LexYAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•• 1 \. [2013] 15 S.C.R. 1 YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON A v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY PART-I (Appeals relating to death sentence) B (Criminal Appeal No. 1728 of 2007 ETC.) MARCH 21, 2013. [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] c TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987: SS. 3(3) of TADA and S. 120-B /PC rlw SS. 3(2)(i), 3(3),3(4), 5 and 6 of TADA - Serial bomb blasts in Bombay in March, 0 1993 - Conviction and death sentence to 11 accused- appellants by Designated Court - Held: The confessional statements of accused and co-accused as a/so the evidence of approver and other prosecution witnesses, the recoveries made and other evidences, establish the guilt of all accused- appellants - Their conviction affirmed - The sentence of dea.th E to first accused-appellant affirmed - Sentence of remaining ten, accused-appellants commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life - Life imprisonment means the whole natural life - Therefore, subject to ss. 432 and 433 of the Code and clemency powers of President and Governor under Arts. 72 F and 161 of the Constitution, the ten accused-appellants shall be imprisoned for life until their death - The executive should take due consideration of judicial reasoning before exercising the remission power - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B, 302, 307, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. G 3, 7, 25 (1-A), (1-BO - Explosives Act, 1884 - ss. 9-B (1 )(a) (b), and (c)-Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4(a), 5 and 6 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property, Act, 1984 - s. 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 432 and 433 1 H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 72 and 161. PENAL CODE, 1860. s. 120-8 - Criminal conspiracy - Explained - Held. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of s. B 120-8, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act - Conspiracy, apart from being a substantive offence and distinct. from the offence to be committed for which the conspiracy was entered into, all conspirators are liable for the C acts of crime of each other which have been committed as a result of the conspiracy - Conspiracy is a continuing offence and if any acts or omissions which constitute an offence are done in India or outside its territory, the conspirators continue to be the parties to the conspiracy and since part of the acts, D in the instant case, were done in India, they would obviate the need to obtain the sanction of the Central Government - All of them need not be present in India - Conspiracy may be a general one and a smaller one which may develop in successive stages -Since conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, E to bring home the charge of conspiracy, it is relevant to decide from the facts of the case, conclusively the object behind it which is the ultimate aim of the conspiracy - Further, many means might have been adopted to achieve this ultimate object - The means may even constitute different F offences by themselves, but as long as they are adopted to achieve the ultimate object of the conspiracy, they are also acts of conspiracy - In order to determine whether conspiracy was hatched, the court is required to view the entire agreement and to find out as to what, in fact, the conspirators intended G to do - In the instant case, a common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators - Court is satisfied that prosecution has placed sufficient acceptable materials to prove the charge of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 10. H YAKUBABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 3 MAHARASHTRA, THR. CBI , BOMBAY CONFESSION: A Evidentiary value of confession - Held: s. 164 of the Code speaks about recording confessions and statements, and s. 15 of TADA is a similar provision - If the confessional statement is properly recorded satisfying the mandatory 8 provision of s. 15 of TADA and the Rules made thereunder, and if the same is found by court as having been made voluntarily and truthfully, then the said confession is sufficient to convict the maker thereof - Whether such confession requires corroboration or not is a matter for the court to consider on the basis of facts of each case - Terrorist and C Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - s. 15 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 164.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.