LexTHE STATE OF GUJARAT versus ANIRUDHSING AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B THE STATE OF GUJARAT v. ANIRUDHSING AND ANR. JULY 10, 1997 (K RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) Terrorist & Dismptive Activities (Preve11tio11) Act 1987/Pe11al Code 1860/Anns Act, 1959 : C Sectio11s 3, 5/302, 114/25(1)(a)-Murder of a11 M.LA. i11 broad day light during i11depe11dence day celebrations--Causi11g terror-Possessio11 of unauthorised fire anns-Acquittal by Desig11ated Coult-On appeal by State, held : Oral co11fession made by Accused No. 1 to PW. 4 to be excluded as paTt of his statement l!Ot 011 record-Other P. Ws. Police Officers but 11ot investigating Officers-H appe11ed to be at the scene by virtue of their D duty-Merely because they were police officers, their evidence ca1mot and must not be rejected-To be subjected to careful evaluation like any other witness of occurrence-f'rosecution established weapon used for committing murder-Also established that A-1 comm_itted the murder-Thus A-1 con- victed-Sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life-Capital punishment not E appropriate since ni11e years elapsed from the date o: commission of the crime-Also convicted under S. 5 TADA and sentenced to undergo imprison- meltt for three years-However acquittal of A-2 not inteifered with. Balkishan A. Devidayal etc. v. State of Maharashtra etc., [1981] 1 SCC 107; Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 SCR 4l!l; K.J. F Pavwmi v. Assistant Collector (HQ) Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, [1997] 3 SCC 721; Raj Kumar Ka1Wal v. Union of India, [1990] 2 SCC 409; Nizar Ali v. State of U.P., (1957) SC 657 and Dhamia Rama Bhagare v. The State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 537, relied on. G Ka1tar Si11gh v. State of Pu11jab, [1994] 3 sec 569, held inapplicable. Evidence Act, 1872: Hostih! witness-Merely because some of the witnesses turned hostile, their ocular evidence recorded by the Coult not to be held to ha~·e been H washed off or unavailable to Prosecution-Salutary duty of every willless who 234 • [ STATE v. ANIRUDHSING 235 has knowledge of Commission of the crime to assist the State in giving A evidenc~any a witness tum hostile and in some cases even direct witnesses are being liquidated before they are examined by Court-Suggestion to Law Commission to look into the matter. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 1997 Etc. B From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.91 of the Special Judge, Appointed Under the Prevention of Terrorists & Disruptive Activities Act, Designated Court Rajkot District, Rajkot, in S.C. No. 23 of 1989. B.V. Desai, Mrs. H. Wahi and Ms. S. Hazarika for the Appellant. Sushi! Kumar, Deepak H. Raval, Shailendra N. Singh, Ms. Neelam Kalsi and Vimal Dave for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Delay condoned. Leave granted. c D Every criminal trial is a voyage in quest of truth for public justice to punish the guilty and restore peace, stability and order in the society. Every E citizen who has knowledge of the commission of cognizable offence has duty to lay information before the police and cooperate with the investigat- ing officer who is enjoined to collect the evidence and if necessary summon the witnesses to give evidence. He is further enjoined to adopt scientific and all fair means to unearth the real offender, lay the charge sheet before the court competent to take cognizance of the offence. The chargesheet needs to contain the facts constituting the offence's charged. The accused is entitled to a fair trial. Every citizen who assists the investigation is further duty-bound to appear before the court of session or competent criminal court, tender his ocular evidence as a dutiful and truthful citizen to unfold F the prosecution case as given in his statement. Any betrayal in that behalf G is a step to destabilise social peace, order and progress. Popatbhai, a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly was done to death in the public gaze when full ceremonial Independence Day function was in progress. The chief dignitary of the event, the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mr. J.P. Dave who was sitting beside the H 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A deceased, witnessed the occurrence of shooting of deceased from behind; however, when culprit was caught, it would be obvious that he saw him; yet he has turned hostile to the prosecution and even refused to identify the respondent in the court sabotaging the prosecution case. Thus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.