Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 993 of 2001
PETITIONER:
DEVENDER PAL SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/03/2002
BENCH:
M.B. Shah
JUDGMENT:
Shah, J.
By judgment and order dated 24/25.8.2001, in Sessions Case
No.4 of 2000, the Designated Court-I, New Delhi convicted the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(i) of Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred
to as the ’TADA’) and Section 120-B read with Sections 302, 307,
326, 324, 323, 436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
him to death and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. He was also
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the
offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of TADA and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/-. Against that judgment and order, the appellant has
filed Criminal Appeal No.993 of 2001 and for confirmation of death
sentence, the State has filed Death Reference Case (Crl.) No.2 of 2001
before this Court.
It is the prosecution version that on 11.09.1993 Mr. M.S. Bitta,
the then President of Indian Youth Congress (I) was in his office at 5,
Raisina Road, New Delhi. At about 2.30 p.m., Mr. Bitta left the office
and the car in which he was travelling came out of the main gate of 5,
Raisina Road and one pilot car, in which security personnel provided
to him were sitting, was ahead of his car. The pilot car slowed down
in order to take right turn on Raisina Road. In the meantime, one bus
came on Raisina Road, from the side of Windsor Palace. At that time,
there was an explosion in a car parked outside 5, Raisina Road.
Though, Mr. Bitta was not hurt badly, a number of other vehicles
parked on the road and footpath caught fire. Because of the bomb
blast nine persons succumbed to the injuries and 29 other persons
sustained injuries. During the course of investigation, it was learnt
that Kuldeep, Sukhdev Singh, Harnek, Devenderpal Singh and Daya
Singh Lahoria, all members of KLF, a terrorist organisation, were
behind this blast and their aim was to assassinate Mr. Bitta.
It is the further prosecution version that secret information was
received that appellant Devender Pal Singh who was in custody of
German authorities was to come to Delhi from Frankfurt on the night
of 18/19.1.1995. On his arrival, he was handed over to IGI Airport
police authorities by Lufthansa Airlines Staff. Immediately upon his
arrest, he tried to swallow cyanide capsule. However, he was
prevented.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
Other accused Daya Singh Lahoria, who was extradited from
USA to India was also arrested. He was also tried along with the
appellant but was acquitted by the Designated Court on the ground
that there was no evidence against him and that he has not made any
confessional statement. The Court also observed that there was no iota
of material on record to corroborate confessional statement made by
accused Devender Pal Singh against his co-accused Daya Singh
Lahoria and prudence requires that in absence of corroboration,
benefit should go to Daya Singh Lahoria.
In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
except the so called confessional statement, there is no other evidence
against the appellant and the said confessional statement is neither
voluntary nor true and in any case there is no corroborative evidence.
Hence, the judgment and order passed by the Designated Court
convicting the appellant requires to be set aside.
For appreciating the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant, the relevant evidence led by the prosecution is
required to be considered. It is the say of PW37 Inspector Severaia
Kujur that on 19.1.1995 he was posted at Immigration Airport and at
the time of clearance of flight LH-760 at about 2.30 a.m., the staff of
LH flight handed over Devender Pal Singh who was deported from
Germany. He was interrogated by PRO Vigilance and SB Branch and
it was found that he was having forged passport, so he made a rukka
under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12 of the Passport
Act. Further, PW83 Inspector Tej Singh Verma, Operation Cell,
Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, has also stated that on 19.1.1995 he was
posted at IGI Airport as Sub Inspector and that accused Devender Pal
who was deported from Germany was arrested in case FIR No.22 of
1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and
471 of the IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act. During the course
of interrogation, in the said case, he made a disclosure statement. He
has also stated that personal search was conducted and that travelling
documents were recovered from the accused. Along with the
disclosure statement and personal search memo, he was handed over
to ACP K.S. Bedi who conducted the investigation of this case. In
cross-examination, he has denied that Devender Pal Singh had not
made any disclosure statement and that his signatures were obtained
on blank sheets.
Now, as against this, we have to consider the evidence of
PW130 Mr. K.S. Bedi, ACP. It is his say that on the relevant date he
was posted in Operation Cell, Lodhi Colony. He received information
that an KLF extremist namely Davenderpal Singh @ Deepak has been
detained in Germany in the last week of December, 1994, he was
trying to get released from there and that he would proceed to
Pakistan or he may be deported to India. He along with other officers
went to IGI Airport to check the incoming passengers from Frankfurt,
Germany. At 2.30 a.m., Lufthansa Airlines Staff handed over the
accused who was having forged travelling documents to PW 37. He
tried to swallow a capsule in plastic foil which was caught and after
this he disclosed that his name was Devender Pal Singh. On that
basis, IGI airport staff registered a case vide FIR No.22 dated
19.1.1995. It is his further say that on that date he made disclosure
statement describing his involvement in many cases including a bomb
blast at 5, Raisina Road. Therefore, he collected the copy of the
disclosure statement Ex.PW83/A and made his formal arrest in the
present case. He produced the accused before Shri B.B. Chaudhary,
ACMM, New Delhi and secured his police remand for 10-days. He
was interrogated on 21.1.1995 and accused again made a disclosure
statement in which he admitted his involvement in the bomb blast at
Raisina Road. On 22.1.1995, he gave in writing that he wanted to
make confession. Thereafter, he informed Mr. B.S. Bola, DCP
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
(PW121) for recording the confessional statement. Mr. Bola after
following the procedure recorded his confessional statement on 23rd
January, 1995. On 24th January, 1995, he was produced before the
Court of ACMM, New Delhi before the expiry of police custody
remand and from there the accused was taken by the Punjab Police.
In cross-examination, Mr. Bedi has stated that he was not having any
prior information that accused was being deported from Germany to
India but he had gone to IGI Airport for checking the passengers
coming from Germany in the expectation that the accused might have
been deported. He also admitted that in pursuance of the disclosure
statement Ex.PW83/1, no article was recovered from the accused or at
his pointing out. He further stated that there is no recovery memo
pertaining to the car recovered from Bulandshahar on the judicial file.
However, there is a reference about the car in a photocopy of DD
No.69 dated 30.10.1993 of PS Bulandshahar. This DD was not
brought by him. He denied the suggestion that the involvement of the
accused persons was within the knowledge of police prior to
19.1.1995. He also admitted that on 23.1.1995, the DCP used the
computer installed in his office for recording the statement of the
accused. He also admitted that he had given a wireless message
informing the Punjab Police that accused would be produced before
the court on 24.1.1995 and that is how the Punjab Police had sought
his police remand. He has denied the suggestion that accused was
forced to make a false confessional statement before the DCP and the
accused was deliberately produced prior to the expiry of police
remand and was sent to Punjab. He admits that thereafter accused
remained in police custody for more than two months in Punjab. In
further cross-examination, he has stated that he had not produced the
copy of the confessional statement or the original before the learned
ACMM when the accused was produced before him. He also
admitted that before the accused was produced before ACMM on
24.1.1995, he was formally arrested by the police of Police Station
Sriniwaspuri. He also admitted that Investigating Officers of the case
pertaining to P.S. Sriniwaspuri and Punjab Police were present inside
the court when the accused was produced before the ACMM. He has
denied the suggestion that accused was put under fear and duress or
that he was warned not to reveal the true circumstances under which
the confessional statement was recorded or that in case he so reveals,
he would be done to death by Punjab Police.
PW121 Mr. B.S. Bola, DCP recorded the confessional
statement of accused. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that
he was aware about the entire facts of the case prior to the recording
of the statement of the accused under Section 15 of TADA.
The prosecution also led the evidence of PW131 ASI Kamlesh
who recorded the confessional statement on the computer as per the
dictation of accused which is running into nine pages. She has
admitted in cross-examination that during the period of six hours
when his statement was recorded accused was not provided any water
or snacks and the matter typed out on the computer was not saved nor
it was taken on a floppy.
The prosecution has also examined PW133 Mr B.B.
Chaudhary, ASJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi, who was ACMM, New Delhi at
the relevant time stated that accused was produced before him when
he was in police custody. He asked only one question to the
accusedwhether his statement was recorded by DCP on 23.1.1995?
To that, accused answered in affirmative and his signatures were
obtained on the application in confirmation of his admission of having
made a statement before the DCP. He admitted that he had not asked
any other question. It is his say that he did not think it necessary to
take the accused to his chamber to assess his mental state. He also
admitted that at that time no statement of accused was produced
before him.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
From the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, questions
that arise for consideration are (i) whether the confessional
statement is true and voluntary? and (ii) whether there is any
corroboration to the said statement?
Before considering the evidence led by the prosecution, it is to
be stated that accused in his statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. stated that he had sought asylum in Germany and was
deported from there on refusal of asylum. He has denied recovery of
cyanide capsule from him. He has also denied having made the
application Ex.PW121/B expressing desire to make a confessional
statement. He has also denied having made the confessional
statement before Mr. Bola on 23.1.1995. According to him, he was
made to sign some blank and partly written papers under threat and
duress and entire proceedings were fabricated upon those documents.
He has also stated that before he was produced before the ACMM, he
was told that if he made any statement to the Court he would be
handed over to Punjab Police who would kill him in an encounter, and
as he was under fear, he made a statement before learned ACMM. He
has also stated that he was taken to Punjab and brought back after
about three months and thereafter he sent an application from jail on
21.4.1995 retracting his confessional statement and clarifying the
circumstances under which the said statement was recorded.
It is apparent that Investigating Officer Mr. K.S. Bedi has
improved his version by stating that accused tried to swallow cyanide
capsule when he was arrested. As against this, it is the say of PW37
Severaia Kujur and PW83 Inspector Tej Singh that accused was
handed over to them by the staff of Lufthansa Airlines and nowhere
they stated that at that time accused tried to swallow any pill. It
appears that Mr. K.S. Bedi tried to give colour to the story that
appellant tried to swallow the cyanide pill. If that story was genuine,
necessary panchnama of the cyanide pill would have been made at the
spot. Further, it is admitted position on record that during the course
of investigation of the bomb blast, the police had learnt that Kuldeep,
Sukhdev Singh, Harnek, Devenderpal Singh and Daya Singh Lahoria,
who were members of KLF, a terrorist organisation, were behind the
blast. Therefore, it would be difficult to believe that the IO Mr. Bedi
had gone to the Airport only for keeping a watch. On the contrary,
Mr. Bola has admitted that on his instructions, ACP KS Bedi had gone
to the Airport to arrest the accused on the basis of intelligence reports
of involvement of accused and his group in the bomb blast case.
Therefore, the version of Mr. Bedi that he had gone at the IGI Airport
to check the incoming passengers from Frankfurt Germany cannot be
relied upon. From the evidence of DCP Mr. Bola it is apparent that
information was received that accused was coming from Germany
and, therefore, a watch at IGI Airport was kept.
Apart from the aforesaid improvement, it is difficult to believe
that the accused who was arrested for travelling on a forged passport
after landing at the airport, would make a disclosure statement
involving himself in various crimes including the bomb blast. There
was no earthly reason to make such disclosure on 19th itself so that
accused could be arrested by Mr. K.S. Bedi for the alleged
involvement in the offence under the TADA. It is also admitted that
when the accused was produced before ACMM, the confessional
statement was not produced for the perusal of the ACMM and the
ACMM only asked him the questionwhether he admits making
confessional statement before DCP B.S. Bola. It would be difficult to
accept that if confessional statement was recorded and when the
accused was produced before the Magistrate, he would be taken there
without the said confessional statement. Rule 15(5) of TADA
requires that every confession recorded under Section 15 shall be sent
forthwith to the CMM or the CJM having jurisdiction over the area in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
which such confession has been recorded and such Magistrate shall
forward the confession so received to the Designated Court which
may take cognizance of the offence. In this view of the matter, there
was no reason to produce the accused before the ACMM without so-
called confessional statement.
Further sub-section (1) of Section 15 of TADA specifically
provides inter alia that in case confession made by a person before the
police officer is recorded by such police officer either in writing or on
any mechanical device like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from out
of which sounds or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible in
trial of such person for an offence under this Act or rules made
thereunder. The confessional statement was recorded on computer
and floppy thereof is not produced in the court and is admitted to have
not been saved in the computer by ASI Kamlesh.
From the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that the confessional
statement of the appellant is recorded by DCP B.S. Bola (PW121)
who was the Investigating Officer at the relevant time. Admittedly,
the accused was in police custody. Thereafter he was handed over to
the Punjab Police. Further, from the record it appears that accused
was wanted in bomb blast case since 1993 and as soon as he arrived at
the IGI Airport, he was arrested and was handed over to PW130 Mr.
K.S. Bedi, ACP. It is stated that Mr. Bedi also recorded the disclosure
statement of the appellant on 21.1.1995, wherein he admitted his
involvement in the bomb blast case. Thereafter, confessional
statement under Section 15 of the TADA was recorded by DCP B.S.
Bola. In such state of affairs, doubt may arisewhether the accused
has made any confessional statement at all. In Kartar Singh v. State
of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569], this Court observed thus: -
"Though it is entirely for the court trying the
offence to decide the question of admissibility or
reliability of a 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 such case it would be unsafe to solely rely upon the alleged
confession recorded by Investigating Officer. Further, looking at the
original confessional statement, there appears to be some substance in
what is contended by the accused in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that his signatures were taken on blank paper. Under Rule
15(3)(b) of the TADA Rules, the police officer who is recording the
confession has to certify the same "under his own hand" that the said
confession was taken in his presence and recorded by him and at the
end of confession, he has to give certificate as provided thereunder.
In the present case, the certificate was not given under the hands of
D.C.P., but was a typed one.
Further, for finding out whether the statement is truthful or
not, there must be some reliable independent corroborative
evidence. In the present case, co-accused Daya Singh Lahoria who
was tried together with the appellant was acquitted on the ground that
there was no evidence against him and that as he had not made any
confessional statement. However, for connecting the appellant, the
learned Judge has relied upon the decision in Gurdeep Singh vs. State
(Delhi Admn.), [(2000) 1 SCC 498] for holding that when the
confessional statement is voluntary, corroboration is not required. It
appears that the Court has not read the entire paragraph of the said
judgment and has missed the previous lines which read thus: -
"For the aforesaid reasons and on the facts and
circumstances of this case, we have no hesitation to hold
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
that the confessional statement of the appellant is not
only admissible but was voluntarily and truthfully made
by him on which the prosecution could rely for his
conviction. Such confessional statement does not require
any further corroboration. Before reliance could be
placed on such confessional statement, even though
voluntarily made, it has to be seen by the court whether it
is truthfully made or not. However, in the present case
we are not called upon nor is it challenged that the
confessional statement was not made truthfully."
From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that before solely
relying upon the confessional statement, the Court has to find out
whether it is made voluntarily and truthfully by the accused. Even if
it is made voluntarily, the Court has to decide whether it is made
truthfully or not. But in Gurdeep Singh’s case (supra), there was no
challenge made to the fact that it was not made truthfully.
In the confessional statement it is mentioned that accused hired
rooms at Sahibabad, Jaipur and Bangalore. Merely because some
house numbers are mentioned in confessional statement, it cannot be
held that as house numbers are found by police officers, it is a
corroborative piece of evidence. None of the neighbours has deposed
before the court that the accused stayed in the said houses. To write
such numbers is easy for investigating officers because they were
investigating the case from the date of the bomb blast i.e. since 1993.
No independent witnesses or landlord came forward to depose that
accused resided in the said premises or took it on lease. No
incriminating articles were found from the said house or places
mentioned in confession to connect the accused with the crime. Even
PW80 Harcharan Singh who sold the car which was seized at the
scene of offence in 1993, has not stated that appellant-accused
purchased the said car or that acquitted accused Daya Singh purchased
the same. PW44 Prehlad Sharma, property dealer of Sahibabad,
Ghaziabad, stated that in August,1993 he had arranged a house on rent
basis for two boys, who told themselves to be working as contractor in
G.D.A. He, also, failed to identify accused as the boys who came at
his shop to take the premises on rent. On 28.9.1993, the police came
to him and informed that some RDX was recovered from that house,
shown some photographs to him and he identified two photographs of
the said persons. However, he has not identified the accused as the
boy who came at his shop to take the premises on rent. Similarly,
PW69 Nasir Siddiqui, who was running a shop of electrical goods at
Lajpat Nagar had sold one water pump to a customer residing in
Lajpat Nagar. The police came to his show-room and pointed some
photographs for identification of the person who had purchased the
water pump. He had identified the photograph of that person.
However, in the court, he refused to identify the accused as the
customer who had purchased the water pump from his shop.
In any set of circumstances, let us consider the confessional
statement as it is. In the present case other accused D.S. Lahoria was
tried along with the appellant and was acquitted. The role assigned to
D.S. Lahoria in the confessional statement is major one. In the
confessional statement, appellant Devenderpal Singh has stated as
under: -
"I was born in Jullandar on 26.5.65.I completed
pre-engineering examination from Layal Pur Khalsa
College Jullandhar in 1984 and joined B.E. in the
Mechanical at Guru Nanak Engineering College,
Ludhiana and completed my degree course in
1988..In the month of Nov.,1991, police
came to know about the names of the boys who were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
behind the car bomb attack on SSP/Chandigarh and the
police raided the house Partap Singh where Dr. Hari
Singh and Videshi had stayed one day before the blast.
Partap Singh further disclosed that they are also known to
me..The police raided my house. I was not present
in the house. My father and father-in-law were arrested
by the policeI was told that he alongwith Partap
Singh, Balwant Singh Multani and Navneet Singh
Kadian @ Pal R/o village Kadia Distt. Batala and Mangal
Singh are wanted in SSP/Chandigarh bomb blast case.
Thereafter, I went under ground and talked to my
maternal uncle Shri Sukhdev Singh Sandhu in
Vencouver, Canada who advised me that the chances of
release of his father are very minimum as the case relates
to Sumed Singh Saini and that he should also go under
ground.
In August, 1993, plans were chalked out to
eliminate M.S. Bitta because Keepa felt that he is
speaking to much against their movement and the
militants. Keepa along with Charni went to Punjab
and took out one quintal of RDX and left it with one
Pawan Kumar @ Chajju at Ludhiana. They came back
and sent Harnaik @ Chottu to bring this RDX to their
Sahibabad hideout. Part of this consignment was
brought by Pawan Kumar which was handed over to
Kuldeep Keepa at Delhi Karnal Border. Harnaik @
Chotu got the steel container fabricated for the
bombs. Daya Singh Lahora went to purchase an
Ambassador Car which was subsequently used in the
bomb blast. The cordless telephone was purchased
from Ludhiana by Harnaik. On 2nd September, 1993,
Kuldeep Keepa and Navneet Kadian conducted the
reccee of the office of MS Bitta at 5, Rai Sina Road,
New Delhi. Next day, Kuldeep Keepa, Navneet, Sukha
@ Sangatpuria, Harnaik, Lahoria and myself again
came to the office of Bitta to watch the proceedings.
We made two attempts on 6th and 9th September, 1993.
On 6th September, 1993, the mechanism did not work and
we could not trigger the blast. On 9th September, 1993,
MS Bitta did not come to the office. Myself and
Kuldeep Keepa fixed the bombs in the rear seat and
the dickey and the master receiver of the telephone
was placed on the rear seat. The two wires coming out
the receiver were connected to the detonators. Around
40 kgs. of RDX was used in the blast.
On 11.9.1993, we came to the office of Bitta at
around 11 a.m. and the car was parked close to the
front gate. Navneet, Keepa and Sangatpuria were
waiting in the back side of parking of Meridian Hotel
alongwith Gypsy No.DNC-1790 which was a fake
number. I went to Connaught Place to bring Harnaik @
Chotu with whom the time was fixed the previous day.
In the meanwhile, MS Bitta went inside his office and
we could not trigger off the blast as none of us were in
position. We decided to go back, but when we reached
Pragati Maidan, Keepa insisted on making another try.
We reached Janpath Hotel and connected the wires in the
parking area and sent Lahoria to park the car near the
gate of the office. The other five of us went in the
Gypsy and parked it in the parking area in front of
Chelmsford club. Harnaik and myself got down from
Gypsy and went towards the office of MS Bitta. I
positioned myself on the opposite side of the office and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
Harnaik positioned himself close to the walls of
Jawahar Bhawan to save himself from the blast.
When Lahoria came out of the car after parking
immediately, thereafter, the cars of MS Bitta started
moving out and Lahoria gave a signal to Harnaik who
pushed the button of the hand set of the cordless
telephone. The security car of MS Bitta was hit and
Bitta’s car which was behind was not damaged. Since
Lahoria was very closed, he was hit by splinters on his
back. Harnaik and myself went to the parked Gypsy
from where Sukha had already come towards 5 Rai Sina
Road, New Delhi to see whether any of us had been
injured or not. Kuldeep and Navneet were already sitting
in the Gypsy. Four of us left the place and dropped
Navneet at the back of Meridian Hotel to come by bus or
autho-rickshaw because he was a Sikh and possibility of
identification was more strong. Lahoria went to the
hospital in auto rickshaw and registered himself under
the name of VK Sood and left the hospital immediately
after first aid. He went to his hideout which is not known
to me."
There is nothing on record to corroborate the aforesaid
confessional statement. Police could have easily verified the hospital
record to find out whether D.S. Lahoria went to the hospital and
registered himself under the name of V.K. Sood on the date of
incident and left the hospital after getting First Aid. In any set of
circumstances, none of the main culprits i.e. Harnaik or Lahoria is
convicted. In these set of circumstances, without there being
corroborative evidence, it would be difficult to solely rely upon the
so-called confessional statement and convict the accused and that too
when the confessional statement is recorded by the investigating
officer. For this purpose, it would be worth-while to refer to the
decision in Topandas v. State of Bombay [AIR 1956 SC 33 para 6]: -
"Criminal conspiracy has been defined in Section 120-A
Penal Code:
"When two or more persons agree to do or cause to
be done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not
illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy.
By the terms of the definition itself, there ought to be two
or more persons who must be parties to such an
agreement and it is trite to say that one person alone can
never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple
reason that one cannot conspire with oneself. If,
therefore, 4 named individuals were charged with having
committed the offence under Section 120-B, Penal Code,
and if three out of these 4 were acquitted of the charge,
the remaining accused, who was the accused No.1 in the
case before us, could never be held guilty of the offence
of criminal conspiracy."
The court further discussed the aforesaid question and referred
to the decision in R. v. Plummer [1902 (2) KB 339 (C)] and held as
under: -
"(1902) 2 KB 339 (C) which is cited in support of
this proposition was a case in which, on a trial of
indictment charging three persons jointly with conspiring
together, one person had pleaded guilty and a judgment
passed against him, and the other two were acquitted. It
was held that the judgment passed against one who had
pleaded guilty was bad and could not stand. Lord Justice
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
Wright observed at p.343:
"There is much authority to the effect that, if
the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge
of conspiracy, and the trial of all three defendants
together had proceeded on that charge, and had
resulted in the conviction of the appellant and the
acquittal of the only alleged co-conspirators, no
judgment could have been passed on the appellant,
because the verdict must have been regarded as
repugnant in finding that there was a criminal
agreement between the appellant and the others
and none between them and him: see ’Harison v.
Errington’, (1627) Poph 202 (D), where upon an
indictment of three for riot two were found not
guilty and one guilty, and upon error brought it
was held a "void verdict", and said to be "like to
the case in 11 Hen 4 c.2, conspiracy against two,
and only one of them is found guilty, it is void, for
one alone cannot conspire."
In this view of the matter, when rest of the accused who are
named in the confessional statement are not convicted or tried, this
would not be a fit case for convicting the appellant solely on the basis
of so-called confessional statement recorded by the police officer.
Finally, such type of confessional statement as recorded by the
investigating officer cannot be the basis for awarding death sentence.
In the result, Criminal Appeal No.993 of 2001 filed by the
accused is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Designated Court convicting the appellant is set aside. The
accused is acquitted for the offences for which he is charged and he is
directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
In view of the above, Death Reference Case (Crl.) No. 2 of
2001 would not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
J.
(M.B. SHAH)
March 22, 2002.