http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 48

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 219 of 1997

PETITIONER:

LAL SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2001

BENCH:

M.B.Shah, S.N.Phukan

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Shah, J.

After trial in TADA Case Nos.2/93, 7/93 and 2/94, by

judgment and order dated 8th January, 1997, the Designated

Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, acquitted

16 accused and convicted 5 accused, appellants herein,

namely, A1 Lal Singh, A2 Mohd. Sharief, A3 Tahir Jamal, A4

Mohd. Saquib Nachan and A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar. The

appellants were convicted for the offences punishable (1)

under Section 3 (3) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA

Act) and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a

fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to suffer R.I. for

6 months; (2) under Section 120B (1) of IPC and sentenced

to suffer R.I for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-

each, in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months. They were

further convicted for the offence punishable under Section

3(3) of TADA Act read with Sec. 120B IPC but no separate

sentence was awarded. Accused No.1 was additionally

convicted for the offences punishable (1) under Section 5 of

TADA Act and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to

pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default to suffer R.I.

for 6 months; and (2) under Section 5 of the Explosive

Substances Act, to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to

undergo R.I. for 3 months; (3) under Section 25(1A) of the

Arms Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer R.I. for

3 months. No separate sentence for A-1 under Section 3(3)

of TADA Act, Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act read with

Section 120B IPC was passed. All sentences were directed to

run concurrently.

Against the said judgment and order, A1 Lal Singh has

filed Criminal Appeal No.219/1997, A2 Mohd. Sharief has

filed Criminal Appeal No.1409- 1411/1997, A3 Tahir Jamal has

filed Criminal Appeal No.407-409/1997, A4 Mohd. Saquib

Nachan has filed Criminal No.244/1997 and A20 Shoaib

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 48

Mukhtiar has filed Criminal Appeal No.294/1997.

In all, twenty one accused were tried jointly before

the trial court on the charge that they alongwith 13 named

absconding accused and some unknown Sikh militants hatched

criminal conspiracy in India and abroad for subversive and

terrorist activities in India and for facilitating creation

of Khalistan and liberation of Jammu and Kashmir by violent

means during the period between September, 1988 to July,

1992; accused no.1 Lal Singh visited Pakistan on fake

Pakistani passport and contacted Inter Service Intelligence

(ISI) officials of Pakistan for smuggling of arms,

ammunitions and explosives and money for terrorist

activities into India; accused No.2 is Pakistani national

and ISI agent; accused nos.1 and 2 alongwith Sajjad Alam

Raja (absconder) unlawfully indulged in subversive

activities, created an organization at Lahore (Pakistan) for

liberation of Kashmir and its merger with Pakistan, creation

of Khalistan in India by striking terror in people or

section of people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst

different sections of people, creating hideouts at various

places in India with the help of A4 and A20; accused No.2

along with accused No.1 and some unknown Pakistani smugglers

facilitated the smuggling of several consignments of arms,

ammunitions and explosives into India from Pakistan by

illegal means during 1991; A1, A2 and A20 along with some

absconders conspired to strike terror by violent means to

eliminate BJP/Hindu leaders/police officers and for that

purpose procured fire-arms, ammunitions and explosives;

accused no.3, 4 and 20 with the help of other accused

created hideouts for accused no.1 for intensifying terrorist

activities and for arranging transportation; accused no.1

alongwith accused Devendrapal Singh alias Deepak (absconder)

while staying at Ahmedabad was in constant touch with

accused Gurjit Singh Dhaliwal alias Pal alias Sharma

(absconder) in USA. He coordinated the terrorist activities

in India on telephone and that at the behest of accused

persons huge quantity of arms, ammunitions, explosives and

other articles were recovered and found to be in working

order, which were of foreign make and sufficient to cause

explosions.

According to prosecution, in the year 1984 the

terrorism had gone beyond limits and therefore, blue star

operation was performed. Just to oppose the action of blue

star operation, the dissatisfied and angry Sikh youths

started creating disharmony amongst two major groups of

Hindus and non-Hindus. I.S.I. of Pakistan started

instigating Indian Muslim and Sikh youths for this purpose.

ISI contacted certain youngsters in India, who were the

members of one organization named SIMIan institution for

the purpose of cultural and religious activities amongst

Muslim youngsters and to follow the principles of Holy Kuran

and to live the life guided by Holy Kuran. For this

purpose, ISI took help of Mr. CMA Bashir (absconding) of

Kerala having close connection with SIMI. As the area of

Punjab and J&K was not safe for the above activities, they

chose certain borders of Gujarat and Rajasthan. Accused

no.2a Pakistani National and ISI agententered into India

for getting information regarding defence base of India

situated at Ambala, Punjab, J&K and for collecting other

inside information in connection with defence personnel and

army position in India. For this purpose he contacted

accused nos.1, 3 and 4. Accused no.1 and 2 were active in

furtherance of their conspiracy. They entered into India,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 48

lodged at different places in order to achieve the goal.

Both of them created contacts in India with accused no.20 at

Aligarh and accused nos.3 and 4 at Bombay. Accused no.1 and

2 visited various places of India including Ahmedabad and

Bombay in their fake names. The modus operandi of these two

accused persons was to have their activities under false

identity. In December, 1991 both the accused reached at

Aligarh where they started their activities. Their targets

were to create hideouts, to have their own agents, to have

their contacts with agents in Pakistan, UK, Canada etc. and

to have hideouts elsewhere. It is stated that A1 and A4

visited Madras to survey the stock exchange building to find

out the possibility of bomb blast there. It is further

stated that accused persons were using various types of

vehicles according to their requirement and convenience.

Out of those vehicles, one jeep and scooter were recovered

from Ahmedabad and one gypsy was recovered from Bombay.

During interrogation of accused No.1, two hideouts of

accused persons at Ahmedabad came to be known and raid of

these hideouts resulted into recovery of arms and

ammunitions. At both the hideouts, they were living under

different identities. It is further stated that A1 to A4

and A20, in their respective confessional statements,

corroborate with each other on various points and items of

conspiracy. The statements lend support to prove the

conspiracy. The evidence against A3, A4 and A20 shows that

they were helping and abetting A1 and A2 in common design.

It is further case of the prosecution that accused

No.1 Lal Singh was arrested in the morning of 16.7.92 at

Dadar Railway Station while he was alighting from a train.

His arrest was shown in RC5/92 in which final report was

submitted as no case is made out. For the present case,

it is the prosecution story that Mr. Hiralal, the

Commissioner of Police, Baroda (Gujarat) got information

that one terrorist Inder Pal Singh alias Lal Singh along

with other associates was arrested by Bombay Police and the

arrested terrorist Lal Singh confessed regarding conspiracy

hatched for kidnapping of grand-daughter of V.V.I.P. from

Pune and that main leaders were operating from Baroda and

other cities of Gujarat. The Commissioner of Police

entrusted the work of verifying the said information to Mr.

Anopkumar Singh, DCP (PW10). It was decided to send ASI

I.C. Raj, PW9 of Chhani Police Station, Baroda working

under Mr. Anopkumar Singh, to Bombay for interrogating

Inderpal Singh and his associates. After contacting the

Police Commissioner, City of Bombay, on 23rd, 24th and 25th

July, 1992 ASI Mr. Raj interrogated accused Lal Singh. He

was sending information every day with regard to the

interrogation to DCP Mr. Anopkumar Singh. On 24th July,

1992 on the basis of interrogation, information was conveyed

at Baroda with regard to large scale arms and ammunitions

stored at certain premises at Ahmedabad. On receipt of the

said information, Mr. Anopkumar Singh rushed to the

Commissioner of Police, Baroda. Further, the D.G. Police

of Gujarat State was informed immediately on telephone about

the said information. The C.P. Baroda also talked about

the information with Mr. Surolia, DCP Ahmedabad (PW103).

The information was received at night time on 24th July,

1992 and PW7 ASI T.A. Barot located the two premises,

namely, Flat No. C-33, Paresh Apartments situated at

Narayanagar Road, Paldi and House No.4-A, Usman Harun

Society, Juhapura at Ahmedabad and raids were carried out on

25th July in the morning. During raids, large quantity of

arms, ammunitions and explosives were recovered from the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 48

said premises. The Ahmedabad police was investigating the

crime but considering its seriousness, on 31st July, 1992,

the State Government gave consent for investigation by the

CBI. On 4th August, 1992, Central Government notified that

investigation be carried out by the CBI. The CBI registered

the case as RC-6/92, carried out the investigation and also

recorded confessional statements of the accused. Finally,

after completing the investigation accused were

charge-sheeted and tried by the Designated Judge at

Ahmedabad.

To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 136

witnesses during the trial and relied upon various documents

including confessional statements recorded during

investigation.

All the accused persons abjured their guilt, pleaded

innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated

in this case. Accused no.1 Lal Singh has stated that he

left India in the year 1991 and returned to India in the

year 1992 and when he was at Bombay, he was arrested at

Dadar Railway Station. He has denied all the allegations

levelled by the prosecution and stated that during his

arrest his signatures on blank papers were obtained

forcefully and that he never gave any confessional

statement. During police lock up, he was tortured, his

tongue was cut and was injured on the head. The Doctor was

required to take 12 sutures on his head injury. It is his

say that when he was arrested at Dadar Railway Station at

the ticket counter, he was having 350 American dollars and

15 to 16 thousand Indian currency notes. He has disputed

the date and time of his arrest.

Accused no.2 Mohd. Sharief admitted that he is a

Pakistani National and is Ahmadi Muslim. He has also denied

all allegations levelled by the prosecution and stated that

during his arrest his signatures on blank papers were

obtained forcefully and that he never gave any confessional

statement. He has stated that the Pakistan Govt. declared

Ahmadi Muslim Community as non-Muslim Community. His father

died because of torture exercised by extremist Muslims of

Pakistan. He has further stated that Indian Government had

sponsored one conference of Ahmadi Muslims at Gurudaspur,

Punjab. He wanted to settle at Germany and, therefore, he

contacted one Ch. Avtar Ahmad in India for making

arrangement for going to Germany. When he was at Delhi

Airport and was preparing to leave for Germany via Moscow,

he was stopped and later on arrested. From August 1992 till

July 1993, he was confined at Lal Quila, Delhi. He was

tortured and his signatures were taken on blank papers.

Because of threats given by the C.B.I. Officers, he had not

disclosed the story of torture when he was produced before

the Court. He refused to identify other accused. He also

denied to have visited India except in August 1992.

Accused No.3, Tahir Jamal also refused of having any

relation with any of the accused. He stated that during the

period of remand, no specimen writings were taken from him.

Accused No.4, Saquib Nachan has stated that he was arrested

from his village. He has also denied all allegations

levelled by the prosecution and stated that during his

arrest his signatures on blank papers were obtained under

pressure and torture. Accused No.20, Shoaib Mukhtiar has

stated that he was arrested from Aligarh. C.B.I. officers

took his signatures on blank papers after torture and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 48

beating him severely. With regard to the evidence of Azim

Varasi, PW87, he has stated that witness was his friend but

afterwards their relations became enemical. This happened

because he was not ready to marry with the sister of Azim

Varasi and further there was some quarrel between them on

account of money.

It is not necessary to narrate the defence of rest of

the accused who are acquitted.

After appreciating the entire evidence at great

length, the learned Designated Judge convicted the aforesaid

five accused and gave benefit of doubt to remaining sixteen

accused. The Court arrived at the conclusion that the

prosecution has proved that: 1. the muddamal arms,

ammunitions and explosives produced before the court were

recovered on 24.7.92 from C-33, Paresh Apartments and 4-A,

Usman Harun Society and the same were recovered on the basis

of the information given by the accused no.1 during his

interrogation;

2. the link between accused no.1 and absconding

accused Manish Agrawal with the premises C-33, Paresh

Apartments and/or 4-A of Usman Harun Society and the above

two premises or any of the two was used as hideout by

accused no.1, absconding accused Manish Agrawal alias Dipak

or any of the accused named in the charge-sheet;

3. in pursuance of criminal conspiracy, absconding

accused Devendrapal Singh alias Manish Agrawal alias Dipak

reached to Ahmedabad in April, 1992 with Rs.2,00,000/- to

3,00,000/- and stayed with accused no.1 in a hired flat

no.C-33, Paresh Apartments and in a purchased bungalow

no.4-A, Usman Harun Society;

4. for the convenience of the conspirators and for

transporting the firearms, ammunitions and explosives,

accused no.1, absconding accused Devendrapalsingh alias

Manish Agrawal alias Dipak and Dahyasingh Lahoria alias

Vijay Pahelvan purchased a Maruti Gypsy No.MH-01-8942 of

blue or sky blue colour and a Mahindra Jeep No.MH-04-A2114

from Bombay and these vehicles one after another were put to

the disposal of accused no.1 at Ahmedabad;

5. the scooter bearing no.GJ.1.P.9485 was purchased

in the name of Ashok Kumar Khanna (accused no.1) from Arvish

Auto of Ahmedabad and the same was found on 24.7.92 in the

compound of B.No.4-A, Usman Harun Society;

6. accused nos.1 and 2 had entered into India from

Pakistan through entry point Bombay Airport in the name of

Chaudhari Mohmad Iqbal and Manzoor Ahmad respectively as

Pakistani Nationals on 11/12.12.91;

7. their visits at various places in furtherance of

criminal conspiracy hatched by A1 to A4 and A20:

(i) the visit of accused nos.1 and 2 at Aligarh and

their stay at Aligarh in the month of December, 1991 or

round about;

(ii) the visit of accused nos.1 and 20 at Bombay as

alleged;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 48

(iii) the visit of accused nos.1 and 4 at Ahmedabad

and their stay in hotel Sidhdhartha Palace and the stay of

accused no.1 in hotel Royal and/or hotel Butterfly at

Ahmedabad;

(iv) the visit of accused no.1 and absconding accused

Mushahid under assumed names of K. Kumar and M. Husain

respectively to Bombay on 30.6.92 and their contacts with

accused no.4 to plan out about the bomb blast in Stock

Exchange Building at Madras;

(v) the visit of accused no.1 and absconding accused

Mushahid Husain to Hotel Balvas International in the names

of Murtuzakhan and Anwar;

(vi) the visit of accused nos.1,4 and absconding

accused C.A.M. Bashir to Madras on 2.7.92 as alleged and

the stay of accused nos.1 and 4 in hotel New Woodland,

Madras;

(vii) the visit of accused nos.1,4 and absconding

accused C.A.M. Bashir of Stock Exchange Building, Madras on

3.7.92 and the return journey to Bombay on 4.7.92; and

(viii) the visit of accused nos.3,4 and absconding

accused Mushahid Husain to Pakistan in the year 1991.

8. accused no.1 had brought 3000 US dollars and

Rs.20,000/- in Indian currency and accused no.2 brought 3000

US dollars and Rs.30,000/- in Indian Currency when they

entered into India in December, 1991 and ultimately reached

to Aligarh;

9. accused no.2 came to India sometimes during March,

1991 to establish contacts with Kashmiri or Sikh Militants

for terrorist activities. He again came to India sometimes

during October, 1991 to set up hideouts and contacted

accused no.1 on phone at Lahore (Pakistan) and after

creating base and hideouts, he left for Pakistan;

10. accused no.3, 4 and absconding accused CAM Bashir

contacted absconding accused Amir-ul-Azim at Bombay to

create hideouts for accused no.1 at Ahmedabad for storing

the firearms, ammunitions, explosives etc. and accused no.3

collected 1700 American dollars and subsequently received

Rs.7,00,000/- in Indian Currency from him for intensifying

the terrorist activities and further that out of this amount

the sum of Rs.90,000/- and 1700 pounds were recovered;

11. during February, 1992, absconding accused

Devendrapal Singh and Majindar Singh visited Aligarh and

accused no.1 informed them that huge consignment of fire

arms was being sent for Punjab and arrangement should be

made for a motor truck to transport the consignment of

weapons from Indo-Pak border and for the purpose accused

no.1 gave Rs.10,000/- to accused no.20 for arranging the

truck;

12. in the month of February accused nos.1 and 2 came

into telephonic contact with absconding accused Daljitsingh

Bittoo from Pakistan, who passed on the information for

creating hideouts in Ahmedabad for storing, firearms,

ammunitions and explosives sent from across the border;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 48

13. during the visit of accused nos.1 and 20 to

Bombay they contacted accused no.3 who was already informed

about the visit by accused no.1 on telephone and was

instructed by absconding accused Amir-ul-Azim;

14. accused no.3 introduced accused no.4 to accused

no.1 and they all planned for creating hideouts at Ahmedabad

and for this absconding accused Mushahid Husain was

contacted;

15. accused nos.1 and 4 visited Ahmedabad on

29.2.1992 in the assumed names as Iqbal and Mohmad S.

respectively and met absconding accused Mushahid Husain.

Mushahid Husain made arrangement for hiring the House No.82

of Mubarak Society and accused no.1 shifted to Ahmedabad for

illegal activities in furtherance of the conspiracy in the

first week of March, 1992;

16. on 16.7.92, accused no.1 was apprehended by

Bombay police at Dadar Railway Station and at that time

during his personal search, 200 US dollars and Rs.30,664/-

in Indian currency, one visiting card of hotel Samrat

containing various telephone numbers and a driving licence

in the assumed name as Kishor Kumar alongwith other articles

were recovered;

SUBMISSIONS:

At the time of hearing of these appeals, Mr. Sushil

Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of accused

no.1 and 4 has taken us through the material part of the

evidence and has contended that the Trial Court ought not to

have relied upon the confessional statements of the accused

as the same are neither voluntary nor truthful. For

contending that confessional statements are not voluntary,

he submitted that all throughout accused were kept in police

lock-up and during that time their so-called confessional

statements were recorded by the Investigating Officers;

before recording the confessional statements, the accused

were not informed that after making the statements, they

would be produced before the Judicial Magistrate and would

be sent in judicial custody. It is pointed out that accused

No.4 was arrested on 10.10.1992 and thereafter he was kept

in police custody and on 7th November, 1992 his confessional

statement was recorded. After recording the said statement,

he was again sent to police custody till 12th November,

1992. This would apparently indicate that the statements

were recorded under coercion and police torture. Further,

even after recording the so-called confessional statements,

accused were kept in police lock-up and produced before the

judicial magistrate after long lapse of time. He further

pointed out other circumstances for contending that the

confessional statements of accused Nos. 1 and 4 are not

truthful and in support of his contention, he has pointed

out certain contradictions in the evidence of these

witnesses. He submitted that the accused were in police

custody for a long period and after getting some evidence,

the Investigating Officers have recorded the confessional

statements of the accused. If the accused were prepared to

make voluntary confessional statements, there was no

necessity of calling Mr. Sharad Kumar, S.P. (PW 133) from

Delhi for recording their statements at Ahmedabad because in

the metropolitan city of Ahmedabad, number of other S.Ps

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 48

and/or Magistrates were available. He further submitted

that P.W. 133 Sharad Kumar has failed to verify any marks

of injury on the person of accused No. 4 before recording

the statement. Hence, he submitted that it cannot be stated

that the said statements are voluntary and truthful. In

support of his contention, he referred to the decision of

this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC

569] wherein the Court has laid down certain guidelines,

which are required to be followed so that confessional

statement obtained in the pre-indictment interrogation by a

police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of

Police is not tainted with any vice but is in strict

conformity with the well-recognized and accepted aesthetic

principles and fundamental fairness. The learned counsel

has pointed out that despite the aforesaid suggestion, the

guidelines are not incorporated in the Act or the Rules.

Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

representing accused no.2, Mohd. Sharief, assailed the

version of the prosecution and submitted that accused no.2

wanted to leave Pakistan and settle in Germany and,

therefore, he contacted a travel agent Chaudhary Altaf Ahmed

and sought his help; in July, 1992, Altaf Ahmed took him

and another person to India by train via Attari border and

further arranged their stay at Delhi; the said agent

arranged his visa and air tickets from Delhi and in August,

1992 when the agent took him to the International Airport

(Delhi) to board a flight for Germany via Moscow, he was

stopped and later on arrested; that he has no connection

with recovery of arms etc. and that there is no evidence to

show an agreement between him and other accused to commit an

offence. The learned counsel has further argued that the

confessional statement of accused no.2 was taken under

coercion and to prove this fact, she referred to two

paragraphs of statement of accused no.2 recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused no.2 has stated that

CBI officials took him to Ahmedabad for producing before a

Magistrate; he was not put any question by Magistrate; he

was threatened not to make any complaint; he could not

arrange any lawyer as he is a resident of Pakistan; during

his custody he was forced to plead guilty but as he did not

make any confessional statement, he was mentally and

physically tortured; and that against this torture, he went

on hunger strike in May, 1994 for sixty days and thereafter

on considering his deteriorating health condition, he was

shifted to jail hospital. The learned counsel further

pointed out certain contradictions in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses and sought acquittal of accused no.2.

Mr. R.B. Mehrotra, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of accused no.3 argued that confessional statement

of accused is not voluntary and not in conformity with

prosecution case. Therefore, it was not admissible. As

such it belies the prosecution case. If it is held to be

admissible, its reliability may be tested with great

caution. He argued that as per the prosecution story, the

role of accused no.3 is very limited. He is charged for

creating hideouts for accused no.1 at Ahmedabad for storing

fire arms, ammunitions and explosives etc. with the help of

accused no.4, Saquib Nachan, C.M. Bashir (absconding) and

by contacting Amir-ul-Azim (absconding) at Bombay. The

learned counsel argued that accused no.3 never visited any

place in India other than Bombay and his native place in

district Azimgarh (UP); he has no link with accused no.2;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 48

and that he is not concerned with the arms and ammunitions

stored at Ahmedabad or related to the bomb-blast plan of

Madras Stock Exchange. Accused no.3 never purchased air

tickets for accused nos.1 and 4 for Ahmedabad on 29.2.1992

from Bombay. Further, so far as the question of telephone

number mentioned at two flight coupons is concerned, the

learned counsel contended that the maternal uncle of accused

no.3 is an Islam Scholar, a social worker and an office

bearer of many welfare Associations, therefore, there is

strong possibility that some one who had purchased the air

ticket might be knowing his maternal uncle and had given his

telephone number. He further pointed out certain

contradictions in the statement of PW87 Sayeed Mohd. Azim

Varasi, who is the key witness against accused no.3 to prove

his visit to Bombay. The learned counsel next contended

that so far as the receipt of amount by accused no.3 through

Hawala and accused Amir-ul-Azim is concerned, there is no

independent witness to prove the facts that it was received

for the purpose of terrorists activities. Moreover, even if

this money is attributed to have been found with accused

no.3, it has no connection with the conspiracy of exploding

bomb or fire-arms etc. for which the accused has been

charged under Section 3(3) of TADA Act. Lastly, the learned

counsel argued that the trial court has given its findings

mostly on the basis of conjectures and surmises; the

judgment does not deal with the defence witnesses and is

full of discrepancies and factual errors; the facts on the

basis of which the conclusions have been reached and

inferences have been drawn by the trial court actually do

not exist anywhere, neither in the deposition nor in the

oral or documentary evidence and not even in the

confessional statements; the say of CBI officers has been

taken as gospel truth and accused no.3 has been convicted

for criminal conspiracy on the basis of philosophical

reasons; and, therefore, accused no.3 may be acquitted.

Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of accused no.20 contended that the confession of

accused was procured after he was stripped naked and

severely tortured for four days and the alleged confession

has serious discrepancies, which have been filled up

subsequently. In the confessional statement, Aligarh has

been replaced for Srinagar and that the certificate has

been corrected by white ink where the name of accused no.20

Shoaib Mukhtiar has been substituted for accused no.2 Mohd.

Sharief. The very fact that the name has been changed twice

in the statement creates a serious suspicion that the

recording of the confession may have been a mere paper

transaction. Even the existence of gaps and blanks and

change of the name of the city in the statement creates a

doubt about the authenticity of the alleged confession.

Further, there is no oral or documentary evidence on record

to show that accused no.20 in any manner aided or abetted

the commission of any terrorist act. The case of the

accused no.20 is completely at par with that of the other

accused who have been acquitted and there is no point of

distinction on the basis of which the Designated Court could

come to a contrary conclusion. On perusal of the entire

evidence and in particular the statements of PW43 Major

Singh and PW87 Azim Varasi, it becomes self-evident that A20

was not even aware of the conspiracy of accused no.1 or

others to commit any terrorist act. PW43 has only stated

that he had seen A20 in the company of A1. He nowhere

stated that in his presence any plan for commission of a

terrorist offence or any other offence was discussed. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 48

learned counsel further argued that the confession of

co-accused cannot be used against the appellant,

particularly in the absence of any other evidence, oral or

documentary. The confession is thus incapable of connecting

the accused with the alleged offences. He contended that

the courts do not begin appreciation of evidence from the

confession of a co-accused but consider the weight of

substantive evidence and if possible, seek corroboration of

the same from such confession. He further contended that

the Trial Court on the basis of confessional statement held

[in Para 159] that accused no.20 had also undertaken once

to arrange for transportation of firearms but ultimately he

could not succeed and there is not a whisper about the same

by any of the witnesses. Thus, if this fact is excluded

from consideration, the statements of PW43 and PW87 do not

take the prosecution any further with regard to the

knowledge of terrorist activity of A1 or any of the other

accused. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the

Trial Court has misread the evidence of PW43 and PW87 in

coming to the conclusion that the A20 was a conspirator with

A1, A2, A3 or A4 and, therefore, A20 requires acquittal in

the instant case.

Lastly, it was common contention of learned counsel

for the appellants that unless there is conviction of any

one accused under Section 3(2), appellants could not be

convicted under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act. Mr. P.P.

Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

State (CBI) controverted arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the accused/appellants and contended that the

totality of the evidence read with the confessional

statements of the accused establishes that they were

conspirators; the judgment of the trial court is well

reasoned and, therefore, the appeals of the accused require

dismissal.

On the basis of the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties, the contentions raised by them can

be divided as under: - 1. Whether before convicting

accused under Section 3(3) there should be conviction of

someone under Section 3(2) of TADA Act?

2. Whether confessional statements would be

inadmissible in the evidence on the ground that (a) they

were recorded by the investigating officers or the officers

supervising the investigation; (b) the accused were not

produced before the Judicial Magistrate immediately after

recording the confessional statements; and (c) the

guidelines laid down in the case of Kartar Singh are not

followed?

3. Whether there is any other evidence led by the

prosecution to connect the accused with the crime or

corroborating confessional statements?

(1) Whether before convicting accused under Section

3(3) there should be conviction of someone under Section

3(2) of TADA Act?

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

the conviction of the accused under Section 3(3) of the TADA

Act is illegal as none of the accused is convicted under

Section 3(2) of TADA Act. In substance it is contended that

section 3(3) does not contemplate an act which is

independently an offence, but it depends upon commission of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 48

a terrorist act as contemplated under section 3(1). In our

view, this submission is without any substance if we refer

to the language used in Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the Act.

3. Punishment for terrorist acts.(1) Whoever with intent

to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike

terror in the people or any section of the people or to

alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect

the harmony amongst different sections of the people does

any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive

substances or inflammable substances or fire-arms or other

lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other

chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or

otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to

cause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or injuries to,

any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or

destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or

services essential to the life of the community, or detains

any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in

order to compel the Government or any other person to do or

abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act.

(2) Whoever commits a terrorist act, shall,--

(i) if such act has resulted in the death of any

person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life

and shall also be liable to fine;

(ii) if any other case, be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five

years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and

shall also be liable to fine.

(3) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or

advocates, abets, advises or incites or knowingly

facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any act

preparatory to a terrorist act, shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five

years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and

shall also be liable to fine.

(4) Whoever harbours or conceals, or attempts to

harbour or conceal any terrorist act shall be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than

five years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life

and shall also be liable to fine.

(5) Any person who is a member of a terrorists gang

or a terrorists organisation, which is involved in

terrorist acts, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than five years, but which may

extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to

fine.

(6) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained

from commission of any terrorist act or has been acquired

through terrorist funds shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five

years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and

shall also be liable to fine.

The aforesaid section provides for various acts which

would be considered as terrorist acts and punishment

thereof. It also provides for punishment of acts which are

not terrorist acts. Section 3(1) enumerates various

activities which are considered to be terrorist acts and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 48

sub-section (2) provides for punishment of such acts.

Sub-section (3) contemplates acts which are not terrorist

acts by themselves, but activities prior or subsequent to

the terrorist act. Under this section, a person can be

convicted if it is proved that he (a) conspired, (b)

advocated, (c) abetted, (d) advised, (e) incited, or (f)

knowingly facilitatedthe commission of a terrorist act or

any act preparatory to a terrorist act. Any of these acts

by itself constitutes an offence. Therefore, for conviction

under sub-section (3), it is not necessary that there should

be a conviction under sub-section (2) for a terrorist act.

The aforesaid activities are not only abetment of terrorist

act, but include other acts which are not covered by the

concept of abetment as provided under Indian Penal Code,

namely, advocates, advises and any act preparatory to a

terrorist act. Further, under TADA Act Section 2(1)(a)

defines the word abet in the wider sense as under 2.

Definitions(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise

requires--

(a) abet, with its grammatical variations and

cognate expressions, includes

(i) the communication or association with any person

or class of persons who is engaged in assisting in any

manner terrorists or disruptionists;

(ii) the passing on, or publication of, without any

lawful authority, any information likely to assist the

terrorists or disruptionists and the passing on, or

publication of, or distribution of any document or matter

obtained from terrorists or disruptionists;

(iii) the rendering of any assistance, whether

financial or otherwise, to terrorists or disruptionists.

This concept of making such activities as offence is

not new to the criminal jurisprudence. Chapter V of the

Indian Penal Code provides for abetment and punishment for

the same. Section 115 deals with punishment in case where

abetted offence is not committed. It inter alia provides

that whoever abets the offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life shall, if that offence is not

committed in consequence of the abetment, be punished as

provided thereunder. Similarly, section 116 provides for

punishment in case where abetted offence punishable with

imprisonment is not committed. Section 118 also

contemplates punishment in case where offence is not

committed. It inter alia provides for punishing a person

who conceals design to commit an offence punishable with

death or imprisonment for life inter alia by any act or

illegal omission. Similar provisions are there under

Sections 119 and 120. Hence, in our view, for convicting

the accused under Section 3(3), it is not necessary that

someone should be convicted under Section 3(2) for

commission of a terrorist act. Therefore, the contention of

the learned counsel for the accused that except accused

no.1-Lal Singh, no other accused can be convicted under

Section 3(3) is without any substance.

(2) Admissibility of Confessional Statements:

Next question would bewhether confessional statements

are inadmissible in evidence because (a) the statements were

recorded by the investigating officers or the officers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 48

supervising the investigation; (b) the accused were not

produced before the Judicial Magistrate immediately after

recording the confessional statements; and (c) the

guidelines laid down in the case of Kartar Singh are not

followed. For deciding this contention, we have to refer to

Section 15 of the TADA Act and flush out from our mind the

concept evolved because of provisions of Evidence Act. The

confessional statement recorded by the Investigating Officer

is not admissible in evidence because of specific bar under

Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. When that bar is

lifted by the Legislature, it would be difficult to hold

that such confessional statement is inadmissible. For this,

we would first refer to some part of the judgment in the

case of Kartar Singh (Supra) where this Court held that if

the exigencies of certain situation warrant such a

legislation then it is constitutionally permissible. The

Court observed [in paragraphs 253,254 and 255] that in some

advanced countries like United Kingdom, United States of

America, Australia and Canada etc. confession of an accused

before police is admissible and having regard to the legal

competence of the legislature to make the law prescribing a

different mode of proof, the meaningful purpose and object

of the legislation, the gravity of terrorism unleashed by

the terrorists and disruptionists endangering not only the

sovereignty and integrity of the country but also the normal

life of the citizens, and the reluctance of even the victims

as well as the public in coming forward, at the risk of

their life, to give evidence, the impugned section cannot be

said to be suffering from any vice of unconstitutionality.

The Court further observed that if there is no breach of

procedure and the accepted norms of recording the confession

which should reflect only the true and voluntary statement,

then there should be no room for hyper criticism that the

authority has obtained an invented confession as a source of

proof irrespective of the truth and creditability. The

Court also observeda confession made by a person before a

police officer can be made admissible in the trial of such

person not only as against the person but also against the

co-accused, abettor or conspirator provided that the

co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in

the same case together with the accused, namely, the maker

of the confession. The present position is in conformity

with Section 30 of the Evidence Act.

The Court finally held that it is entirely for the

Court trying the offence to decide the question of

admissibility and reliability of confession in its judicial

wisdom strictly adhering to the law, it must, while so

deciding the question, should satisfy itself that there was

no trap, no track and no importune seeking of evidence

during the custodial interrogation and all the conditions

required are fulfilled.

In view of the settled legal position, it is not

possible to accept the contention of learned senior counsel

Mr. Sushil Kumar that as the accused were in police

custody, the confessional statements are either inadmissible

in evidence or are not reliable. Custodial interrogation in

such cases is permissible under the law to meet grave

situation arising out of terrorism unleashed by terrorist

activities by persons residing within or outside the

country. The learned counsel further submitted that in the

present case the guidelines suggested by this Court in

Kartar Singh (Supra) were not followed. In our view, this

submission is without any basis because in the present case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 48

confessional statements were recorded prior to the date of

decision in the said case i.e. before 11th March, 1994.

Further, despite the suggestion made by this Court in Kartar

Singhs case, the said guidelines are neither incorporated

in the Act or the Rules by the Parliament. Therefore, it

would be difficult to accept the contention raised by

learned counsel for the accused that as the said guidelines

are not followed, confessional statements even if admissible

in evidence, should not be relied upon for convicting the

accused. Further, this Court has not held in Kartar Singhs

case (Supra) that if suggested guidelines are not followed

then confessional statement would be inadmissible in

evidence. Similar contention was negatived by this Court in

S.N. Dube v. N.B. Bhoir and others [(2000) 2 SCC 254] by

holding that police officer recording the confession under

Section 15 is really not bound to follow any other procedure

and the rules or the guidelines framed by the Bombay High

Court for recording the confession by a Magistrate under

Section 164 Cr.P.C.; said guidenlines do not by themselves

apply to recording of a confession under Section 15 of the

TADA Act and it is for the Court to appreciate the

confessional statement as the substantive piece of evidence

and find out whether it is voluntary and truthful. Further,

by a majority decision in State v. Nalini and others

[(1999) 5 SCC 253] the Court negatived the contentions that

confessional statement is not a substantive piece of

evidence and cannot be used against the co-accused unless it

is corroborated in material particulars by other evidence

and the confession of one accused cannot corroborate the

confession of another, by holding that to that extent the

provisions of Evidence Act including Section 30 would not be

applicable. The decision in Nalinis case was considered in

S.N. Dubes case (Supra). The Court observed that Section

15 is an important departure from the ordinary law and must

receive that interpretation which would achieve the object

of that provision and not frustrate or truncate it and that

the correct legal position is that a confession recorded

under Section 15 of the TADA Act is a substantive piece of

evidence and can be used against a co-accused also.

In the present case, undisputedly when the accused

were produced before the Magistrate they did not make a

complaint that the confessional statements were recorded

under coercion. Further, Rule 15 of the TADA Rules is

complied with and each accused making the confession was

explained that he was not bound to make it and in case he

makes it, it could be used against him as evidence.

Further, the officer had also verified that accused was

making the confessional statement voluntarily and

certificate to that effect is also attached to the said

confessional statement. For its reliability and

truthfulness, prosecution has produced on record other

corroborative evidence, which we would discuss hereinafter.

Once it is held that confessional statements are

admissible in evidence, for decidingto what extent such

statements are reliable and truthful on the basis of

corroborative evidence, we have to refer to the same. The

prosecution story revolves around accused no.1 and 2 and all

charges against remaining accused are inter-se connected

with both these accused. Therefore, we would first refer to

some parts of the confessional statements of A1-Lal Singh

and A2-Mohd. Sharief.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF A1-LAL SINGH.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 48

The confessional statement of Lal Singh is exhaustive

and narrates the entire history of his activities from his

childhood to the date of recording the said statement. He

stated his correct and assumed names viz. Lal Singh s/o

Bhag Singh, alias Manjit Singh, Iqbal Singh, Aslam Gill,

Ashok Kumar, Kishore Pilot, Lalli, Raju, Veer Singh. He was

resident of Village Nawapind and was born on 25.2.1960. He

failed in his Xth Examination. In 1972, he got made his

passport there by inserting his name as Lal Singh and

started planning to go abroad. He stated that an agent

named Billa, who was known to Kartar Singhs son of his

village took him to Bombay for going to Italy in the year

1978 and took Rs.5000/- from him. Billa vanished in Bombay

and thus he had to get back to his village. Thereafter,

another agent Nirmal Singh r/o village Dade P.S. Fagwara,

took Rs. 10,000/- from him and he was sent to Italy via

Delhi along with other three boys. There he worked in the

vessel LEENA; he used to work as Deck Boy; he stayed

in this job from September 1978 to December 1979 and used to

save 400 to 500 dollars. He left this job in December 1979

and went to Rome and started working with Gurnam Singh and

Major Singh (PW 43) in another vessel ALEXENDER. There he

worked till June 1981. On June 1981 when the vessel reached

Liverpool, he left the vessel along with Major Singh and

other boys and came back to India. He stated that Major

Singh was resident of Beeranwal Nawans. After staying for

one month at home, he went to Sophia, the capital of

Bulgaria, along with Major Singh where they worked as

Sailors. From there they went to Torrento, Canada and

worked there till June 1984. According to him Operation

Blue Star had also taken in June 1984 and for this reason

there was resentment in the Sikhs. During that time when he

went to Gurdwaras he heard many explosive speeches and that

the attack on the Golden Temple was strongly resented. He

had narrated his activities with regard to the demand of

Khalistan and that he joined Sikh organization giving arms

training like AK 47.

In the present case, we are not concerned with all the

facts stated in the confessional statement and, therefore,

it is not necessary to narrate the same. It is his say that

in 1988 or thereafter he sought help from one Joginder Singh

Sandhu, [World Sikh Organisation leader of Surrey and also

the President of Rock Street Gurudwara situated at Vancuoer]

to go to Pakistan because government of Pakistan was helping

the Sikh students who had gone there after crossing the

border. In Pakistan, he made contacts with smugglers whose

names are mentioned. During that time, he came in contact

with persons working for ISI of Pakistan. Thereafter, he

stated about forming of an organization namely K-2 for

carrying out terrorist activities. He also came in contact

with Sharief (accused no.2) who was working with the

military intelligence of Pakistan. At that time, he was

informed that Sharief was involved in terrorism in India and

some of his men were caught. Subsequently, Sharief

introduced him to two persons who were smuggling weapons and

explosives in India. Finally, it is his say that in

November, 1991 when Daljit Singh Bitto was present in his

house, one Amir-ul-Azim came with Tahir (accused no.3) and

introduced him. Amir- ul-Azim told him to go to India and

also that Tahir was resident of Bombay and a faithful man.

It is his further say that in November, 1991 Sharief came

back to Lahore with Javed Yousuf resident of Kashmir who was

living in Aligarh and they all three decided to work

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 48

unitedly for creation of Khalistan and for independence of

Kashmir. Thereafter, for him Mohd. Sharief got a bogus

passport and obtained a visa in the name of Chowdhary Mohd.

Iqbal Ahmad son of Sultan Ahmad. Both of them came to

Bombay from Lahore via Karachi by Pakistan Srilanka

Flight. The passport and visa of Sharief was also bogus.

He was having visa for Calcutta in the bogus name of

Mansoor. After reaching Bombay they stayed at the Airport

and from there they went to International Airport by Taxi

and from there they went to Calcutta by morning flight.

After reaching Calcutta they stayed in a Guest House and on

the next date i.e. on 14.12.1991 went for obtaining stay

permit for three months on Visa. From Calcutta they came to

Aligarh by train. From station, they were straightway taken

by Barquat Ali Sajjad to Pees Villa building, Doodhpur,

where brother-in-law and Mama of Sajjad was staying. After

4/5 days Javed Yousuf came there and helped him in getting a

rental house, wherein he alongwith Sharief started living.

There, for his contacts he was using telephone number of

Saukat Alis P.C.O., who was a resident of Kashmir Karbar of

Barullah market. Barqut Ali introduced him to a boy named

Shoaib (accused No.20). He further contacted Major Singh

(PW 43) on telephone who runs taxi in Delhi. In Feb., 1992

Devendra Pal Singh alias Deepak and Manjinder Singh Issi

alias Bhushan came to meet him and told him that large

number of weapons were to come in India and so he should

manage a truck. He talked to Shoaib (accused no.20) about

the truck and also gave Rs.10000/- for repairing of the

truck, which was damaged because of accident. Thereafter,

he met Amir-ul-Azim, Press Secretary of Jamait-e-Islami at

Prof. Amanullahs house at Aligarh. Amir gave the address

and telephone number of Tahir Jamal (accused no.3) of Bombay

to whom he met earlier in Pakistan. At the end of February,

he and Shoaib went to Bombay and contacted Tahir. He also

met Tahirs younger brother. He asked Tahir about a house

at Ahmedabad for hiding weapons. Tahir arranged his meeting

with Raveesh @ Saquib (accused no.4), who accompanied him to

Ahmedabad. At Ahmedabad, Raveesh introduced him to a man

named Musahid who was having a hardware shop. Musahid took

a rented house for him in Juhapura Mubarak Society. Daljeet

Bitto told him over telephone to manage some big vehicle for

hiding large quantity of weapons. In March, 1992 he sent

Musahid to Aligarh to collect Rs.50,000/- from Deepak. In

April, 1992 Deepak came at Ahmedabad with 2/3 lakh rupees.

Thereafter, he took the flat C-33, Shantivan Paresh Society

on rent of Rs.1200/- p.m. He also purchased Flat No.4-A in

Usman Harun Society in Juhapura. In the month of April,

1992 Bhushan went to Bombay to buy Zipsy. He was informed

by Pyara Singh and Guljar Singh, who came to Ahmedabad from

Pakistan, that one consignment of weapon was to come.

Gulzar Singh did not meet him but later on he came to know

that Gulzar Singh in reality is Daljeet Bitto. In May, he

received two consignments of weapons i.e. one by Daya Singh

and second from the house of Karim. Since, Karim and Akbar

came to know about Gypsy number, so he sold the same and

purchased a Mahindra Jeep. Thereafter, he came in contact

with Rajbir. Later on, Rajbir was arrested. Deepak told

him that Rajbir is that person who can talk to the

government for freeing Jinda by kidnapping the grand

daughter of Prime Minister. In June, 1992, he received

another consignment of weapons from the house of Karim. He

bought a new Bajaj Scooter from Avish Auto. He further

purchased a gypsy, earlier owned by Dhanraj Electronics. On

30.6.1992 he along with Musahid came to Bombay by flight and

stayed at hotel Balwas. They wanted to meet Raveesh @

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 48

Saquib. During the meeting, Raveesh enquired for giving

weapons and also for help in training his boys. On Ist

July, he alongwith Raveesh went to Madras. Both stayed at

hotel Woodland in different rooms. On 4.7.1992 they came

back to Bombay by flight. Next day, he went back to

Ahmedabad. On 12.7.92 he went to Indore and from Indore to

Gwalior. There, he stayed with Harjeet Singh, a friend of

Major Singh of Delhi. From Gwalior, he contacted Pal in

America and Major Singh in Delhi. Thereafter, on 15.7.1992

he left Gwalior for going to Bombay by train. On 16.7.1992

when he reached Bombay he was arrested. He further stated

that at the time of his arrest, he was having Rs.34000/-,

200 American dollars, one bogus driving licence made from

Ahmedabad and a card on which phone numbers were written

which was seized by the Police. He was also having a cynide

capsule, which was not used by him because at that time the

same was in his purse. This capsule was provided by I.S.I.

Pakistan to meet such situation. He stated that they

receive 25/30 lakhs annually from the Sikhs of USA, Canada

and England. The amount was being collected and sent to the

supporters of Khalistan and other institution. He received

the amount through hawala transaction. He also stated that

for money he contacted Satinder Pal Singh Gill in Canada,

Gurmeet Singh Walia in California, America, Bhajan Singh

Bhinder, California and Yadvinder Singh, Jaswant Singh,

Basant Singh, Zafarwal, Jagjeet Singh Chauhan, Ajit Singh

Khera, Mahal Singh Babbars and others from U.K. He further

stated that he was receiving weapons likeAK 56 rifles,

pistols, explosives, timers, time bomb, rocket, launchers,

and ammunition.

It is true that he was all throughout under

interrogation of number of officers from various departments

including C.B.I. but the story unfolded by him as to his

movements in India after December 1991 and prior to

12.12.1991 in Pakistan leaves an impression that the facts

stated by him in his statement are having element of

truthfulness. Major part of the relevant confession is

corroborated by other evidence.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF A2-Mohd. Sharief.

Likewise, A2 Mohd. Sharief has also given exhaustive

confessional statement and narrated the entire history of

his activities from his childhood to the date of recording

the said statement. He admits that he is a Pakistani

National and belongs to a well-to-do family. In January,

1987 he joined as Assistant Accounts Officers (Group 16) at

Dera Gazi Khan in Water Management Wing. After few months,

he was transferred to the Head Office at Lahore. During his

stay at Lahore, he came into contact with some Kashmiri

militants, who were collecting money from Muslim Welfare

Organisations and prominent businessmen etc. for funding

the militants operating in Kashmir. He introduced the

militants to the businessmen of Lahore and used his

political influence to get help for the militants from the

business community. He visited India on 20th January, 1991

on a valid passport and visa to visit Delhi in his genuine

name alongwith Syed Abdulla Siraji, who was infiltrated with

an assumed name of Ahmed Ali. For infiltration of Syed

Siraji to India, he took help of his friend Javed Jaida, a

Customs Clearing Agent at Railway Station, Lahore. After

reaching Delhi, he stayed at Qureshi Guest House and there

he came into contact with Furkan Ali @ Bubba r/o Saharanpur,

who was a smuggler operating through Atari border. After

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 48

site seeing in Delhi, he returned to Pakistan by train on

2nd February, 1991. In Feb., 1991 he met Sajjad Alam Raja,

resident of PoKwho was involved in arranging finances,

weapons and support from the Pakistani authorities to the

militants operating in Kashmir. He again entered into India

on 12.3.1991, through Attari border on a new passport, with

a view to infiltrate four Kashmiri militants. Out of four,

only one militant, Yakub could be infiltrated in connivance

with the local smugglers and Custom authorities. While

staying at Qureshi Guest House, he came in contact with

Mohd. Aslam and also Mohd. Ayub Dar @ Ashfaq whom he knew

from Pakistan. Mohd. Aslam was finding difficulty in

completing the construction work awarded to him by the

Indian Oil Corporation at Jet Air Base, Avantipur in J&K

state. Mohd. Aslam sought his help in persuading Kashmiri

militants to let him complete the work unhindered. He

collected copy of feasibility report from Mohd. Aslam of

the construction work at Jet Air Base, Avantipur and passed

on these documents to Military Intelligence of Pakistan. On

his return in April, 1991. Mohd. Ayub Dar @ Ashfaq

introduced him to Tahir (accused no.3) and Gullu, local

muslims of Delhi. Tahir and Gullu were having 6-1/2 kg.

explosives and he advised them to explode the same with the

help of remote control devices. They told him that they had

caused bomb blasts at Narula Restaurant, Connaught Place,

New Delhi and also in a Cinema Hall at Chandni Chowk. In

May, 1991, he was asked to work for Pak Military

Intelligence on permanent basis to which he agreed.

Initially, he was briefed by Pak MI to tell his family that

he was going to ISI as an Intelligence Officer and that he

was to be posted either in Saudi Arabia or Dubai. Pak MI

gave him training in three phasesFirst phase from 11th May,

1991 to 2nd June, 1991; Second phase from 15th June to 15th

July, Third phase from 28/29th July to 29th August, 1991.

After completion of first phase of training, he met Sajjad

and Khwaja Moin-ud- din, SDO Water and Power Development

Authority. They discussed plans to help the Sikh militants

with him. They further introduced him to Lal Singh, who was

operating under a cover name of Iqbal Gill. Lal Singh

sought his help in arranging smugglers who could help him in

the smuggling of arms, ammunition and explosives from

Pakistan to Punjab in India. He agreed to help Lal Singh

and arranged his meeting with Shera Jat, a notorious

smuggler. On 6th June, 1991, Lal Singh along with Daljit

Singh Bitto came to his house and he arranged their meeting

with Shera. He also introduced them to some other

smugglers. He alongwith Sajjad and Lal Singh formed an

organisation called K2, which stands for Kashmir and

Khalistan, and agreed to work jointly in India. As per

plan, Sajjad and his wife infiltrated into India in early

September, 1991 and created a hideout at Aligarh. He

himself flew for India on 8th October, 1991 by PIA flight

under the assumed name of Manzoor Ahmed and on a new

passport. At Bombay, he stayed in Hotel Kalpana, Grant

Road. Thereafter, on 17th October, 1991 he went to Aligarh

and met Sajjad. Sajjad told him that he was in constant

telephonic contact with Lal Singh. Sajjad further informed

him that Yasin, Shoaib Mukhtiar (accused no.20), Javed

Yousuf and Barkat Ahsani were constantly in touch with him

(Sajjad) and that they were in need of weapons for

accelerating terrorist activities including killing of

BJP/Hindu leaders and police officials in India. He tried

to get extended his visa from Delhi and Bombay but he failed

to do so. Thereafter, he returned to Aligarh; burnt his

passport and decided to stay there in furtherance of task

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 48

given to him. From Aligarh, he was in constant touch with

Lal Singh and Col. Hafeez-ur- Rehman in Pakistan on

Telephone Nos.851981 and 586668 respectively. He returned

back to Pakistan on 8th Nov., 1991 to arrange infiltration

of Lal Singh to India. With the help of Chowdhary Altaf

Hussain, a Member of Provincial Assembly, Punjab (Pakistan),

he arranged a passport for Lal Singh in the assumed name of

Iqbal Ahmed. He also got issued a fresh passport in his

assumed name of Manzoor Ahmed and also arranged a visa for

Calcutta. At Lahore, Lal Singh told him about his contact

with Amir-ul- Azim, Press Secretary, Jamat-e-Islami,

Pakistan and that he has been asked to tell Tahir Jamal

(accused no.3) of Bombay to arrange contacts in Bombay and

other places for facilitating terrorist activities.

Thereafter, he and Lal Singh left Pakistan for going to

India on 11th Dec., 1991 by Sri Lankan Flight. In the early

hours of 12th Dec.,1991 they reached at Bombay. Thereafter,

on 12th itself they took flight for Calcutta. After staying

for two nights at two different guest houses near Railway

Station, Hawrah, they left for Aligarh by Kalka Mail on

14.12.1991. At Aligarh, they went to the hideout of Sajjad.

He along with Lal Singh, Devenderpal Singh @ Deepak, Amarpal

Singh @ Videshi and Shoaib Mukhtiar chalked out plans with

Javed Yousuf, Barkat Ahsani and Yasin Malik to obtain fire

arms for killing BJP/Hindu leaders and police officials in

India. In the last week of Dec., 1991, Amir-ul-Azim, Press

Secretary, Jamat-e- Islami, Pakistan visited Aligarh and

introduced him and Lal Singh to one Prof. Amanullah of

Aligarh, who was asked to provide financial assistance.

Amir also told them that he had given some amount to Tahir

Jamal and promised to send more amount to them through

hawala for terrorist activities. In the last week of

January, 1992, Daljit Singh Bitto informed him and Lal Singh

about a consignment of weapons coming to Jodhpur and that

arrangement should be made to collect the same. They called

Javed Yousuf, Barkat Ahsani, Yasin and Shoaib Mukhtiar for

arranging a truck for the purpose. Shoaib was paid an

advance of Rs.15000/- for arranging truck. However, Shoaib

could not arrange the truck. On 5th or 6th of March, 1992

Amar Pal Sinh @ Videshi and Manjinder Singh @ Bhushan came

to his hideout at Aligarh and collected Rs.4 lacs, which

were left by Lal Singh at his hideout at Dhora Mafi. This

amount was meant for purchase of jeep/truck for

transportation of weapons. In March, 1992 he purchased a

Yamaha 100 CC Motorcycle from Aligarh in the name of Javed

Yousuf. In the 3rd week of March, 1992, Col.

Hafiz-ur-Rehman made a telephonic call directing him to

leave Aligarh as it was considered that Aligarh was no more

a safe place for him. On 26th March, 1992, he contacted

Col. Hafiz-ur-Rehman in Pakistan, who informed him that

Major Suhail and his four associates had been arrested by

the Police and that he should not go to Delhi and Aligarh

and that he should stay at Bombay. On 2nd April, 1992 he

returned to Aligarh to celebrate Id-ul-fitur with Shoaib

Mukthiar, Barkat Ahsani, Javed Yousuf and Yasin. On 8th

April, 1992 police raided at the shop of Javed Yousuf and

arrested him. At that time, he was present at Javed

Yousufs house. He immediately left that place and,

thereafter, being accompanied with Shoaib Mukhtiar, he went

to Kathmandu by bus. On 22nd April, 1992, in Kathmandu, he

contacted Pakistan authorities and leaving Shoaib alone in

hotel, he went to Pakistan by Flight. Again, on 22nd June,

1992 he left Karchi by air for Kathmandu. In July, 1992 he

contacted two persons, namely Puran Bahadur Mallah, and

Prakash Chand Thakur, Ex. Ambassador of Nepal to Japan and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 48

former Chief Protocol Officer, Govt. of Nepal, who could

provide persons for intelligence purposes. In January, 1993

the above two persons infiltrated into India. He

infiltrated on 8th January, 1993 and went to Gorakhpur. He

stayed in India upto 25th January and again went back to

Kathmandu. On 10th February, he again infiltrated into

India and returned to Kathmandu. Thereafter, on 30th April,

1993 Col. Rehman directed him to go to target cities of

India. On 3rd May, 1993, he left Kathmandu for going to

India and in the morning of 4th May, 1993 he reached at

Gorakhpur in the assumed name of Pawan Kumar Sharma. On 6th

May, he reached Delhi and thereafter, he went to Amritsar

and Pathankot and stayed there for some days. Thereafter,

he was again directed by Col. Rehman to go back to

Kathmandu. Lastly, he infiltrated to India on 7th June,

1993. On 9th June, 1993 he reached New Delhi. In the

morning of 11th June, he went to Agra for seeing Taj Mahal.

On the same day, he came back to New Delhi. At New Delhi,

he saw press reports that he was wanted by the Indian

Police. Hence, he decided to leave for Nepal. On

18.6.1993, he went to Railway Station for going to Gorakhpur

and there he was arrested by the Delhi Police.

From the statement, it transpires that till the end of

February, 1992, the movements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were

between Aligarh and Bombay. According to the story unfolded

by accused nos. 1,2 and 20 and to certain extent by accused

nos. 3 and 4, accused nos.1 and 20 came to Bombay in

furtherance of their activities. Before leaving for

Ahmedabad, A1 and A20 were in Bombay and from Bombay A20

left for Aligarh. A1 and A4 came to Ahmedabad and

subsequently to Madras. To prove their stay in different

hotels, the prosecution has examined witnesses from the

concerned hotels.

(3) Other Evidence: Before appreciating the evidence,

we would make it clear that if the confessional statements

are accepted then it cannot be said that the conviction of

the appellants is in any way illegal or erroneous, nor even

the learned counsel for the appellants tried for the same.

However, in the present case the confessional statements

were recorded when all the accused were in police custody by

the CBI Officers who were supervising the investigation and

after recording the statements, they were not immediately

produced before the Magistrate. Therefore, even though the

confessional statements are substantive piece of evidence,

to appreciate the contention that the said statements are

not truthful and reliable, other evidence produced on record

including the evidence which corroborates the said

statements is required to be considered.

For the purpose of appreciation, other evidence can be

divided as under: - (a) Arrest of A1 on 16.7.1992 and on

the basis of his interrogation, recovery of large quantity

of fire-arms, ammunitions and explosive substances.

(b) Hiring of C-3 Paresh Apartments and purchasing of

building 4- A Usman Harum Society stay of Accused No.1 and

another person in the said premises.

(c) Stay of A1 and A2 at Aligarh. (d) A1 and A4 going

together at Ahmedabad and Madras and their stay in various

hotels.

(e) Air Flight manifestos mentioning the names of A1,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 48

A2 and A4 for travels.

(f) Evidence against A2-Mohd. Sharief. (g) Evidence

against A3-Tahir Jamal. (h) Evidence against A4, Mohd.

Saquib Nachan. (i) Evidence against A20, Shoaib Mukhtiar.

(a) Recovery of large quantity of fire-arms,

ammunitions and explosive substances:

Prosecution has examined number of witnesses for

establishing recovery of large quantity of fire arms,

ammunitions and explosive substance from C-33, Paresh

Apartments and 4-A, Usman Harun Society, Juhapura at

Ahmedabad. It is the say of the witness PW9 PII.C. Raj,

Ex.172 that in July, 1992 he was working as PSI at Chhani

police station, Baroda. On 18th July, 1992, PW10 Mr. A.K.

Singh, Dy. C.P. (North Zone), Baroda informed him that at

Bombay certain terrorists were apprehended and that he

should go there and interrogate them with regard to their

movements in Gujarat. Mr. A.K. Singh gave him a

confidential letter. After reaching at Bombay, he met Mr.

Khan, Addl. Commissioner of Police of North Zone, Bombay

and delivered the letter given by Mr. Singh, D.C.P.

Thereafter, Shri Khan permitted him to interrogate the

accused at Santacruz police station. He interrogated A1 Lal

Singh on 22nd July, 1992 and recorded his statement. He was

sending information regarding interrogation at Baroda by Fax

and telephone. During the interrogation of Lal Singh on

23rd July, 1992 he received information regarding the

weapons kept by him at Ahmedabad. After completing his

interrogation, he reached at Baroda on 28th July, 1992 and

handed over the statements recorded at Santacruz police

station and his written report to Mr. A.K. Singh. The

prosecution has also examined PW10 Mr. Anup Kumar Singh

(Ex.174), Dy. Commissioner of Police, Baroda, who stated

that in June, 1992 the Commissioner of Police Mr. Hiralal

got an information that some terrorists including Lal Singh

were arrested at Bombay and were confessing regarding

conspiracy of kidnapping of grand daughter of V.V.I.P. from

Pune. He also received information that main leaders of

this conspiracy Dipak and Vijay Pehlwan were operating from

Baroda and other cities of Gujarat. Thereafter, PSI I.C.

Raj was sent to Bombay for interrogating terrorists. PSI

Raj was informing him from time to time about the progress

of interrogation on telephone. On the basis of information

received by him on 23rd July, 1992, he contacted the Police

Commissioner who in turn talked to Mr. A.K. Tandon

Director General of Police, Gujarat State over telephone in

his presence. Thereafter, Mr. Hira Lal telephoned to Mr.

Surolia (PW103) who was Dy. Commissioner of Police,

Ahmedabad in his presence and subsequently he talked to Mr.

Surolia and gave detailed information received by him. It

is the say of this witness that on 24th July, 1992 in the

late hours at night he received information from Mr. Hira

Lal that successful raids were carried out at Ahmedabad on

the basis of the information given by him. He has also

produced on record the report Ex.173 submitted by PSI I.C.

Raj. PW-103 Mr. A.K.R. Surolia, Ex.548 has stated that at

the relevant time he was S.P. (CID Crime), State of Gujarat

in the police head quarters. On 23rd July, 1992 Mr. Hira

Lal, Commissioner of Police, Baroda telephoned him in the

evening and told him that accused Lal Singh arrested at

Bombay had made certain disclosures regarding weapons and

some explosives at some places in Ahmedabad and so he should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 48

contact DCP Mr. A.K. Singh Baroda who would dictate the

details about the disclosures. Thereafter, Mr. A.K. Singh

informed him that Lal Singh and his associates had lived at

Ahmedabad for quite sometime at two places i.e. (1) C-33,

Paresh Apartments, Narayannagar, Paldi and (2) 4A, Usman

Harun Society, Jhuapura, Ahmedabad, and it was likely that

arms, ammunitions and explosives were hidden in the said

hideouts. He immediately contacted Commissioner of Police

Mr. M.M. Mehta in his chamber who directed to work out the

details and job of selecting a team. He selected PI Mr.

D.S. Sangwan, Astodia police station for the job and the

staff under his control. They located the places and

reported to him. Thereafter, in the early hours of 24th

July, 1992 he went to the areas with his team and after

survey, he kept some persons for a watch as the areas were

hideouts for terrorists. He also decided to carry out the

raids in the said premises in the morning and instructed SI

Mr. Tarun Barot (PW7) to arrange for two Panchas and to

reach at Paresh Apartments. It is the say of the witness

that C-33, Paresh Apartments is a flat on 3rd floor having

two rooms and kitchen and it was locked but was opened by

breaking open the lock. In the said premises, weapons

including AK 56 rifles, pistols, ammunitions etc. were

found and seized after preparing recovery memo. Thereafter,

they proceeded to the second premises namely 4A, Usman Harun

Society, Juhapura, which was a small bungalow having ground

floor. It was also locked and after breaking open the lock,

they entered into the bungalow and in presence of the

Panchas search was carried out and a large quantity of arms,

ammunitions and explosives etc. were recovered. It is his

say that as the articles were bulky and in large quantity

they called for bags, gunny bags, boxes etc. from the head

quarter and seized articles were sent to the head quarter

after completing the panchnama, Ex.145. Thereafter, he

directed the PI Mr. Sangwan to lodge complaint. In the

cross-examination, he has stated that he first visited the

site approximately between 2.30 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. and

thereafter at about 10.00 am he went to the first premises.

It is his say that he has not drawn any formal panchnama for

breaking open the lock. He further stated that it took 8 to

9 hours at Juhapura in raiding the premises and completing

the formalities of seizure. He had denied the suggestion

that he had not gone to Paresh Apartments and 4A, Usman

Harun Society at the time of raid and that all those

muddamal weapons were lying with them as they were found

unclaimed or the case against Lal Singh is concocted by

adjusting the lying mudamal.

The prosecution has then examined PW104 Mr. D.C.

Sangwan, PI, Astodia Police Station, Ex.550. It is his say

that the police station was under control of DCP (South) Mr.

Surolia. On late night of 23rd July, 1992, DCP instructed

him to locate and verify Flat No.C-33, Paresh Apartments and

4- A, Usman Harun Society, Juhapura, Ahmedabad. In early

morning of 24th July, 1992 they located the premises and

informed the DCP. Thereafter, Mr. Surolia visited both the

premises. A watch was kept and it was decided to raid the

premises in the morning. However, he could not be a party

to the raid because he was required in Sessions Court in

connection with one Sessions Trial but for sometime he had

gone to Paresh Apartments after attending the Court and

thereafter again he had gone to Juhapura at 1.30 p.m. At

that time, weapons were found and the process of preparing

panchnama was going on. Panchnama was over at about 12.00

mid night. Mr. Surolia directed him to lodge complaint,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 48

which is produced at Ex.551. It was sent for registration

of the offence at Vejalpur police station.

PW7 Mr. Tarun Kumar A. Barot, PSI, Ex.161 has stated

that in July, 1992 he was working at Astodia police station.

At about 12.30 at night Mr. Sangwan, PI, directed him to

locate C-33, Paresh Apartments at Paldi and B.No.4A, Usman

Harun Society at Juhapura. After locating those places, DCP

Mr. Surolia and PI Sangwan were shown those places. In the

morning, he had gone with two panchas at Paresh Apartments

in a private vehicle. At that place, DCP Mr. Surolia was

present and on his instructions the lock of the main door

was broken in presence of the panchas. During the search of

the flat following arms and ammunitions were recovered: -

From Flat No.C-33: 1. AK 56 rifles 4 2. Pistols

2 3. Cartridges of AK 56 rifles 200 4. Transistor bombs

operated by remote control 3

Necessary panchnama was prepared and after pasting

slips, seals were applied on the articles. Thereafter, they

went to Bungalow No.4A, Usman Harun Society, Juhapura. Here

also, after breaking open the lock of the door, search was

carried out and following arms and ammunitions were

recovered:

Recovery from Bungalow No.4A: 1. Rocket launchers -

4 2. AK 56 rifles - 31 3. Pistols with magazines - 12 4.

Empty magazines of pistols - 1 5. LMG without mark with

wooden butt - 1 6. Empty magazine of AK 56 rifles. - 99 7.

Empty drum magazines - 1 8. 82.2 grenade of small bulb type

of green colour - 35 9. H.E. 36 grenade - 12 10. Hand

grenades fuse - 10 11. Plastic explosives packets - 20 12.

Packets of explosives of black colour - 34 13. Packets of

gelatine explosives - 34 14. Paint tin of small size - 1

15. Orbin explosives sticks for rocket launchers - 8 16.

Rockets - 8 17. Magnetics - 4 18. Wire roll for yellow

coloured explosives - 5 19. Insulating rolls - 14 20. Boby

wire tape - 9 21. Detonator bundles - 3 22. Detonator

plugs - 14 23. Cartridges of AK 56 rifles - 5213 24. Fuse

plastic rolls make M.700 - 14 25. Hand Grenades - 10

Further 2 biscuits of yellow colour metal like gold

were recovered and seized. Outside the bungalow there was a

scooter bearing No.GJ-1-P.9485 of Ash colour. It is the say

of PW7 that after the panchnama was prepared, both panchas

had signed on it in his presence and he had also signed the

panchnama. As arms and ammunitions were in large quantity,

he had sent a van to the police head quarter to obtain boxes

and bags. The packets of the arms seized at Paresh

Apartments were also opened and arranged along with the

articles found at Juhapura. The boxes and gunny bags were

sent to the guard room of the police head quarters. In

cross-examination, he had stated that two places were

located at 2.30 to 2.45 a.m. and were shown to DCP.

The evidence of the police officers with regard to the

recovery of the weapons is fully corroborated by evidence of

independent witnesses, namely PW4 Dharmesh Natwarlal Valera,

Ex.137, who was studying S.Y. B.Com at the relevant time

and was residing at B-16, Paresh Apartments and PW6 Dharmen

Harikirshnabhai Dudhiya, Ex.144, who was panch of recovery.

It is the say of PW6 that Mr. Akhilesh Sureshchandra Bhagat

was second panch, who accompanied him. Recovery of arms and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 48

ammunitions was noted in the panchnama and was signed by

him. Nothing material has been found to disbelieve this

independent panch. He has denied the suggestion that as a

clerk he had occasions to go for inventory or for taking

possession. He has admitted that he was doing seasonal

business of crackers and kites on the footpath on the naka

of his lane without licence. He stated that there was no

occasion of any quarrel with police in connection with his

doing cracker business. There is detailed cross-examination

of this witness but nothing substantial is found to

discredit his say. PW4 has stated that A1 and another

accused had stayed in Paresh Apartments for 4-5 months. He

further stated that the persons staying in C-33 Paresh

Apartments used to bring Maruti Gypsy of sky blue colour and

that he had not seen them after the raids were carried out.

In view of the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that

prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that on

the basis of interrogation of A1 Lal Singh at Bombay, by

taking prompt action police recovered large quantity of

arms, ammunitions and explosive substances. It is to stated

that raids were carried out in presence of panchas and under

supervision of S.P. (CID{Crime}) Mr. Surolia. At the time

of hearing of these appeals, learned senior counsel Mr.

Sushil Kumar submitted that the prosecution has failed to

establish the recovery before the Court because admittedly

the seals which were placed on the muddamal articles at

Paresh Apartments were removed at Juhapura when other arms

and ammunitions were recovered at that place. He also

submitted that only one continuous panchnama was prepared

for recovery of the said articles even though it is stated

that articles were recovered from two separate premises.

He, therefore, submitted that arms and ammunitions which

were lying in the police station were utilized for falsely

implicating A1 Lal Singh.

In our view, there is no substance in the said

submission. First seals, which were removed, were affixed

again at second premises after arranging and classifying the

weapons. Further, there is no reason to disbelieve

prosecution witnesses for the recovery of large quantity of

arms, ammunitions and explosive substances, which were

recovered on the basis of interrogation of A1 Lal Singh.

Immediate action was taken for locating the premises and

after locating the premises, raids were carried out by S.P.

Mr. Surolia. Learned senior counsel has also submitted

that no search warrant was obtained prior to search as

required under Rule 14 of the TADA Rules. He submitted that

no entry was made in the record despite the decision being

taken to raid the premises. It is to be stated that raid

was carried out by S.P. Mr. Surolia after obtaining

directions from Commissioner of Police Mr. M.M. Mehta. He

was present at the time of raiding the premises. He was

also present when panchnama was prepared for seizure of the

articles. Further, the learned Judge has specifically

observed that during the examination of the panch, PW6

Dharmen H. Dudhiya, each parcel was opened and panch had

identified the slips which were affixed at the time of

sealing of the parcel along with his signatures and of the

other panch Mr. Akhilesh S. Bhagat. He has also

identified the seized articles which were sealed in his

presence and has described the premises which were raided

and has fully corroborated Mr. Surolia and Mr. Tarun

Barot, with regard to seizure of the articles. Therefore,

alleged irregularity in mixing of the articles recovered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 48

from Paresh Apartments and bungalow No.4A, Usman Harun

Society would not in any way materially affect the seizure

of the said articles. It was the prosecution version that

in order to classify the weapons or to arrange them in

category, the seals which were affixed at C-33, Paresh

Apartments were removed and after classification of the arms

and ammunition, they were re-sealed. We would also state

that in the first part of the panchnama the recovery from

the Paresh Apartments is mentioned separately and there is

no reason to disbelieve the said part of the panchnama. In

view of the overwhelming evidence it appears that before the

learned Judge, the defence has not challenged the

prosecution evidence qua recovery of arms and ammunitions

from two premises but they contended that none of the

accused can be linked with the alleged recovery or with the

conscious possession of any of the two premises. Before the

trial Court much comment was made with regard to the

exhibition of the seized arms to the Press in presence of

the then Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat. But in our

view, exhibition of the said seized articles would not in

any way adversely affect the prosecution version that the

said articles were seized on the basis of the information

received after interrogating A1 Lal Singh on 23rd July, 1992

and immediate action was taken by the police after its

receipt on the same night. Further, PW8 Rupsingh, Ex.165, a

Senior Scientific Officer in Central Forensic Science

Laboratory at New Delhi has inter-alia stated that on 28th

August, 1992 his team started examining the seized articles,

which were kept in boxes/bags at Police head quarter,

Shahibag, Ahmedabad. The inspection was carried out for

three days after checking the seals. The seals were found

intact, which tallied with the specimen seals of Astodia

police station. The report prepared by him is produced at

Ex. 167. Further, all these arms were firearms as defined

in Arms Act, 1959. In this view of the matter, it would be

difficult to accept the contentions of the defence counsel

that the seized arms and ammunition were not properly sealed

or were not kept at proper place. The seized articles were

kept at the police head quarters because of its large

quantity. Hence, we hold that on the basis of interrogation

of A1 prosecution has proved beyond doubt recovery of large

quantities of arms, ammunitions and explosive substances.

(b) Hiring of C-3 Paresh Apartments and purchasing of

building 4-A Usman Harun Society stay of Accused No.1 and

another person in the said premises: -

To establish that A1 Lal Singh was in possession of

flat at Paresh Apartments, the prosecution has led the

evidence of PW2 Rohitkumar Rasikkumar Shah (Ex.107), who is

having a pan-bidi shop in the name of Shriram Pan Centre

in Shantivan area on Narayannagar road. It is his say that

in addition to doing his business at Pan shop he was working

as a broker for lease, purchase or sale of houses. It is

his further say that Bhupendra Ratilal Shah, who is his

relative, was owner of C-33, Paresh Apartments and had given

keys to him for letting it out. For this purpose, he had a

talk with one Tulsidas, who was also doing the work as

broker for letting the houses. He brought two persons who

were in need of the houses. One was introduced to him as

Khanna having a plywood business at Delhi and other stated

that he was Raju. In the Court, he identified A1 Lal

Singh as Khanna. The flat was shown to them and after

taking a deposit of Rs.5000/- it was let out at monthly rent

of Rs.1200/-. The keys of flats were handed over to them.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 48

He further stated that the amount of rent given to him

alongwith Rs.5000/- was for the month of May and Rajubhai

came twice and paid rent for the months of June and July.

Police raided the premises on 25th July, 1992 and his

statement was recorded after 4 to 5 days at Ellis Bridge

police station. Nothing material has been found in the

cross-examination of this witness. He stood to the

cross-examination with regard to the identification of A1

Lal Singh. PW1 (Ex.102) Tulsiram Govindram has stated that

at the relevant time he was doing the business of embroidery

and tailoring. He was also doing the work of Estate Broker.

In the month of April, 1991, two persons contacted him for

hiring a house. One introduced himself as Khanna and

other as Raju. Both were speaking Hindi language. He

took them to another broker Rohitbhai (PW2), who was his

friend and after contacting Rohitbhai, Flat No.33, Paresh

Apartments was let out to them at the monthly rent of

Rs.1200/- and on deposit of Rs.5000/-. He has identified A1

in the Court as Khanna. Prosecution has further examined

PW3 Kantilal Jesingbhai Chauhan (Ex.108) who was working as

a Dhobi (Washerman) and doing the business in the name of

Raj Cleaners at Jivaraj Park on the naka of Krishnasagar

Society. It is his say that one Maruti Wala was coming and

giving him clothes for washing and pressing. Number of

bills have been produced on record. He has identified A1

Lal Singh as Marutiwala out of two persons who were coming

at his shop. PW4 Dharmesh Natwarlal Valera (Ex.137) stated

that two persons came to stay in C-33, Paresh Apartments at

the end of April, 1992 or in the beginning of May, 1992.

Mr. Rohit Bhai Panwala got house let out to them. He has

identified one man as a tall with good height, body and

smart and other man as short, shyam coloured and having

face like an angry man. It is his say that they used to

come and go at any time and used to come at late night also.

Sometime they used to come in a car or on occasions in auto

- rickshaw. They used to bring Maruti gypsy which was of

sky colour. They also used to keep the said vehicle

opposite to his house. Subsequently, the tall man brought

Maruti gypsy of white colour bearing series of GJ-1-K. He

has identified A1 Lal Singh as white tall man. This witness

is totally independent. He is a student and resident of the

same apartments wherein A1 Lal Singh along with other person

stayed. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of

this witness with regard to identification of A1 Lal Singh

and the fact that he brought Maruti gypsy of sky colour and

thereafter of white colour. PW11 Pratikanother teen-ager,

is a resident of C-34, Paresh Apartments and he stated in

the same fashion and identified A1 as one of the residents

of C-33.

PW39 Fulaji Beharaji Marwadi (Ex.299), Panch of

panchnama of seized articles at Paresh Apartments, has

stated that he was called by one inspector at Paresh

Apartments. In his presence, lock of the flat was opened

and three pairs of shoes, one lahanga and some pieces of

photographs were found there and the same were seized. His

signatures were obtained on panchnama papers alongwith the

signatures of another panch. He has identified his

signatures. He identified the pair of shoes but he could

not identify the pieces of torn photographs.

PW12 Nizamuddin Imambhai Kureshi (Ex.177), who was

working as Postman at Railwaypura Post Office, Ahmedabad,

stated that his brother-in- law, who was a lawyer had gifted

house No.4-A, Usman Harun Society to his sister (PW12s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 48

wife) in March, 1992. They decided to sell this house

because they were in need of money. Hence, he informed

Haidarbhai Kureshi, who was working as a broker, for the

same. After sometime Haidarbhai called him at his residence

where four persons were sitting. Out of those, one was

Haidarbhai, other was Anwarbhaianother broker and remaining

two persons were introduced to him as Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd.

Salim. Ultimately, after bargain, the consideration for

sale of the house was agreed at Rs.53000/-. He identified

accused no.1 as Iqbal.

PW5 Hafdarhusain K. Kureshi (Ex.139) is a resident

and owner of Bungalow No.1, Usman Harun Society at Vejalpur.

He stated that Bungalow No.4A was in the ownership of

Nizambhai Kureshi, who was staying at Juhapura and he wanted

to sell the said house for a consideration of Rs.60000/-.

It is his say that he was broker of purchasing and selling

houses and was also constructing the houses and one Anwar

Beg used to bring the customers. He brought two persons

namely Iqbal and Salim for purchase of the said house. Both

of them informed him that they were having transport

business and that their vehicles ply between Delhi and

Ahmedabad. After preliminary talks, Nizam Bhai and two

persons were called at 7.00 pm at his residence.

Subsequently, the sale was finalised and sale consideration

was paid. He also stated that these persons were coming to

the house in Sky colour Maruti car and thereafter they had

brought jeep of Mahindra and Mahindra. Their trucks used to

come there and they used to park in the open compound. He

has identified Iqbalbhai as A1 Lal Singh. In

cross-examination, he has admitted that in connection with

the incident of finding out of arms from his Society, he

along with Anwarbhai was arrested but has denied that CBI

has brought pressure on him for deposing falsely. He has

identified mudamal jeep and scooter, which were used by the

accused. PW23 Gurumukh Nebhandas Harwani (Ex.224),

partner-Anand Enterprises, stated that he is dealing in

business of selling refrigerators and appliances in

Ahmedabad. He has proved sale and delivery of one

Kelvinator refrigerator to one Ashok Kumar Khanna and has

identified A1 Lal Singh as Ashok Kumar Khanna in the Court .

PW24 Mr. Ambalal, Hirdas Patel, Partner of Dynamic

Enterprise (Ex.234), Ahmedabad stated about sale of one

refrigeration of Zenith Brand of 165 litres to one Ashok

Kumar Khanna 0n 19.5.1992 by bill Ex.235, which was

recovered from 4-A, Usman Harun Society.

With regard to the Mahindra Jeep, which was recovered

from Ahmedabad in an open plot behind Kureshnagar Society,

the case of the prosecution is that the same was purchased

by accused no.1 and absconding accused Dipak alias Manish

Agrawal and some other absconding accused. To prove this

aspect, the prosecution has examined three witnesses i.e.

PW64, PW65 and PW67. PW64 Vinod Kumar Hiralal Sharma

(Ex.403), businessman of Bombay, stated that he was

registered owner of Mahindra Jeep (Model No.540) bearing

Registration No.MH-04-A2114, the registration book of which

is Ex.404. He sold this jeep to one Ashok Kumar Khanna, who

was introduced to him by one Daljit Singh Shetty of Shetty

Motors. He further proved the delivery note of jeep Ex.405,

which was written by his brother-in-law. PW65 Ramesh Kumar

Ramashankar Sharma (Ex.407) is a practising advocate and

brother-in-law of PW64. He has deposed that he wrote the

writing Ex.405 for the purpose of sale of Mahindra Jeep

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 48

(Model No.540) bearing Registration No.MH-04-A2114, which

was owned by PW64 Vinod Kumar Sharma. The Jeep was sold

through one Daljit Singh Shetty alias Bablu Shetty, who was

dealing in sale and purchase of second hand vehicles at

Bombay. The deal was settled for Rs.1,75,000/-.

Rs.1,00,000/- was given cash and the remaining amount was

promised to be given on sale of Maruti Gypsy, which was

given to Daljit Singh Shetty for sale. The person who has

signed as Ashok Kumar Khanna, buyer of the jeep was having

sufficient height and was also well built. The other person

accompanying Khanna was smaller in height. He was shown

photographs Ex.255 for identification of purchaser of the

jeep but he could not identify the person in photographs as

one of the persons who came with Daljit Singh Shetty. PW67

Daljit Singh Tajinder Singh Shetty deposed that he is

dealing in sales and purchase of new and old motor vehicles

in the name of Shetty Motors at Koliwada, Sayan, Bombay.

He has corroborated the evidence of PW64 and PW65 with

regard to the sale of Mahinder Jeep to one Mr. Ashok Kumar

Khanna for Rs.1,75,000/-. He has deposed that Manish

Agrawal (absconding accused) had paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash

to Vinod Sharma (PW64). Manish had told him to get the

vehicle transferred in the name of Vijay Kumar alias Ashok

Kumar. Manish further told him to keep his Maruti Gypsy

No.MH-01-8942 for sale of it. After sale of gypsy, he was

required to pay Rs.75000/- to Vinod Sharma and the remaining

amount to Manish Agrawal or Rajbir Singh alias Harvinder

Singh. On delivery note of Mahindra Jeep, Vijay Kumar had

signed as Ashok Kumar Khanna and Rajbir, a witness, signed

as H. Singh. On 26.5.1992, he got the maruti gypsy

transferred in his name. On 6.6.1992 this maruti gypsy was

taken away by anti terrorist squad police of Bombay from his

office by saying that the same is stolen one. On seeing

both the photographs of Ex.255, he deposed that the person

in both the photographs is Manish Agrawal, who indulged in

the transaction of sale of Maruti gypsy and diesel jeep

Mahindra through him.

In the deposition of above witnesses i.e. PW64, PW65

and PW67, there is no material contradiction with regard to

sale of Mahindra Jeep to one Ashok Kumar Khanna. It is also

in their evidence that Maruti gypsy was handed over to

Daljit Singh Shetty (PW67). However, PW64 and PW65 have not

identified any of the persons sitting in the group of

accused as Ashok Kumar Khanna.

The learned counsel for A1 submitted that as the

witness PW5 Haidarhusain K. Kureshi and PW12 Nizamuddin

Kureshi were taken in police custody for the alleged

offence, therefore, under police pressure they falsely

deposed and identified A1. He contended that there was no

reason for not executing a registered sale-deed in favour of

A1 and, therefore, the entire story of selling the house in

favour of A1 by the wife of PW12 cannot be relied upon. In

our view, at present, there is no question of deciding the

validity of the sale in favour of A1. The limited question

iswhether A1 got possession of the said premises from its

true owner. There is no reason to disbelieve PW12, who was

working as postman at Ahmedabad and PW5 who was a resident

of the same Society and was also working as a broker for the

sale or purchase of the houses. They are totally

independent witnesses. May be, because at the initial stage

they were suspected to be involved in the said offence but

subsequently as no material was found they were released,

would not make their evidence inadmissible. In our view,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 48

the aforesaid evidence clinchingly establishes that A1 along

with other persons occupied the aforesaid two premises from

where large quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosive

substances were found.

(c) Stay of A1 and A2 at Aligarh: -

To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined PW43

(Ex.308) Major Singh who admittedly knows A1 since years.

He has inter alia stated that he was resident of village

Virowal of district Jalandhar and was staying at Delhi with

his family. His brother Harjeet Singh was serving in Indian

Army in Arms Regiment No.73 and his other brother Mohinder

Singh was driving taxi. He further stated that in 1978, he

got passport and went to Rome, where he joined the service

of Golden Union Shipping Company, as Assistant to Sailor.

There he met ten other Indian boys including A1 Lal Singh

who was a Sailor and who belongs to village Nawapind,

Akalgadh. He served alongwith him till May, 1981.

Thereafter, they were sent to India. Subsequently, he along

with Lal Singh and others went to Bulgaria and joined

services in other ships. It is his say that he served along

with Lal Singh till January, 1984. Thereafter, he came back

to India and started Taxi service. He has stated about the

previous talks with Lal Singh, who was at Torranto, Canada.

He has also stated that he was receiving telephone calls

from Lal Singh from 1986 to 1990. In the year 1992, he

received a telephone call from Lal Singh at his residence

and on enquiry, Lal Singh informed him that he was speaking

from Aligarh. When he suggested to meet him, initially he

said no but on his insistence he was given address of

Aligarh. At Aligarh, he was escorted by a Kashmiri looking

boy. Thereafter, he was taken in a house, where Lal Singh

was residing. It is his say that at that time in his house,

A2 Mohd. Sharief and A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar were present, whom

he has identified in the Court. Subsequently, he asked Lal

Singh that his name was involved in Air-crash. To that Lal

Singh replied that he was not involved. After sometime, he

returned to Delhi. Thereafter, he received a telephone call

from Lal Singh that one Jaswant Singh would talk to him over

telephone. After 2-3 days, Jaswant Singh who was talking

from England told him that he was sending some luggage which

he should hand over to Lal Singh. The word luggage,

according to him, was used for passport. He was again

informed by Jaswant Singh that the said luggage would be

sent along with one old lady aged about 55 to 60 years, who

was not in a position to walk and would be coming, on a

wheel chair, by air accompanied by a young girl and that he

should meet them at the outer gate and inform the young girl

that he was Major Singh. Thereafter, that luggage would be

handed over to him and he should pass it to Lal Singh. He

did accordingly and got one polythine cover containing

khakhi cover and a white shirt. A British passport having

photograph of Lal Singh with French cut beard was also found

by him in the cover. However, the name on the passport was

of Kumar. On receipt of information from Lal Singh, the

said luggage was handed over to one Deepak. He identified

accused No.1 as Lal Singh. He has identified his photograph

on a driving licence. He has also identified photograph of

A2 who was with Lal Singh when they met at Aligarh. He has

also identified A2 and A20 in the Court. He had denied the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 48

suggestion that he had never met Lal Singh at Aligarh nor he

received any telephone from Jaswant Singh or secret method

in which he received the luggage (passport). Further, PW44

Harjit Singh (Ex.309), brother of PW43 Major Singh, who was

serving at Gwalior in Indian Army was examined to prove that

A1 Lal Singh visited Gwalior as his guest on his being

introduced as friend of his brother. He stayed alongwith

him for three days and left for Bombay on 15th July, 1992.

It is his say that he gave his name as Raju when he was at

Gwalior. He further stated that Raju made telephone call

probably at USA from one STD booth for which he paid

charges. The witness has identified A1 as Raju who had been

at his place as his guest. PW84 Mohd. Shakatali

Saiyadyakubali (Ex.500) stated that he is a resident of

Dodhapur, Aligarh. In the year 1991, he was running a

STD/PCO booth in Shop No.2 on first floor of Barulla Market.

He was having STD and ISD facility. He stated that one

Javed was running shop in the name of Kashmir Corner

nearby his shop. Javed was making trunk calls to Srinagar

from his PCO. In November, 1991, Javed alongwith 2 to 3

persons came to his PCO and requested to allow them to make

trunk calls, on his (Javeds) responsibility of making the

payment. On inquiry, one of those persons told his name as

Iqbal Khan and another as Javed. They were also making

international calls. Initially, they were paying cash.

Later on, they were using this facility on credit. He has

proved some teleguard slips, which prove the trunk calls

made by the above persons. He has identified Iqbal Khan as

accused no.1. However, he could not identify any of the

remaining accused as Javed. Another independent person

examined by the prosecution to establish the stay of accused

no.2 at Aligarh is PW86 Arifhabib Habibahmad (Ex.507), who

was running a computer course at Aligarh. He has produced

on record the form filled by Shaikh Javed on 6.1.1992 for

getting training in six months computer course. He has also

produced on record the receipt of amount received for the

said computer course. It is his say that the candidate

attended the course for 10 to 15 days and thereafter he

left. He has identified Shaikh Javed, the person who had

enrolled and attended the course for some days, as accused

no.2. The documents bearing the signatures of accused no.2

are produced at Ex.508 and Ex. 509.

The evidence of PW43 Major Singh, who was knowing A1

since years clearly establishes the presence of A1, A2 and

A20 at the house of A1 at Aligarh. PW86 Arifhabib

Habibahmad also proves beyond reasonable doubt that A2

stayed at Aligarh and joined computer course run by this

witness. Similarly, PW44 Harjit Singh proves the movement

of A1 from Aligarh to Gwalior, who visited him as being

friend of his brother Major Singh. This clinching evidence

leaves no doubt that A1 and A2 in furtherance of their

conspiracy stayed at Aligarh and were aided by A20.

(d) A1 and A4 going together at Ahmedabad and Madras

and their stay in various hotels: -

Before considering this part of evidence, we would

refer to the evidence of handwriting expert PW-116 Rajkumar

Birsingh Jain (Ex.572), Deputy Government Examiner of

Question Documents who has examined various hotel bills

having signatures of A1, A2 and/or A4 and also other entries

made in the register maintained by the hotels. He also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 48

examined specimen writings of the accused. PW116 has stated

that documents of the instant case were received by his

office by four different letters of different dates from

Superintendent of Police, CBI, S.I.C. II, New Delhi. All

these letters were tendered in evidence by this witness as

Ex.573, 574, 575 and 576. Exhibits 577 to 580 are his

reports. Ex.577 relates to Q.3, Q.4, Q.8, Q.2, Q.6, Q.7,

Q.9, Q.11 and Q.11/2 and Q.15 and Q.16. Ex.578 relates to

Q.6A. Ex.579 relates to Q.21, Q.21A, Q.22, Q.23 and Q.24.

According to his opinion Ex.577, the writer of S.1 to

S.55Ex.397, which are 55 writings of accused No.1, Lal

Singh, also wrote (Q.3) Ex.317, which is entry No.1567 of

guests register of hotel Sidhdhartha Palace dt.29.2.1992,

(Q.4) Ex.240 which is entry No.2058 dt.3.3.1992 in the name

of Iqbal Ahmad in entry register No.3 of hotel Butterfly,

and (Q.8) Ex.316, which is Bill of hotel Sidhartha Palace,

Ahmedabad.

The writer of S.56 to S.105Ex.464, which are 50

writings of accused no.4, Mohd. Saquib Nachan, also wrote

(Q.2) Ex.315, which is entry No.1566 of guests register of

hotel Sidhdhartha Palace in the name of Mohd. Hamid

dt.29.2.1992, (Q.6 & Q.7) Ex.480, which are entries No.1351

and 1352 dt.2.7.1992 of Arrival-departure register of hotel

New Woodland, (Madras), and (Q.9) Ex.314, which is carbon

copy of cash memo in the name of Mohd. Hamid.

The writer of S.147 to S.184 Ex.466 and 499, which

are specimen writings of accused no.3, Tahir Jamal, also

wrote (Q.15 and Q.16) Ex.602 and Ex.603, which are the torn

pieces of letter.

As per opinion Ex.578, the writer of S.1 to S.55, Lal

Singh, also wrote (Q.6A) Ex.259, which is entry in the

register of hotel Royal, Sarkhej, (Ahmedabad).

Further, as per opinion Ex.579, the writer of S.185 to

S.223 Ex.399, which are specimen writings of accused no.2,

Mohd. Sharief, wrote documents (Q.21 & Q.21A) Ex.440, which

is Disembarcation card in the name of Ch. Mohd. Iqbal,

(Q.22) Ex.441, which is Disembarcation card in the name of

Manzoor Ahmad, (Q.23) Ex.445, which is Embarcation card in

the name of Manzoor Ahmad dt.8.10.1991, and (Q.24) Ex.508,

which is inquiry form for taking computer training of

I.C.P.C., Aligarh in the name of Shaikh Javed dt.6.1.1992.

Aforesaid opinion lends assurance to what is stated by

witnesses who have produced hotel Bills and other documents.

PW46 Harish Pursotamdas Shah, Accountant of Hotel

Sidhdharth Palace, Ahmedabad, stated that he is working in

Hotel Sidhdhartha Palace for the last 10 years; the hotel

has maintained a Guest Register in a prescribed form and

they were keeping Bill Books in duplicate; original bill is

given to the customer and the duplicate is kept on the file

of the hotel. On seeing the Ex.314 and Ex. 316, he stated

that these are the bills of the hotel, the back portions of

which are signed by him. PW47 Manohar Balvant Narvekar

Ex.313, a Receptionist of Hotel Sidhdhartha Palace,

Ahmedabad stated that in their hotel, registers are

maintained with regard to the check-in and check-out of the

customers. He has stated about the entry Nos.1566, Ex.315

and 1567, Ex.317 made in the hotels register in the name of

Mohd. S son of Hanif on 29.2.1992 and Iqbal Ahmed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 48

respectively and that both these persons stayed in hotel up

to 3.3.1992; they had put their signatures in the check-in

and check-out columns of their respective entries. This

witness further stated about the bill Ex.316 issued in the

name of Iqbal Ahmed and the bill Ex.314 issued in the name

of Mohd. Hamid. Both these bills were prepared by him and

these bills also bear the signatures of both the customers

i.e. Iqbal Ahmed and Mohd. S. Hamid. He has identified

accused no.1 as the person who stayed in the hotel in the

name of Iqbal Ahmed and accused no.4 as the person who

stayed in the hotel in the name of Mohd. S. Hamid. The

handwriting expert PW116 has opined that Lal Singh, accused

no.1, the writer of specimen writings S1 to S55, Ex.397

wrote (Q.3) Ex.317which is entry No.1567 of guest register

of hotel Sidhdhartha Palace dated 29.2.1992 and (Q.8)

Ex.316which is bill of hotel Sidhdhartha Palace, Ahmedabad.

Both these exhibits bear the signature of Iqbal Ahmed, who

was identified as Lal Singh. Likewise, Saquib Nachan,

accused no.4, the writer of specimen writings S56 to S105,

Ex.464 wrote (Q.2) Ex.315 which is entry no.1566 of guest

register of hotel Sidhdhartha Palace dated 29.2.1992 and

(Q.9) Ex.314 which is bill of hotel Sidhdhartha Palace,

Ahmedabad. Both these exhibits bear the signature of Mohd.

S. Hamid, who was identified as Saquib Nachan.

PW30 Mohd. Javed Ex.258Manager of Hotel Royal,

Sarkhej, Ahmedabad stated that Iqbal Ahmed visited the hotel

alone on 3.3.1992 at 11.00 a.m. and he checked out at 6.30

p.m. on the very day. He proved the visit of Iqbal Ahmed

on seeing the entry No.206, Ex.259 made in the hotels

register. He further proved the bill no.129 Ex.260, which

shows that Rs.100/- were charged from the customer Iqbal

Ahmed. He identified A1 Lal Singh as the person who visited

the hotel as Iqbal Ahmad on the relevant day. The

handwriting expert opined that the signature on check-in and

check-out entries Ex.259 made in the register of the hotel

in the name of Iqbal Ahmed bear his signature.

The next witness PW25 Gulam Haidar (Ex.239), Partner

of Butterfly Hotel, Ahmedabad has stated about the way of

maintaining the record by the hotel. He was shown entry

register of the hotel butterfly and on seeing the entry

no.2058 (Ex.240) made therein, he stated that on 3.3.1992 at

7.00 p.m. one Iqbal Ahmed came in the hotel accompanied

with two persons, out of which one was a local person namely

Mushahid. He further stated that the customer stayed in the

hotel up to 6.3.1992. The check-in and check-out entries

bear signature of the customer. The witness stated that

hotel is also maintaining a separate bill book for STD calls

made by the customers. On seeing the bills no.704 Ex.244

and Ex. 245, he stated that the customer Iqbal Ahmed had

made telephonic call to Aligarh over No.0571-28576 on

3.3.1992 and 5.3.1992 respectively. He identified accused

no.1 as the person who stayed in the hotel as Iqbal Ahmed

and accused no.3 Tahir Jamal as one of the persons who

accompanied Iqbal Ahmed. The handwriting expert PW116 has

opined that signature on check-in and check-out entries

Ex.240 made in the register of hotel in the name of Iqbal

Ahmed bear his signature. From the prosecution version, it

appears that the witness has committed mistake in

identifying accused no.3 as one of the persons who

accompanied Iqbal Ahmed as it is not the prosecution story

that A3 Tahir Zamal came to Ahmedabad alongwith accused

no.1.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 48

PW77 Raghuvirchandra Amarnath Laher (Ex.469), who was

General Manager of hotel Grant, Bombay firstly stated about

maintaining of record by the hotel and about the duty of the

receptionist. On seeing the entry No.59501 dt.28.2.1992 he

stated about the entry of one guest namely Mr. H. Iqbala

resident of Aligarh, in hotel Grant. He further stated

that H. Iqbal left the hotel on 29.2.1992 at 12 noon. He

has further stated about Ex.470, which is receipt memo. By

this receipt memo, the register containing the entry made in

the name of H. Iqbal was taken away by the CBI Officer on

16.8.1992. PW88 Sureshbhai Ramnikhbhai Master Ex.515

receptionist of hotel Grant, Bombay, on seeing the entry

no.59501, Ex.516 made in the guest register stated that on

28.2.1992 one guest Mohd. Ikbal arrived at 14.00 hrs. He

has stated that in the guest register, name M. Ikbal is

mentioned and that he has come from Aligarh. He left the

hotel on the next day i.e. on 29.2.1992 at 12 noon. He has

identified A1 as M. Ikbal. Even though the opinion of the

handwriting expert-PW116 is not positive yet there is no

reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW88.

PW79 Vishwanathan Ex.479 Receptionist of Hotel New

Woodland, Madras stated about visit of A1 and A4 in their

hotel under the name of Mohd. S.A. and Kishore Kumar on

2.7.1992 at 6.00 p.m. He further stated that both the

persons left the hotel on 4.7.1992. On seeing the entries

Ex.480 made on page no.131 of arrival register of the hotel,

he stated that both the above persons were allotted room

nos.1351 and 1352 respectively. Both the entries bear

signatures of both the customers. He has identified accused

no.1 and 4 as the persons who stayed in the hotel. He

stated that accused no.4 is the same person who had written

entries in the arrival register of the hotel. PW116 has

given positive opinion (Q.6 and Q.7) pertaining to entries,

Ex.480, made in the arrival-departure register of the hotel,

which were written by Mohd. S.A., who was identified as

accused no.4.

To prove the visit of A1 and A4 at Madras, the

prosecution has further examined PW97 Shrinivas Samugham,

who was Security Guard at Stock Exchange Building, Madras

between December, 1990 to September, 1993. He stated that

on 3.7.1992, he was on duty at visitors gallery on 4th

floor of the building. On that day, two persons came to the

visitors gallery and desired to go inside. He instructed

them to obtain passes from 3rd floor. Then the said persons

obtained passes and went inside. After coming out from the

visitors gallery, they enquired about drinking water. He

told them that water is available on 3rd floor in staff

lunch room. Thereafter, they went away. One of them was

looking like Punjabi and was having turban and other was

having beard and moustaches. He has identified A1 as that

Punjabi man and A4 as Muslim like person. With regard to

identification of A1 and A4 much reliance cannot be placed

because of time lag.

PW78 Silas Benjamin Ex.471 was working as

Receptionist-cum- Cashier of Hotel Heritage, Bombay in July,

1992. On seeing the entry at page no.637 of the guest book

of hotel Heritage, he stated that one guest in the name of

Kishor Pilot arrived in the hotel on 4.7.1992 at 8.30 a.m.

and he was allotted room no.404. The entries in the guests

register were filled in by the guest and he was expected to

check out on 6.7.1992. However, he checked out on 5.7.1992

at 11.00 a.m. The guest registration card no.637 mark 86/44

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 48

is Ex.472. The witness was not in a position to identify

Kishor Pilot.

In our view, from the above said evidence, it is quite

clear that A1 and A4 stayed together in different hotels at

Ahmedabad and Madras.

(e) Evidence with regard to record of Air Flights

against A1, A2 and A4:-

PW68 Shahjad Ex.433 is a Station Manager for Air Lanka

(Airways) at Bombay Airport. On the basis of the manifest

Ex.434 of Karachi Colombo (Via Bombay) flight No. UL-182

dated 11.12.1991, he has stated that two passengers had

travelled in that flight under the names of Iqbal C.M. and

Ahmad M. PW69 Sudhakar Nivrutti Tilekar (Ex.436) is sub-

inspector in the State of Maharashtra. In the year 1991-92

he was in the Special Branch-II (Immigration) in the office

of Commissioner of Bombay and was posted at Sahara

International Airport. He has deposed about the procedure

of routine check up of passengers. He has proved Ex.336,

the visa application form in the name of Ch. Mohd. Iqbal

of dated 26.11.1992. PW70 Suresh Bapurao Gayakwad, Ex.443,

Asstt. Police Inspector Police Station Matunga stated

that in October, 1991 he was working as Sub

Inspector-cum-Immigration Officer at Sahar International

Airport, Bombay. He has proved the visa form and TRP of

Manzoor Ahmad (accused no.2) issued on 8.10.1991. He has

produced Ex.338, which is visa application and bears his

stamp and signature; Ex.444 TRP and Ex.445 is

disembarcation card. Ex.445 card was tendered before him by

the passenger and he put his stamps on the same. He had

also put the R.P. No.36740 dated 8.10.1991 on the card.

PW82 Shyam Prahlad Huilgol, Controller Reservation, Bombay

has been examined by the prosecution to prove that

passengers Chaudhari Ikbal and Manzoor Ahmad had travelled

from Bombay to Calcutta by flight No.IC-175 (Bombay

Calcutta) dated 12.12.1991. He was controller of that

flight on the relevant day. He has proved the manifest

Ex.496 and that Chaudhari Ikbal and Manzoor Ahmad had

travelled at Sl. Nos.62 and 35 respectively. PW71 Mrs.

Pushpa Shantaram, a Senior Traffic Assistant of Indian Air

Lines has stated that she had prepared passengers manifest,

Ex.452 of flight No.IC-133

(Bombay-Ahmedabad-Indore-Bhopal-Bombay) and that two

passengers named Mohd. S. (A4) and Ikbal M (A1) had

travelled from Bombay to Ahmedabad by that flight on

29.2.1992. Similarly, PW35 Nikhil Mahendrakumar Bhavsar,

Traffic Assistant of Indian Airlines, had made the manifest

of passengers of Flight No.IC604 (Ahmedabad Bombay) on

3.3.1992 and has proved travelling of one person named Mohd.

S. (A4) in this flight from Ahmedabad to Bombay. PW37

Jagdishbhai Karsanbhai Baria, Sr. Traffic Assistant of

Indian Airlines proved the entries at page no.3 of passenger

manifesto of flight no. IC614 (Ahmedabad-Bombay) dated

30.6.92 stating the names of Mr. K.Kumar and Mr. M.

Hussain in the manifest. PW72 Shaikhmohmad who at the

relevant time was working as Senior Traffic Asstt.,

Santacruz has stated from the Manifest of Passengers for

IC-613 that on 1.7.1992-one passenger in the name of

Hussain M had travelled and was having two way ticket i.e.

Ahmedabad-Bombay Sector. PW73 Mrs. Vrinda Jairam Shetti,

who at the relevant time was working as Traffic Assistant,

Santacruz produced Passenger Manifest of IC-171 Bombay

Madras Sector and stated the travelling of one passenger in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 48

the name of Kumar K. from Bombay to Madras in the said

flight on 2nd July, 1992.

Aforesaid evidence lends assurance to the confessional

statements of A1, A2 and A4 for their travel from one place

to another in different fake names. (f) Evidence against

A2, Mohd. Sharief:-

PW136 Dharampal Singh, who was Dy. S.P. CBI in SIC

Branch, New Delhi at the relevant time, stated that he took

over the investigation of RC.6.(S)/92 on 11.11.1992. During

investigation, he arrested accused Mohd. Sharief on

19.6.1993, who was initially arrested by Delhi Police in

some other crime. He applied for the custody and remand of

accused Mohd. Sharief, which was allowed by the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. During interrogation,

accused Mohd. Sharief expressed his wish to give

confessional statement voluntarily and, therefore, he was

produced before P.C. Sharma, SP CBI, SIC II, New Delhi on

8.7.1993 and his confessional statement was recorded. A2

has confessed that he is a Pakistani national and ISI agent.

He visited India several times in different fake names. He

also disclosed that the entire conspiracy was hatched by him

alongwith A1 Lal Singh and others as narrated earlier. He

inter alia stated that he was arrested by Delhi Police on

18th June, 1993, when he went to Railway Station for going

to Gorakhpur. His statement was recorded after prolonged

custody at Lal Qilla and constant physical and mental

torture. As per his say, firstly he visited India on 20th

January, 1991 on a valid passport in his genuine name.

After reaching Delhi, he stayed at Qureshi Guest House.

Thereafter, he returned to Pakistan in February, 1991. He

again entered into India on 12th March, 1991 through Attari

Border on a new passport. Again he stayed at Qureshi Guest

House. He returned in April, 1991. Pakistan MI gave him

training in three phases. Thereafter, he came to India on

8th October, 1991 by PIA flight under the assumed name of

Manzoor Ahmed and on a new passport. At Bombay he stayed in

Hotel Kalpana at Grant road. Thereafter, he went to

Aligarh. He returned back to Pakistan on 8th November,

1991. Again he along with Lal Singh left Pakistan for going

to India on 11th December, 1991 by Sri Lankan Flight. After

reaching Bombay, they went to Calcutta by flight and

subsequently went to Aligarh on 14th December, 1991 by

train. Finally, he came to India on 7.6.1993. On 9th June,

1993 he reached New Delhi. When he was leaving for Nepal,

he was arrested on 18th June, 1993. To prove the entry of

A2 Mohd. Sharief in India in the month of March, 1991, the

prosecution has examined PW52, Ex.334 Mr. Surendrasingh

Kartarsingh Kadian, who was serving as Upper Division Clerk

in the Ministry of External Affairs of Central Government.

He has produced visa application Ex. 340 and carbon copy

Ex.341 dated 5.3.1991 having photograph of A2 Mohd.

Sharief. There is no reason not to accept the aforesaid

original documents produced on record. We would only

mention that the learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that photograph on the said applications can be

substituted and that there is no evidence that the said

photographs are of A2. In our view, this submission is

without any substance because it is difficult to believe

that official record can be tampered by substituting the

photograph of A2 on the original visa application. In any

case, for that purpose there is no basis. Secondly, with

regard to the photograph accused has not disputed and on

behalf of accused no such suggestion was made to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 48

witness.

The prosecution has also examined PW60 Ex.379

Navalkishore Jayadayal Asstt. PSI, Delhi CID Pak Section,

who has stated that he was maintaining the register for

arrival and departure of persons who were coming from

Pakistan. Entry No.833, Ex.380 in the said register

pertains to Mohd. Sharief son of Umardin which is in hand

writing of SI Bhup Singh. This entry Ex.380 corroborates

Ex.340 and Ex.341. It also shows that Mohd. Sharief was

staying in Qureshi Guest House. For proving the stay at the

Qureshi Guest House, the prosecution has examined PW51,

Ex.327 Dilavarhussain Sardarali, who stated that he joined

the service at Qureshi Guest House situated in Bazar Chitli

Kabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi, as Manager-cum-Receptionist from

1990 till 1992. He stated that if a passenger is a

foreigner, the entries are required to be made in

foreigners register and if foreigner is a Pakistani

national, hotel has to submit one C form containing

necessary information to CID Pak Section, New Delhi. He

further stated that in the said Guest House, most of the

foreigners were Pakistani nationals and some of them were

Bangladeshi. On reception counter, they were verifying

three things (1) passport, and the necessary endorsements

made on it, (2) temporary permit issued in small slip and

(3) visa document. They were further verifying as to

whether the initial visa was for Delhi and if the visa or

first permit is of Delhi, only then they were allowing the

passengers to stay in their guest house. This witness has

established the stay of A2, Mohd. Sharief at Qureshi Guest

House, who came to Guest House on 16.3.1991 and left on

5.4.1991. Thereafter, Mohd. Sharief again visited the

Guest House on 10.4.1991 and left on 15.4.1991. He again

arrived at Guest House on 20.4.1991 from Madras and left on

21.4.1991. Entries in this regard were made in the register

of Guest House. He has further stated about visit of Furkan

Ahmad son of Mohmad Ismail and Khurshidabegam, the alleged

relatives of Mohd. Sharief, to the Guest House on 26.3.199

and of Mohd. Ashfak on 21.4.1991. On that day, Mohd.

Sharief was not having money with him. Mohd. Ashfak

assured the Guest House officials including PW51 that he

will make the payment within couple of days. Thereafter,

Mohd. Ashfak was arrested and the amount due to Mohd.

Sharief was deducted from his (PW51s) salary by the owner

of the Guest House. He has identified A2 as Mohd.Sharief,

who had stayed in his guest house. Further, as stated

earlier, his stay at Aligarh is also established by the

evidence of Major Singh PW 43 and PW 86 who was running a

computer course at Aligarh.

(g) Evidence against A3, Tahir Jamal:-

Tahir Jamal, A3 in his confessional statement has

stated that he worked in SIMI as President, Secretary and

Treasurer in different periods. He has stated that after

his retirement from SIMI, when he was in Lahore, he was

introduced with Amir-ul-Azim, Press Secretary of

Jamait-e-Islam, Pakistan with whom he had discussion about

political situation in India and Pakistan, particularly

problems of Punjab and Kashmir where terrorism continued.

Next day he was introduced with Iqbal who was speaking in

Punjabi. His photograph was shown to him and he identified

him as the same person who had been introduced to him in

Lahore. Amir-uI-Azim wanted him to help him in India for

hiring a house for him. He went to Karachi from Lahore and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 48

then came to Bombay in December 1991 for Conference of SIMI.

He went to see off Amir-ul-Azim at Delhi Airport for

Karachi. While en-route, Amir-ul-Azim asked him to help in

publicity of cause of Kashmir habitants and gave him a

packet of money saying that it would be useful in the

proposed activity. The packet contained 1700 pounds which

he took and came back home. Then he went to his native

place, village Liandih in January 1992 and came back in the

end of the month. After return, his brother Jaffar Jamal

told him that one Iqbal had tried to contact him repeatedly

from Aligarh. He has stated that he called him at his

residence where he came with one more person called Swab.

Then Iqbal requested him to hire a house at Ahmedabad for

safe keeping of weapons, explosives smuggled into India from

Pakistan for terrorist activities. He also told him that he

would transport the weapons to Punjab and Kashmir in trucks.

Iqbal also stated that this matter should be kept secret.

Next day he shifted Iqbal to Hotel Grant and went to the

house of Sakib. He told Sakib about Iqbal and his

requirement of a house at Ahmedabad. He brought the air

tickets for Iqbal and Saquib. After about one week,

Amir-ul-Azim telephoned him that he was sending Rs.5 lakhs

for a house at a place near Paydhoni Police Station. He

reached the place and collected Rs.5,80,000/- . Next day he

went and met Saquib and informed him that money had been

received and gave him Rs.1 lakh. He spent some amount and

Rs. 2,15,000/- was kept in the almirah. Then he went to

his village and came to Bombay after Ramzan Id. and again

went to his village for some marriage. From there he wrote

a letter to his brother Jaffar through Asif and sent the key

of the almirah saying that out of the money in almirah

Rs.1,00,000/- should be given to Saquib and the balance may

be kept back. It was also conveyed that there were 1700

pounds in the almirah which should be kept safe.

Thereafter, he was arrested by the police from his village.

His statement gives the account of income and

expenditure incurred in the activities. The fact of

recovery of 1700 pounds and substantial cash is mentioned in

the statement. The opinion of hand writing expert PW116 as

regards Ex. 602 (Q.5) and 603 (Ex.6) is positive. PW83

Gulamhasa Habibulla Ahengar was working as a Branch Manager

of J&K Bank at Ahmedabad and in his presence the specimen

hand writings of A3 were taken. He has identified A3 as the

person who had executed the specimen writings in his

presence at Karanj Bhavan, Ahmedabad.

PW135 Jafar Jamal Ex.676 is brother of A3 Tahir Jamal

and a resident of Millatnagar, Andheri (West), Bombay. His

native village is Luniadih of District Azamgarh, UP. He

came to Bombay in 1982 and shifted to Millatnagar, Andheri

(West). It is his say that he was staying in the flat

belonging to his maternal uncles son. His maternal uncle

was also having another flat. His brother Tahir Jamal was

residing with his maternal uncle. For sometime, Tahir had

gone to Delhi but he was not knowing that for what reason he

had gone there. He has stated that his brother Tahir Jamal

was connected with SIMI and was Secretary of SIMI at Delhi.

He further gave some names of his brothers companions like

Salim Khan, Ibrahim and Saquib Nachan (A4). In August, 1992

he came to know about arrest of his brother Tahir Jamal. He

has stated that on 12.8.1992 the CBI Officers raided their

house after the arrest of Tahir and recovered some papers

and diaries relating to Tahir. With regard to the seized

documents, he admitted his signatures on Exhibits 601, 602

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 48

and 603, which also bear the signatures of Ariff and Ansar.

In the cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, he denied of

having produced Rs.90000/- in Indian Currency and 1700

pounds before CBI Inspector. It is his say that he was

detained and interrogated by the police at Santacruz police

station, Bombay and at Ahmedabad for some days in connection

with this case.

PW127 Harbhajanram Shantaram, Dy. S.P.-CBI, S.I.C.

II Branch, New Delhi, stated that on 14th August, 1992 he

took over the investigation of RC No.5-S/92 from Mr. M.K.

Zha, Dy. S.P., who was camping at Bombay. He further took

over the custody of five accused including accused no.1 of

this case, who was in custody at Santacruz police station.

On 21.8.1992 he recovered papers relating to sale of vehicle

No.MH.01.8942 from Daljit Singh Shetty (PW67). On 26.8.1992

he, accompanied with Inspector Mr. J.C. Prabhakar, carried

out search of the house of Jafar Jamal for recovery of

certain amount. The search was carried out under the

instructions of DIG Mr. M.L. Sharma. Jafar Jamal

requested not to carry out search and agreed to handover the

amount and other incriminating documents. Jafar Jamal took

out Rs.90000/- and 1700 pounds and some pieces of torn

letters. Thereafter, Jafar accompanied him to Santacruz

police station, where he handed over the amount, torn pieces

of letters and two pieces of paper by affixing the same on a

paper. Pieces of papers were written in Urdu Script. Jafar

Jamal read over those papers and Sub-Inspector of Bombay

police wrote the same in Hindi. A production memo Ex.601

was prepared for pieces of papers and currency notes, which

is signed by Jafar Jamal and two witnesses namely Mohd.

Aarif and Ansar Ahmad. He and Inspector J.C. Prabhakar

also put their signatures on the same. He further stated

that torn pieces of letter affixed on a plain paper are

Ex.602. The two pieces of paper are Ex.603. He further

stated that he formally arrested Lal Singh in this case i.e.

RC.6-S/92. He has denied the suggestion that during police

remand of Lal Singh any third degree method was adopted.

Rather, accused Lal Singh had tried to cut his tongue by his

own teeth and tried to hit his head with iron bars of lock

up room. Doctor was brought for treatment of Lal Singh and

two CBI officers were posted in the lock up room of Lal

Singh for his safety.

According to the prosecution, Tahir Jamal A3 was

mainly dealing in financial transactions and as contact

point. The amount of Rs.90,000/- and 1700 pounds were

recovered from his house. The prosecution has further led

the evidence that on 12th August, 1992 Flat No.6/208,

Almadina Apartments was raided by CBI officers and from that

place they recovered some papers, diaries and the documents

written by A3 Tahir Jamal. The relevant document upon which

reliance is placed to connect A3 is Ex.602. It is in the

form of a letter written in Urdu addressed to his brother

Jafar Jamal. This letter inter alia mentions that work is

in progress and that they were facing money crises. It is

also written that witness should not pay to Saquib from the

fund of karobari. Under torn pieces of letter, it is

mentioned that one envelope may contain 18 to 1900 pounds,

which is an exclusive property of one gentleman, only his

exclusive property. PW87 Syed Mohd. Azim Varasi, a totally

independent witness also establishes that A3 was connected

with A1 and A20. He has also deposed that A20 had asked him

to contact his friend Tahir Jamal, A3 and thereafter they

met at Bombay Central Railway Station. Shoaib Mukhtiar, A20

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 48

introduced A1 Iqbal and A3 Tahir Jamal to him as his

friends.

(h) Evidence against A4, Mohd. Saquib Nachan:-

He has stated in his confessional statement that in

1981 he joined SIMI and during his association with SIMI he

came in contact with Tahir Jamal, A3. During 1990, he

visited Pakistan twice. His real purpose was to meet

Salahuddin Sudani and Abdur-Rahim-Rasool Sayyef to discuss

ways and means to train Muslim youths in arms, ammunitions

and explosives. Till 1991 he was sending Sikh youths to

Pakistan for military training. Throughout this period, he

was in touch with A3. In December 1991 he came to Bombay to

attend SIMI Conference where he met Amir-ul-Azim along with

Bashir and Tahir. Azim told that Iqbal would meet them and

asked them to arrange hideouts for him at Ahmedabad so that

the weapons which were to be smuggled from Pakistan could be

safely stored. In February 1992, he had gone to Masina

Hospital, Byculla where Tahir Jamal- A3 came looking for

him. He told him that Iqbal had come to Bombay and met him.

He was supposed to go to Ahmedabad and that he should

accompany him. He met Iqbal at Grant Hotel where he was

staying and discussed Ahmedabad plans. On 29.2.92, he and

Iqbal left for Ahmedabad. On reaching there, they stayed at

Sidhdhartha Hotel in separate rooms booked in their names.

On 3.3.92, Iqbal asked for change of hotel, so they shifted

to Hotel Butterfly where Iqbal took one room and he went to

Bombay. At the end of June 1992, Iqbal arrived at Hotel

Balwas, Bombay. His photograph was shown to him and he

identified that photo as that of Iqbal and he put his

initials on it also. He met Iqbal who asked him to look for

a person at Madras who can help him in blowing up the Madras

Stock Exchange. On 2.7.1992, he along with Bashir and Iqbal

left for Madras by I.A. Flight. He and Iqbal stayed in

Woodland Hotel. Next day they all surveyed the Stock

Exchange Building and Iqbal told them in detail about his

plan of blowing it up by means of a remote controlled bomb.

Since, he was not feeling well, he expressed a desire to go

to Bombay. Iqbal agreed to come with him and told him that

whenever he has to contact him, he should ring up one Sharma

in USA introducing himself as Raveesh. After some time he

came to learn about Iqbals arrest in Bombay through

newspapers. Apprehending his arrest, he absconded till he

was arrested.

Prosecution has established that A4 accompanied A1 at

Ahmedabad and stayed along with him in hotels, that too in

different fake names. Prosecution has also led evidence of

his travels from Bombay to Ahmedabad and Ahmedabad to Bombay

lending assurance to his confessional statement that he

travelled by air from Bombay to Ahmedabad and from Ahmedabad

to Bombay by producing passengers manifests. Flight coupon

Ex.450 and Entry No.1567 in the guest register of hotel

Sidhdhartha at Ahmedabad in the name of Mohd. S. have been

proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution in support

of their case. Further, prosecution has produced evidence

regarding their stay at Ahmedabad, i.e. registers and bill

books of various hotels signed by A1 and A4. By the

evidence of PW79 Vishwanathan, Receptionist of Hotel New

Woodland, Madras, prosecution has established that A1 and A4

stayed in that Hotel. The entries of register Exs. 315 and

317 (mark Q-2 and Q-3) were sent to the handwriting expert.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 40 of 48

PW75, the handwriting expert has proved his signatures. The

entries Ex.315 and Ex.317 also stand proved by PW116.

Further, A1 and A4 had travelled in fake names and came from

Ahmedabad on 29.2.1992. If A4 was not at all connected with

A1 there was no necessity of travelling together in fake

names. In travel manifest Ex.452, the name which is

mentioned as Mohd. S. is proved by Ex.450.

(i) Evidence against A20, Shoaib Mukhtiar:-

A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar in his confessional statement has

stated that he was a resident of Aligarh. In the month of

February, 1991 Barkat Ahsani came to Aligarh and opened a

shop known as Ahsani Colour Lab. He was friendly to Mohd.

Mujib Shamshi and Mohd. Habib Shamshi who were residents of

Chowk Sheikh Dawood in Aligarh. Through these two persons

he came to know Barkat Ahsani. Before opening shop in

Aligarh, Barkat Ahsani was doing business in Srinagar. He

shifted his business to Aligarh because of disturbances in

Srinagar. He started visiting the shop of Barkat Ahsani

alongwith his friends Mujib and Habib. He was introduced to

Javed Yousuf by Barkat as his friend. Javed had also opened

a shop. He had come to India to create a situation which

could destabilize the Govt of India in the States of Punjab

and Jammu and Kashmir. Sometime in the third week of

December 1991, when he had gone to Barkat Ahsanis house, he

found two persons sitting with Barkat Ahsani. They were

introduced to him as Javed and Iqbal, businessmen from

Pathankot. After 2/3 days he took them to their house.

Then they started meeting frequently and he came to know

that Javeds real name was Mohd. Sharief and that Iqbals

real name was Lal Singh and they were the same persons who

had formed K-2 for the purpose of destabilizing Govt. of

India particularly in the States of J & K and Punjab. In

the month of September/October 1991, in the shop of Barkat

Ahsani, he was introduced to Sajjad who talked about the

atrocities on Muslims in India. He has again stated that in

the house of Javed Yousuf, they agreed to procure weapons

for killing BJP/Hindu leaders/Police Officials in India so

that they may strike terror amongst the people and alienate

Muslims from Hindu community. Knowing their terrorist

activities, on their request, sometime in the end of

December 1991 or in the beginning of Jan. 1992 he had

arranged accommodation for Lal Singh and Mohd. Sharief in

the house of Amir Hassan at New Sir Syed Nagar, Aligarh. In

1992, he had arranged for another accommodation for them as

the earlier was not found to be good by them. He stated

that in the house of Lal Singh and Mohd. Sharief, they made

plan to obtain fire arms for committing terrorist activities

including killing of BJP leaders, Police Officials; to

locate houses at different places in India for concealing

weapons, for increasing terrorist activities in India and to

recruit young boys for going to Pakistan for training in

handling of weapons etc. In the last week of January 1992

or beginning of February 1992, Lal Singh, Mohd. Sharief and

Salim informed him that large consignment of weapons was to

be collected from Jodhpur and for collecting the weapons a

truck was immediately required. Lal Singh gave him

Rs.10,000/- and requested to arrange a truck for the

purpose. Despite his efforts he could not arrange for a

truck. On 27.2.92, he and Lal Singh left Aligarh by Gomti

Express for Delhi. Thereafter, Mohd. Sharief and Javed

Yousuf met him. Mohd. Sharief gave them two tickets for

Bombay and in the evening of 27.2.92, they left New Delhi by

Rajdhani Express for Bombay. On 28.2.92, they reached

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 41 of 48

Bombay Central Railway Station and hired a taxi and went to

Tahir Jamals house from where he contacted Mohd. Azim

Varasi on telephone who was working in Tarapore Atomic Power

Project as Scientific Officer. Azim Varasi met them at

Bombay Central Railway Station. There Lal Singh gave him a

ticket for Aligarh and told him that Shafiq @ Deepak would

be coming to Bombay and that he should go to Aligarh and

help Mohd. Sharief and Deepak to look after their interests

in Aligarh. On 2.3.92, he reached Aligarh where he met

Mohd. Sharief. It is stated by A20 that on 10/11.3.92 he

and Deepak came to Delhi by train and proceeded to Bombay by

the evening flight. He requested Azim Varasi to arrange one

room flat for Shafiq at Bombay. For one week, they stayed

at the house of Varasi. Varasi arranged for a room (flat)

through a property dealer at a monthly rent of Rs.1100/-.

They left Bombay on 17/18.3.92. In April 1992, he received

a call from Lal Singh at his residence that he wanted to

talk to Mohd. Sharief and Javed Yousuf next day. He called

them the next day at his residence where Lal Singh informed

them that the consignment of arms, ammunitions and

explosives would be arriving Ahmedabad shortly and that they

should be ready for receiving the same and also to strike at

the targets. On 9.4.92, he and Mohd. Sharief left for

Muradabad enroute to Nepal after getting the news of arrest

of Javed Yousuf. On 14.4.92, they reached Kathmandu and

stayed in Hotel Ice Land. From Kathmandu he returned to

Betia on 17.4.92 and stayed for 2 weeks. From there he went

to Pune. During his stay at Pune, he got financial help

from Kamal Mehboob and Anand Pratap Singh. From Pune, he

went to Kathmandu sometimes in the end of March 1993. From

Kathmandu he reached Gorakhpur on 15.1.94 to his relations

house, i.e. Iqbal Ahmed, Advocate and stayed till 17.1.94.

He was arrested by Gorakhpur Police on 18.1.1994. In his

confessional statement, he has stated that he was aware that

A1 was interested in the creation of Khalistan and A2, who

is Pakistani national, was interested in separation of

Kashmir and that A1 and A2 were interested in transporting

fire-arms and explosives. His presence at the house of A1

in company of A2 at Aligarh and his meeting with A1 and A3

at Bombay is established by leading evidence of independent

witnesses.

PW43 Major Singh has specifically stated that along

with A1 and A2, accused No.20 was also found at Aligarh at

the house of Lal Singh. PW87 Sayeed Mohd. Azim Varasi, a

Scientific Officer in Tarapur Power Project Group with

Nuclear Power Project Corporation of India at Bombay has

stated that he was knowing Shoaib Mukhtiar-A20, who is

resident of Aligarh. He became friend of Shoaib Mukhtiar at

Aligarh and during his study of B.Sc. Engineering, he took

help from Shoaib Mukthiyar. In 1991, he shifted to Bombay.

Whenever he used to visit Aligarh, he used to meet Shoaib.

In December, 1991 he received a call from Shoaib in his

office from Bombay asking him to contact his friend, Tahir

Jamal, at Millatnagar. But since it was not possible for

him to contact Tahir Jamal A3, they decided to meet at

Bombay Central Railway Station. Shoaib Mukthiyar was there

alongwith his friends. Shoaib introduced Iqbal-A1 and Tahir

Jamal-A3 as his friends. Thereafter, he (PW87) and Shoaib

went to meet M.N. Ansari, uncle of Shoaib and his two

friends went away at some unknown place. They took dinner

there. He has further stated that he met Shoaib in January,

1992 and thereafter, Shoaib met him again in the month of

March, 1992 alongwith his friend Shafik Ahmad. They stayed

with him for about five to six days. They were having

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 48

samples of locks etc. with them for business purpose.

Shoaib and Shafik were in need of one room house. He

arranged one house for them through one broker against

payment of Rs.16000/- on account of advance rent and

brokerage. After some days, Shoaib made call to him and

asked to cancel the said rent deal. He has further

identified A1 as Iqbal and and A3 as Tahir Jamal. It is to

be noted that the witness has specifically stated that A1

and A3 were introduced by A20 as his friends. IN SUCH

CASES, TO WHAT EXTENT BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON PROSECUTION? :

In the light of the aforesaid evidence led by the

prosecution next question for consideration iswhether the

accused have been rightly convicted.

At this stage, we would reiterate submissions of Mr.

Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for A1 and A4, that A1

Lal Singh was arrested on 16.7.1992 by PW56 in CR 423/92 of

Santacruz Police Station but the case was registered prior

to his arrest. A1 was interrogated by PW9 at Santacruz

Police Station on 22.7.1997 and his statement was also

recorded but no FIR was registered. A1 made a confession to

PW128 on 12.9.1992 and report under Section 169 CrPC was

submitted on 10.12.1992 in RC 5 but there is no evidence on

record of the same. He was never told that his confession

may be used against him in TADA Case. Further, confessional

statement is not recorded in CR No.423/92. He has not

stated about his visiting Madras Stock Exchange and about

his getting the places with the help of A4, where arms were

recovered. The submission of learned counsel that A1 has

not stated in his confessional statement about his visit at

Madras after verification of the said confessional

statement, appears to be incorrect because A1 has

specifically stated that he along with Ravesh and his friend

went to Madras by flight and stayed at different rooms in

hotel Woodland. They came back to Bombay on 4.7.1992 by

flight.

Further, we would state that presuming that there is

some irregularity with regard to the recording of FIR it

would not vitiate recording of his confessional statement.

The report under Section 169 CrPC submitted in RC5/92 on

10.12.1992 has no bearing on the present case. Further, for

this purpose there is evidence of PW56 Shamrav Baburav

Jedhe, Sr. P.I. Crime Branch, CID, Greater Bombay, who

stated that at the relevant time he was posted as Police

Inspector in Anti Terrorist Squad, North Region, Bombay. In

the year 1985, there was a bomb blast of Kanishka Air Craft

in Canada and Lal Singh was wanted in that case and

intelligency had provided photographs and other information

of Lal Singh to them. On 15.7.1992, Mr. A. A. Khan,

Addl. P.C. directed him to arrest Lal Singh, who was

reported to be coming at Dadar Railway Station by

Dadar-Amritsar Express on 16.7.1992 at 5.00 a.m. After due

preparation, they apprehended Lal Singh outside Dadar

Railway Station. Lal Singh told his name as Keshore Kumar.

In the presence of two panchas namely Mohd. Imran and

Stivan Fransis, he took personal search of Lal Singh and

prepared panchnama Ex.350, which bears his signature and

signature of both the panchas. The driving licence found in

the pocket of Lal Singh, which was issued by RTO, Ahmedabad

in the name of Keshore Kumar was also seized, which is

Ex.351. The visiting card of Hotel Samrat, Ahmedabad found

in the purse of Lal Singh is Ex.352. He further stated that

he recovered Rs.30664/- and 200 American dollars from the

possession of Lal Singh. He has identified A1 Lal Singh as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 48

the person who was arrested by him. Thereafter, Lal Singh

was taken to Santacruz Police Station and he was arrested

for the offence C.R. No.423/92, which was registered prior

to the arrest of Lal Singh as he was wanted in that case.

Further, PW124 Mithileshkumar Avadhnarayan Zha, who at the

relevant time was Dy. S.P. C.B.I. New Delhi stated that

the investigations of RC.5.S/92 and of the instant case were

being conducted simultaneously. In any case, if these are

considered as irregularities, the same are of no

significance as they would not in any way affect the

prosecution case. As stated earlier, qua A1 the evidence,

apart from his confessional statement, is in abundance. In

short, during his interrogation it was revealed that in two

premises at Ahmedabad, he had kept large quantity of arms,

ammunitions and explosive substances. The evidence on this

aspect is that of police officers with regard to the raid

and seizure. Apart from the evidence of police officers

including SP A.K.R. Surolia (PW103) who conducted the raid,

with regard to the stay of A1 in the said premises, there is

evidence of independent panchas which supports the

prosecution version. For hiring of the premises C-33,

Paresh Apartments and for purchasing of the house 4A,

Usmanharun Society, Ahmedabad, there is unimpeachable

evidence on record. Further, prosecution has led evidence

with regard to the stay of A1 and A4 in hotels at Ahmedabad

and Madras.

For A2, learned counsel submitted that the evidence

against A2 nowhere indicates that A2 visited Delhi and

Aligarh for establishing contacts for alleged conspiracy and

that prosecution has not led any independent evidence to

connect the accused with the recovery of the arms etc.

In our view, this submission is required to be

considered from different angle in view of the fact that A2

is a Pakistani national. If a foreign national is found

staying in the country without valid passport and visa and

his movements from one place to another with A1 are

established and from the premises occupied by A1, large

quantities of arms and ammunitions etc. are found, it would

be prudent and reasonable to draw inference of criminal

conspiracy. The learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar

submitted that prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable

doubt all the links relied upon by it. In our view, to say

that prosecution has to prove the case with a hundred

percent certainty is myth. Since last many years the nation

is facing great stress and strain because of misguided

militants and co-operation to the militancy, which has

affected the social security, peace and stability. It is

common knowledge that such terrorist activities are carried

out with utmost secrecy. Many facts pertaining to such

activities remain in personal knowledge of the person

concerned. Hence, in case of conspiracy and particularly

such activities, better evidence than acts and statements

including that of co-conspirators in pursuance of the

conspiracy is hardly available. In such cases, when there

is confessional statement it is not necessary for the

prosecution to establish each and every link as confessional

statement gets corroboration from the link which is proved

by the prosecution. In any case, the law requires

establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent

man may on its basis, believe in the existence of the facts

in issue. For assessing evidence in such cases, this Court

in Collector of Customs, Madras & Others v. D. Bhoormall

[1974 (2) SCC 544] dealing with smuggling activities and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 44 of 48

penalty proceedings under Section 167 of the Sea Customs

Act, 1878 observed that many facts relating to illicit

business remain in the special or peculiar knowledge of the

person concerned in it and held thus: 30. that the

prosecution or the Department is not required to prove its

case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree;

for, in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth, and

as Prof. Brett felicitously puts it all exactness is a

fake. E1 Dorado of absolute proof being unattainable, the

law accepts for it, probability as a working substitute in

this work-a- day world. The law does not require the

prosecution to prove the impossible. All that it requires

is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a

prudent man may, on its basis, believe in the existence of

the fact in issue. Thus, legal proof is not necessarily

perfect proof; often it is nothing more than a prudent

mans estimate as to the probabilities of the case.

31. The other cardinal principle having an important

bearing on the incidence of burden of proof is that

sufficiency and weight of the evidence is to be

consideredto use the words of Lord Mansfield in Blatch v.

Archar [(1774) 1 Cowp 63 at p.65] according to the proof

which it was in the power of one side to prove, and in the

power of the other to have contradicted.

32. Smuggling is clandestine conveying of goods to

avoid legal duties. Secrecy and stealth being its covering

guards, it is impossible for the Preventive Department to

unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to

this illicit business remain in the special or peculiar

knowledge of the persons concerned in it. However, this

does not mean that the special or peculiar knowledge of the

person proceeded against will relieve the prosecution or the

Department altogether of the burden of producing some

evidence in respect of that fact in issue. It will only

alleviate that burden to discharge which very slight

evidence may suffice.

37. For weighing evidence and drawing inferences

from it, said Birch, J. in Queen v. Madhub Chander,

(1873) 21 WR Cr. 13 at p.19 there can be no canon. Each

case presents its own peculiarities and in each common sense

and shrewdness must be brought to bear upon the facts

elicited.

Learned senior counsel Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi appearing

for A20, submitted that the trial court has given the

benefit of doubt to 16 co-accused despite their confessional

statements and there was no reason for the Court not to give

benefit of doubt to A20. He submitted that confessional

statement of A20 was recorded under coercion and torture and

that confessional statement is having serious discrepancies.

He also pointed out that presuming that A20 was found in the

company of A1 at Aligarh or at Bombay, this would not

indicate that he was involved in any criminal conspiracy

with A1 or A2. It is his contention that confession of

other co- accused cannot be used against the appellant.

We have already dealt with confessional statement in

earlier paragraphs and, therefore, we do not want to repeat

the same. Confessional statements are held to be admissible

in evidence. With regard to the confessional statement of

co-accused, it has been held that it can be relied upon.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 45 of 48

The next question would be whether benefit of doubt ought to

have been given to A20. It is well understood that concept

of benefit of doubt is vague. Since years it has been

considered that before granting benefit of doubt to the

accused, doubt should be reasonable one which occurs to a

prudent man and not to a weak or unduly vacillating or

confused mind. On this point in Vijayee Singh and Others v.

State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190] this Court succinctly

observed thus: - There is a difference between a flimsy or

fantastic plea which is to be rejected altogether. But a

reasonable though incompletely proved plea which casts a

genuine doubt on the prosecution version indirectly

succeeds. The doubt which the law contemplates is certainly

not that of a weak or unduly vacillating, capricious,

indolent, drowsy or confused mind. It must be the doubt of

the prudent man who is assumed to possess the capacity of

separate the chaff from the grain. It is the doubt of a

reasonable, astute and alert mind arrived at after due

application of mind to every relevant circumstance of the

case appearing from the evidence. It is not a doubt which

occurs to a wavering mind.

In that case, the Court also referred to the following

observations in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [(1947) 2

All E.R.372] by Lord Denning, J.: That degree is well

settled. It need not reach certainty, but it must carry a

high degree of probability. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

does not mean proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law

would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful

possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the

evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a

remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with

the sentence of course, it is possible but not in the least

probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt

It is true that under our existing jurisprudence in a

criminal matter, we have to proceed with presumption of

innocence, but at the same time, that presumption is to be

judged on the basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent

man. Smelling doubts for the sake of giving benefit of

doubt is not the law of the land. In such type of terrorist

activities if arms and ammunitions are recovered at the

instance of or on disclosure by accused, it can be stated

that presumption of innocence would not thereafter exist and

it would be for the accused to explain its possession or

discovery or recovery and would depend upon facts of each

case which are to be appreciated on the scales of common

sense of a prudent man possessing capacity to separate the

chaff from grain. In such cases, as stated by Lord Denning

J., law would fail to protect the community if it admitted

fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If

it is established on record that A20 was found in company of

A1 and A2 at Aligarh and that at Bombay also he had

introduced himself as friend of A1 and A3 to PW87, who is

his childhood friend, then it would be reasonable to infer

that he was co-conspirator and assisting A1 and A2, as

stated in his confessional statement.

The learned senior counsel Mr. Sushil Kumar further

contended that Rule 14 of the TADA rules was not followed in

this case, which contemplates procedure of issuing warrant

authorizing any police officer above the rank of constable

to enter and search the place in the manner specified in the

warrant and to seize anything found in or on such place,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 46 of 48

which the police officer has reason to believe, has been or

is being, or is intended to be, used for the purpose of or

in connection with any such contravention or offence. Power

to issue search warrants by a District Magistrate under Rule

14 is, to some extent, similar to the power which could be

exercised under Section 94 of the Cr.P.C. This contention

was not raised by the learned counsel for the accused before

the trial court, may be, because at the time of carrying out

the search, there was no pending case under the TADA Act and

that police officers were entitled to carry out the search

and seizure under Section 165 of the Criminal Procedure

Code. The search and seizure was carried out by higher

officer, namely, S.P. C.I.D., Crime Branch. Further,

exercise of such power by the District Magistrate does not

take away the authority of the police officer to search

under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, there

is no question of application of Rule 14 of the TADA Act as

at that stage, no case for the offence was pending. Being

cognizable offence, on the basis of information received

that large quantity of arms and explosive substances were

stored in the premises, the police officer was entitled to

exercise power under Section 165 Cr.P.C. Hence, we find no

force in this contention.

The learned counsel pointed out that before carrying

out the raids neither FIR was registered and even after

breaking open locks the procedure is not followed. It is

true that in this case FIR was registered after carrying out

the raids. For this contention, it has been pointed out on

behalf of the prosecution that before raids were carried out

there was no certainty that arms and ammunition would be

recovered. These raids were carried out only on the basis

of information received after interrogation of A1 Lal Singh.

Secondly, the raid was carried out in the presence of higher

officer, namely Mr. A.K.R. Surolia, Dy. C.P (PW103). For

breaking of locks in the said premises, there is no question

of different procedure in such cases. For this purpose

panchnama was prepared and it is mentioned that after

breaking open the locks, search was carried out. Learned

counsel further submitted that there was no justifiable

reason to deposit the arms and ammunitions which were found

in the said two premises at the police head quarter. It is

the say of the witness that muddamal arms and ammunitions

were deposited at the police head quarter because of its

large quantity. It is quite possible that there may not be

sufficient space at the police station where FIR was

registered. In any case, for the purpose of safety if the

muddamal articles are deposited at the police headquarters,

it cannot be said that the recovery is in any way vitiated.

The next contention that Rule 15 of TADA Rules has not

been followed also does not carry any weight. For this

purpose, we would refer to the evidence of PW128, PW132 and

PW133. PW128 Satishchandra Rajnarayanlal, who was S.P., CBI

II, Punjab Cell at New Delhi in 1992 stated that he

registered the offence R.C.6-SII/92. He recorded the

confessional statements of A1 Lal Singh Ex.620 and A3 Tahir

Jamal Ex. 618 alongwith other accused. Before recording

confessional statements, he ascertained from every accused

whether they were voluntarily ready to give confessional

statements. Necessary questions were put to them and time

was given to them to think over the matter. After being

satisfied that they were willing to give voluntary

confessional statements, he recorded their confessional

statements. PW132 Padamchandra Laxmichandra Sharma, who was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 47 of 48

SP CBI SIC.II at the relevant time stated that when he took

over the charge of this case RC.6.(S)/92 from Mr.

Satishchandra, this case was on the last phase. Dy. S.P.

CBI, D.P. Singh (PW136) had produced A2 Mohd. Sharief and

A20 Shoaib Mukhtiar before him on 8.7.1993 and 6.2.1994 for

recording their voluntary confessional statements, which are

Ex.650 and Ex.654 respectively. Before recording their

statements, he warned them of the consequences of making

confessional statements and further gave them time to think

over the matter. On being satisfied that they wanted to

give confessional statements, he recorded their statements.

PW133 Sharadkumar Laxminarayan, DIG Police, CBI, SIC II

Branch, New Delhi stated that in the year 1992 he was S.P.

in the same branch at New Delhi. On 5th November, 1992 he

was directed by DIG M.L. Sharma to proceed to Ahmedabad in

order to record statement of A4 Saquib Nachan under Section

15 of TADA Act. On 6th November, 1992 after reaching at

Ahmedabad, Saquib Nachan was produced before him. He put

necessary questions to A4 Saquib Nachan. Before recording

confessional statement, he ascertained from him whether he

was voluntarily ready to give confessional statement and

warned him that if he made confessional statement, the same

can be used against him. He also apprised the accused that

he is not bound to make such statement. When the accused

replied that he wanted to make clean admission of guilt, he

recorded the confessional statement of A4 Saquib Nachan.

From the above evidence, it is clear that Rule 15 was fully

followed by the witnesses, who recorded the confessional

statements of accused.

In view of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the

appellants who are convicted by the trial court.

(1) For accused no.1, the evidence as narrated above

proves, beyond reasonable doubt, his involvement in criminal

conspiracy. He moved from one place to another in India in

different fake names; he along with other persons went to

Ahmedabad, hired C-33, Paresh Apartments and got transferred

building 4A in Usmanharun Society, Juhupura, Ahmedabad. On

the basis of his interrogation, the police at Ahmedabad

raided the premises and found large quantity of arms,

ammunitions and explosive substances. His stay at Ahmedabad

in the said premises is established without any shadow of

doubt by examining independent witnesses including residents

of aforesaid two premises, the washerman and other persons.

He was staying in the name of Ashok Kumar Khanna or Iqbal.

His stay in different hotels is also established. The

purchase of Mahindra Jeep and Maruti Gypsy is also proved.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in

convicting him for the offences punishable under Section

3(3) and 5(1) of the TADA Act as well as Section 120B IPC

and under Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act.

(2) Against accused no.2, apart from his confessional

statement, it is proved that he is a Pakistani national. He

moved from one place to another in India. He stayed at

Aligarh with A1 and in Qureshi Guest House at Delhi in

different names during different period. Hence, there is no

reason to discard his confessional statement that he was

I.S.I. agent and that he was involved in terrorist

activities and hatched conspiracy with A1.

(3) For accused no.3, apart from proving his

confessional statement, prosecution has proved that he was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 48 of 48

found in the company of A1 and A20 at Bombay. From his

premises, the letter written by him (Ex.602 and 603) was

found indicating his secret activities.

(4) For accused No.4, apart from his confessional

statement, it is proved that he accompanied A1 at Ahmedabad

and Madras and stayed in different hotels in different

names. He was present at Aligarh alongwith A1 and A2. He

was also absconding.

(5) Similarly for A20, in addition to confessional

statement, the prosecution has led the evidence to establish

his association with A1 and A2 at Aligarh. Thereafter, he

went to Bombay and introduced A1 and A3 as his friends to

his friend PW87.

The next question would be with regard to the

conviction of A3, A4 and A20 for the offence punishable

under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act. In our view, there

cannot be any doubt that A3, A4 and A20 have conspired

alongwith A1 and A2 in their preparatory terrorist

activities. Apart from conspiring, A4 specifically

accompanied A1 at Ahmedabad for the purpose of finding hide

out. He also accompanied A1 at Madras for surveying the

Madras Stock Exchange. If A4 was not at all connected with

A1, there was no necessity of travelling together in fake

names. For accused nos.3 and 20, it is true that apart from

their confessional statements, role proved against them in

conspiring with A1 is limited. However, A3, Tahir Jamal had

kept substantial amount for carrying the expenditure

incurred in these activities. The torn letter Ex.602 and

603 establishes that he was involved in secret karobar.

In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that their

conviction under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act is in any way

illegal or erroneous. However, considering the role played

by A-3, A-4 and A-20, we think interest of justice would be

served if their sentence is reduced from life imprisonment

to R.I. for 10 years.

In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1997 filed

by A-1 Lal Singh and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1409-1411 of 1999

filed by A-2 Mohd. Sharief are dismissed and their

conviction and sentence as imposed by the learned Designated

Judge are confirmed. Conviction of A-3 Tahir Jamal, A-4

Mohd. Saquib Nachan and A-20 Shoaib Mukhtiar for the

offence under Section 3(3) of TADA Act is confirmed, but

their sentence is modified to the extent that they are

directed to suffer R.I. for 10 years for the same and to

pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to suffer

R.I. for 6 months. However, their conviction and sentence

under Section 120B and 120B (1) of I.P.C. imposed by the

Designated Court are maintained. Hence, Criminal Appeal No.

244 of 1997, Criminal Appeal No.294 of 1997 and Criminal

Appeal Nos. 407-409 of 1997 filed by A-4, A-20 and A-3

respectively are allowed to the aforesaid extent only.