LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus AJIT SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-l i " ..... ,, \ " ~ STA TE OF RAJASTHAN v. AJIT SINGH AND ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: ss. 3(3), 4(1), 15 and 21-Terroristacts and disruptive activities- On the statement of one of the accused that they had been smuggling arms and ammunition, 19 persons prosecuted-Confessions of other accused not indicating knowledge on their part that weapons were smuggled for use in terrorist activities-No question put to any accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as to their involvement in any terrorist or disruptive activity-HELD: On facts, sine qua non for applicability of ss. 3 (3) and 4(1), i.e. "knowingly facilitates" commission of the offence, not made out~While recording confessions, provisions of s.15 and r.15 not complied with-There is no evidence to show recovery of weapons, or use thereof in the manner laid down ins. 3, therefore, presumption u/s 21 not applicable-Designated court rightly acquitted the accused of the charges. s.15-Confessions recorded by Superintendent of Police- Accused in police custody for about 45 days-15-30 minutes time given A B c D E to accused for reflection before recording confession-HELD: F -1 Sufficient cooling off time was not given to accused-Special report ~ under r.15 (5) not submitted to Magistrate-Confessions rightly not taken into account for any purpose by designated court-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 198 7. According to the prosecution case, some Customs officials, G while on patrol duty on the ludo-Pakistan Border in the State of -f Rajasthan, suspecting a vehicle stopped it. A-1, the passenger in the vehicle disclosed that they were returning from the house of' A-5', who with the assistance of' A-2' had on several occasions brought 251 H 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R. A arms and ammunition from Pakistan for use in Punjab so as to further terrorist efforts towards creation ofKhalistan. 'A2' was said to have confirmed the statement of A-1. An FIR was registered. The investigatfon led to arrest of many persons, out of whom 7 made confessions before the Superintendent of Police (PW-8). 19 persons B faced the trial and the designated court acquitted all of them of the offences punishable u/ss. 3(3) and 4(1) of the 1987 Act and convicted A-1 alone u/ss. 3/6 of the Passports Act, 1967. The instant appeal filed by the State was confined to the C challenge of the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court only with respect to those seven of the accused-respondents who had made confessions before PW-8. It was contended that a confession./ made under section 15 of the Act was per se admissible in evidenc~ and that such a confession could be used as corroborative of tt~e confessional statement of the other co-accused; that 1the D presumptions in favour of the prosecution under Section 21(1) of the 1987 Act placed a heavy <mus on the accused and that this onus was not discharged. For the respondents it was contended that the confessions made by the seven accused before PW-8 were not voluntary, and were subsequently retracted. It was submitted that E all the accused had been in police custody for 40-45 days when their confessions were recorded and adequate time for reflection was not given; that Rule 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 which required strict compliance with the safeguards stipulated therein before a confession could be recorded, F too had been violated; and that, in any event the prosecution has failed to make out a case u/ss. 3(3) and 4(1) of the 1987 Act. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) G Act, 1987 is a harsh penal statute and its provisions must, therefore, be construed in that perspective. A bare perusal of sub-s.(3) of Section 3 of the Act would reveal that it would be applicable only if the accused "knowingly" facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act. It needs to be highlighted H that the primary circumstance against all the accused are the \-- ) / ·~· ,• ·i STATEv. AJITSINGH 253 confessions made by them and but for the confession of accused- A appellant no. 1 none of the other confessions show or betray any knowledge on the part of those making the confessions that the weapons had been smuggled in for use in terror
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.