SUTHENTHIRARAJA@ SANTHAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE THROUGH DSP/CBI, SIT, CHENNAI ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 08-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUTHENTHIRARAJA@ SANTHAN AND dRS. ETC. ETC. 
B 
v. 
STATE THROUGH DSP/CBI, SIT, CHENNAI ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 8, 1999 
[KT. THOMAS, D.P. WADHWA AND 
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J];] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
C 
Art. 137 r/w Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Rules 
D 
E 
1,2-Review-Scope of-Death sentence awarded by Designated Court-Con-
firmation thereof by majority-Review-Held, per majority, no merit in the 
Review Petitions by all the four convicts sentenced to death-Dissenting 
opinion favouring life sentence to one of them-Same opinion emphasised 
on Review-Effect of-Indian Penal Code, 1860--Ss.302 r/w 120-B. 
TADA Act-S.3(3 )-Offence committed by accused with intent to strike 
terror in people or any section of people-conviction by Designated 
Court-On appeal held, no such offence made out-Review-Held, no error · 
in the judgment sought to be reviewed-Constitution of India, Art. 137. 
These Review Petitions have been filed against the judgment of this 
Court in State v. Nalini & Ors. Etc., (1999] 3 SCR. One set has been filed 
by the four convicts against confirmation of death sentence awarded to 
them. They have not however challenged their conviction. The second set 
of review petitions filed by the State through CBI challenged only that 
F portion of the judgment which held that the offence was not committed 
by the accused with intent to strike terror in people or any section of 
people and on that account no offence under Section 3(3) of TADA had 
been made out. However, the State has not challenged the findings that 
offence under Section 3(3) of TADA was not committed with intent to 
G overawe the Government as by law established or that no offence under 
Section 4 of TADA which provides punishment for disruptive activities 
had been committed. 
On behalf of the convict-petitioners, it was contended that the 
evidence which had been led to prove the charges under TADA could not 
H be used while appreciating the evidence regarding commission of offences 
540 
_,.. 
' 
SUTHENTHIRARAJA@ SANTHAN v. STATE THROUGH DSP/CBl,SIT 
541 
under IPC and on that consideration awarding death sentence for those · A 
offences; that there were some errors in the judgment in recording of the 
name or otherwise of the accused which could have a bearing on the award 
of sentence; and that the planners and perpetrators of the crime were all 
dead and three of the seven accused also held guilty for offence under 
Section 120- B/302 IPC have been sentenced to life imprisonment and so 
far as the case of the four review petitioners is concerned they may also 
be awarded sentence of life imprisonment. 
B 
On behalf of the State through CBI, it was contended that a person is 
presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his act; the 
greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the C 
consequence was foreseen and, if that consequence was foreseen, the more 
likely it is that that consequence was also intended; that a crucial part of the 
reasoning in Niranjan Singh's case as also in Girdhari's case has not been 
adverted to at all and has been overlooked; that there is clear mis-apprecia-
tion of the ratio in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur's case which supports the case of 
the prosecution that the offence committed is a terrorist act with a view to· D 
strike terror; and that the conclusion arrived at that the act in question was 
not committed with an intent to strike terror in the people or any section of 
the people is not in conformity with the admitted facts on record and 
findings recorded in the judgment. 
Dismissing the Review Petitions by majority, the Court 
HELD: Per Wadhwa, J.: 
1.1. Having considered the scope of review and the rival contentions, 
E 
it is found that there is no merit in the review petition by the four convicts 
F 
sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty provided under the law. [548-H] 
1.2. Review is not rehearing of the appeal all over again and to 
maintain a review petition it has to be shown that there has been miscar-
riage of justice. Of course, the expression "miscarriage of justice" is all G 
·embracing. [547-D; E] 
1.3. All the three Judges constituting the Bench gave separate judg-
ments and each one had considered the role of each one of the accused 
in great detail. The errors pointed out are not even contradictions and 
are inconsequential or insignificant not affecting the ultimate result. It is H 
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 3S.C.R.

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