosecution and 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. 330
documents were exhibited. The three accused, 'A', 'S' and 'G' were
E
convicted for the offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 'Section 120B
read with Sections 302 & 307 read with Section 120-B IPC, sub-Sections
(2), (3) & (5) of Section 3 and Section 4(b) of POTA and Sections 3 &
4 of Explosive Substances Act. Accused 1 & 2 were also convicted under
Section 3(4) of POTA. Accused No. 4 viz., 'AG' was acquitted of all the
F
charges except.the one under Section 123 IPC for which she was convicted
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay fine. Death
G
seutences were imposed on the other three accused for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 120:-B IPC an~ Section 3(2) of POTA. They
were also sentenced to life imprisonment on as many as eight counts
under the provisions of IPC, POTA and Explosive Substance Act in
addition to varying amounts of fine. The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, which
was recovered from the possession of two of the accused, namely, 'A' and
'S' was forfeited to the State under Section 6 of the POT A.
The designated Judge submitted the record of the case to the High
H
Court of Delhi for confirmation of death sentence imposed on the three
f
' "
f
STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) v. NAVJOT SANDHU@AFSAN GURU
81
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.