STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus BHARAT CHAGANLAL RAGHANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 11-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
BHARAT CHAGANLAL RAGHANA AND ORS. 
JULY 11,2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : Sections 
3(2), 3(3). 3(5), 5 and 6. 
C 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 
Rule 
I 5(5). 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections : 302, 307, 120-B and 384 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Section 222 
D 
Contract killing-Murder-Accused-Confession-Rule 15(5)-
Procedure for recording confession-Compliance with-Confession 
voluntarily made and legally recorded-Confession also stood corroborated 
on facts-Rejection of such a confession held not valid-Confession held 
sufficient to hold the accused guilty of hatching the con;piracy for commission 
E of offences with which charged--Death penalty-Substituted by life 
imprisonment-Held on facts not rarest of rare cases. 
F 
lnvestigation~eiwre-Factum of recove1y-Rejection of-Ground-
. Contradiction because of subsequent statement of accused-Held not valid. 
Criminal trial-Accused-Charged with offence-But facts proved that 
he committed a minor dffence-He can be convicted of such a minor offence 
though not charged. 
I 
Crime-Crime by underworld--'Organised crime' -'Professional Crime' 
G -Need to curb emphasised. 
H 
Wordv and Phrases : 
'Contradiction '-Connotation of 
The Respondents, alongwith other co-accused, were charged under 
840 
·} 
)( 
~ 
....._ 
)-
,._ 
-~ 
-"I 
STATE OF MAH/\l{/\SllTR/\ 1·. B.C. RAGH/\NA 
841 
sections 1208, 23, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were also A 
charged under section 3 read with section 25(1-B) (a), Section 5 read with 
section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(2) (i), 3(2), (ii), 3(3), 3(5) 
and sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
Act, 1987. Prosecution story disclosed that it was a case of mercenary killing 
by hired goons. The accused persons pressurised and coerced a business man 
and his brother to sell his property and on their refusal the business man B 
was murdered and his brother injured in the attack. By the intended 
transaction of property immediate beneficiary was A-3 who engaged the 
services of A-4 a broker for completion of the deal. To prove its case the 
prosecution relied upon oral testimony of various witnesses. However, the 
epicentre of all the prosecution evidence was the confessional statements of C 
A-5 and A-6 which was recorded by a DCP (PW 38) in exercise of his power 
under Section 15 of the TADA Act. Their confessional statements stood 
corroborated. Recovery of weapons was also made from the accused persons. 
The Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The 
confessional statements were not relied upon and excluded from the evidence D 
by the Trial Court on the grounds that (1) the Magistrate (PW 44) before 
whom the accused were directed to be produced alongwith original statements 
of confession in terms of Rule 15(5) of the Rules framed under the TADA 
,! 
Act had failed to inquire from the accused as to whether they had made 
voluntary statements before police officer and to record the replies of the 
accused; (ii) that as the ACP (PW 48) had received a call on 27th August, E 
1995 to carry the confessional statements to •.• ..: Magistrate its recording on 
28th August, 1995 was highly improbable, and that there were interpolations 
. in the original confessional statements recorded by DCP (PW 38). The Trial 
Court also held that factum of recovery of weapons was not proved as there 
was contradiction in it because of a subsequent confessional statement of the F 
accused. Against the judgment of the High Court appeal was preferred before 
this Court. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD. 1. The trial court committed a mistake oflaw in not relying upon G 
the confessional statements of AS and A6 to ascertain their involvement in 
the commission of crime with which they were charged. Confessional 
statements having been made voluntarily and legally recorded, which generally 
stood corroborated, were sufficient to hold that the aforesaid persons were 
guilty of hatching the conspiracy for com mission of offences with which they 
were charged. The Designated Judge has also erred in holding that the H 
x 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
-\'' 
STATE OF MAI IARt\Sl-lTRA r_ 13.C. R!\GI IANA 
843 
15 of the TADA Act. There is no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the A 
confessional statements were strictly in acc

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