Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 685 of 2001
PETITIONER:
SALIM AKHTAR @ MOTA
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/2003
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU & G. P. MATHUR
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2003 (3) SCR 470
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G. P. MATHUR, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 30.3.2001 of the Designated Judge (TAD A) Meerut by which the
appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act (for short "TADA") and has been sentenced to 5
years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default to undergo one month R.
I.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 7. 45 p. m. on
26.1.1993, some miscreants hurled bombs at a police picket near Veterinary
Hospital, Hapur Road, Meerut in which several security personnel received
injuries and N.K. Mahender Prasad Sharma died. An FIR of the incident was
lodged at 10. 15 p. m. on the same night at P. S. Civil Lines, Meerut and a
case was registered under Sections 147/148/307/302 IPC and Sections 4 and 5
of TADA. Some persons including Jabbar, Ayyub and the appellant Salim
Akhtar @ Mota were arrested in connection with the aforesaid case and
subsequently were taken on police remand. While in custody of the police,
they made disclosure statements of having concealed some weapon, bomb and
explosive material. Accordingly, in the morning of 24.3.1993, Inspector
N.P. Rai of P.S. Lalkurti took the aforesaid persons to the place where
according to their disclosure statement they had concealed the
incriminating material. Inspector Shri Narayan Tripathi of P.S. Lisari
Gate, some police personnel and two public witnesses namely, Anuj Kaushik
(PW3) and Vipin also accompanied them. The appellant Salim Akhtar @ Mota
(A-l) took them to a place by the side of Mansoor Denting Works on the road
going to Lakkhipura. He took out a polythene bag from inside the mud which
contained one pistol, cartridges, a moosli bomb and RDX weighing 1 kg. A
recovery memo of the recovered articles was prepared on the spot and Anuj
Kaushik (PW3), who is a photographer and who had accompanied the police
party, also took photographs of the recovery. From mere, the police party
went to a place near Agarwal Tubewell on the same road and from mere
accused Ayyub (A-2) took out a polythene bag from inside the mud which
contained 1 kg. RDX. Thereafter, accused Jabbar (A-3) took die police party
towards South-West of the grove of Shri Kripal Singh near a kachcha rasta
and dug out a polythene bag which contained a factory made hand grenade.
Recovery memos of the articles recovered on the pointing out of A-2 and A-3
were also made. An FIR of the incident relating to recoveries made at the
instance of the accused was lodged at 12.30 p. m. on 24.3.1993 at Police
Outpost Pillokhari and the recovered articles were dispatched to PS Lisari
Gate. S.P. Sharma, SHO, PS Lisari Gate took over investigation of the case
on 27.3.1993. He prepared site plans (Ext. Ka 4 to Ext. Ka 7) of the places
of recoveries, obtained diffusion report from Shri Satish Kumar and sent
the recovered material to Forensic Science Laboratory Agra for expert
opinion. After concluding the investigation, he obtained sanction from die
District Magistrate, Meerut, for prosecution of the accused under Arms Act
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
and Explosive Substances Act and also from Inspector General of Police for
their prosecution under TADA and thereafter submitted charge-sheets against
the three accused.
The Designated Judge, Meerut, took cognizance of the offences and framed
charges under Section 23 of the Arms Act, Section 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act and Section 5 of TADA against the three accused. The
prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses and filed some
documentary evidence. The articles recovered were also produced in Court.
The appellant Salim Akhtar @ Mota in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.
C. denied the case of the prosecution and stated mat die police had
arrested him on 26.2.1993 when he was going to offer Namaz. He was detained
in the police station for several days and was produced in Court on
12.3.1993 and during this period he was also beaten in the police station.
He examined 5 witnesses in his defence. The other accused, namely, Ayyub
(A-2) and Jabbar (A-3) also denied the prosecution case. The learned
Sessions Judge (Designated Court) believed the prosecution case and
convicted and sentenced all the three accused. However, only Salim Akhtar @
Mota has preferred appeal against his conviction and sentence. The
remaining two accused, namely A-2 and A-3 have not challenged their
conviction and sentence probably on account of the fact that their
conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for
life imposed thereunder in the case relating to throwing of bomb on police
picket has been upheld up to this Court and they are undergoing sentences
in the said case.
In order to appreciate the contention raised by Shri U. U. Lalit, learned
counsel for the appellant, and also of the learned State counsel, it is
necessary to notice the main evidence which has been adduced by the
parties. PW1 NP Rai, was posted as in-charge PS Lalkurti on 24.3.1993. He
has deposed that the three accused, namely, A-l, A-2 and A-3 were taken on
police remand from the Court in Crime Case No. 30 of 1993 under Section
302/207 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of TADA and Sections 5 and 6 of Explosive
Substances Act. The accused made disclosure statement that they will get
bombs and explosive materials recovered. Accordingly, he along with some
other police personnel and the accused proceeded for Lisari Gate, where
PW2, SN Tripathi, Inspector in-charge of the said police station and some
other police personnel also joined them. Two public witnesses, namely,
Vipin and Anuj Kaushik (PW3) who is a photographer, were asked to accompany
them. Accused A-1 took them to near Mansoor Denting Works, which is situate
on the road going to Lakkhipura. He took out a polythene bag from under the
mud from a place which is near the boundary wall of the said factory. The
bag contained one factory made pistol of 7. 62 bore, four live cartridges,
a moosli bomb and 1 kg. RDX. Similarly recovery of 1 kg. RDX was made at
the pointing out of A-2 and one hand grenade at the pointing out of A-3
from different places. Photographs of the recoveries made was taken by PW3,
Anuj Kaushik. After all the recoveries had been made, an FIR was lodged at
Police Outpost Pillokhari and the recovered articles were deposited at PS
Lisari Gate. PW2, SN Tripathi was posted as in-charge of PS Lisari Gate on
24.3.1993. He deposed that PW1, NP Rai, Inspector, accompanied by one Sub-
inspector and three Constables along with three accused in custody, came to
the police station at about 6. 30 a. m. He was informed that the accused
had made a disclosure statement and were prepared to recover the articles
concealed by them. Two public witnesses, namely, PW3 Anuj Kaushik and Vipin
were summoned and thereafter all of them proceeded towards Lakkhipura. A-l
asked them to stop near Mansoor Denting Works and he took out a polythene
bag from the side wall of the factory from under the mud. The bag contained
a pistol, four live cartridges, 1 kg. RDX and a moosli bomb. The witnesses
also deposed regarding the recovery made at the instance of A-2 and A-3.
PW3 Anuj Kaushik is a photographer by profession and he deposed that the
police asked him to accompany them at about 6. 30 a. m. on 24.3.1993 while
he was near Lisari Gate Chopala. The three accused were present along with
the police party. A-l asked to stop the police vehicle near Mansoor Denting
Works which is situate on the road going to Lakkhipura. He, thereafter,
took out a polythene bag from under the mud from a place near the southern
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
boundary wall of the factory and the said bag contained one pistol, four
cartridges, one moosli bomb and 1 kg. RDX. He had taken photographs of the
recovery made by A-l and had also signed the recovery memo. He also deposed
about the recoveries made at the instance of A-2 and A-3.
PW5, Raj Singh recorded the FIR and registered the case at Police Outpost
Pillokhari. PW10, Satish Kumar, SI, was in-charge, Bomb Disposal Squad and
gave diffusion report while PW12, OP Taneja, Joint Director, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Agra examined and gave report regarding RDX. PW6, Tej
Pal Sharma, Head Constable, PW7, Harpal Singh, Malkhana Moharrir, PW8,
Ranvir Singh, Constable and PW9, Radhey Shyam Sharma, head of armoury at
Meerut have given evidence of formal character regarding deposit of the
recovered articles, their safe custody and taking them to Forensic Science
Laboratory, Agra. PW4, SP Sharma, SHO, PS Lisari Gate has given details of
the steps taken by him during the investigation of the case, obtaining of
sanctions from the District Magistrate, Meerut for prosecution under Arms
Act and Explosive Substances Act, which are Ext. Ka 10 to Ext. Ka 13 and
sanctions granted by Shri SN Naseem, IG, Meerut Zone for prosecution of the
accused under TADA, which is Ext. Ka 7 to Ext. Ka 9. He has also proved the
charge sheets which were submitted by him.
The appellant examined 5 witnesses in his defence. DWI, Mahipal Singh,
Constable, who is working as Dispatch Clerk in the office of DIG proved the
telegram sent by the appellant’s wife, which was received on 2.3.1993. DW2
Mohd. Farooq is the real brother of the appellant and he deposed that the
police had arrested the appellant on 26.2.1993 and he and his family
members sent many telegrams to higher authorities and also to the Supreme
Court on 9.3.1993 and a copy of the same has been filed as Ext. Kha 2. DW3,
Mohd. Nazir, who is a neighbour of the appellant, gave a similar statement
that the appellant was arrested on 26.2.1993. DW4, Smt. Munawar Jahan is
the wife of the appellant and she deposed about the arrest of the appellant
by the police on the said date. DW5 Banarsidas Gautam, clerk in the office
of IG, Zone Meerut, stated that an application and also a telegram had been
received from Smt. Munawar Jahan, which were forwarded to DIG Range and SSP
Meerut, respectively, for necessary action.
Shri Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that A-l was
actually arrested by the police on 26.2.1993 and was detained at the police
station for several days, during which he was beaten and thereafter he was
produced in Court on 12.3.1993. He has further submitted that in fact no
disclosure statement was given by the appellant nor any incriminating
article was recovered on his pointing out. The witnesses examined on the
point of recovery are police witnesses and PW3 Anuj Kaushik was a
professional photographer who was on the pay roll of the police as he used
to be called by the police on every occasion whenever a photograph was
required to be taken for which he was paid remuneration and as such he was
not an independent witness. Learned counsel has also urged that after the
alleged recovery was made the pistol was not sealed on the spot and that
the recovery having been effected from an open place accessible to
everyone, it is not possible to hold that the appellant was in possession
of the aforesaid articles. Learned State counsel has supported the case of
the prosecution and has urged that the evidence on record clearly
established that the appellant was in exclusive possession of pistol, bomb
and RDX and the learned Sessions Judge (Designated Court) had rightly
convicted and sentenced him.
PWI, NP Rai, has stated that after reaching PS Lisari Gate, he had summoned
two public witnesses, namely, Vipin and PW3 Anuj Kaushik out of whom only
one has been examined in Court. PW3 has deposed that he works as a
photographer for a magazine known as ’Sachi Duniya’. He had received a
phone call from his office that there was a traffic jam near Medical
College and accordingly he started for the said place on his scooter to
take photographs. However, he saw some police personnel near Lisari Gate
Chaupla and inquired from them why they were standing there and on their
asking he accompanied the police party. He has admitted that he often goes
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
to the police stations in the city and he had been paid Rs. 640 for taking
the photographs but he had not issued any receipt for the same. The
statement of this witness shows that he is a frequent visitor to the police
stations and this may be on account of the fact that the police may have
been obliging him by asking him to take photographs on those occasions in
which taking of photographs was considered necessary. It is not possible to
accept his statement that though he was paid Rs. 640 by the police for
taking the photographs but he did not issue any receipt. PW1 has admitted
that though Lisari Gate locality was only two or three furlongs from the
place from where recovery was made but no witness was summoned there. It,
therefore, shows that the police made no effort to get any independent
public witness at the time when the alleged recovery was made at the
pointing out of A-l and the only public witness examined, appears to be a
person who was not only intimate but was also obliged to them.
The evidence on record clearly shows that the pistol alleged to have been
recovered from the polythene bag which was allegedly taken out from the mud
by the appellant was not sealed on the spot. PW1 in his cross-examination
has stated that the pistol was not sealed as it was factory made and in the
recovery memo its "number" or "make" was not written as the same was not
clear and legible. However, the cartridges and bomb and RDX were sealed.
Similar statement has been given by PW2, SN Tripathi and PW4 SP Sharma that
at the time when the pistol was deposited in the Malkhana, the same had not
been sealed. In the FIR, no details have been given to fix the identity of
the pistol. PW4 has stated that the same was of Chinese make while PW6 Tej
Pal Sharma, Head Constable of PS Lisari Gate, where the recovered articles
were deposited, has stated that the same was of English make. In Amarjit
Singh v. State of Punjab, [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 217 and Sahib Singh v. State
of Punjab, [1996] 11 SCC 685, it has been held that the possibility of
tampering cannot be ruled out where the recovered articles were not sealed
on the spot. We are little surprised that though the cartridges were sealed
but the most important object, namely, the pistol was not sealed on the
spot and the same was deposited as it is in the police station and,
thereafter at the Malkhana. In our opinion the fact that the pistol alleged
to have been recovered at the pointing out of the appellant was not sealed
on the spot coupled with the fact that neither its number nor its make,
etc. to fix its identity was mentioned in the recovery memo or in the FIR,
raises considerable doubt regarding the factum of recovery.
So far as the disclosure statement of the appellant is concerned, the same
was admittedly made to police personnel and only that part of the statement
would be admissible which is permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. The scope of this provision was explained by the Privy Council in the
well known case of Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. v. Emperor, AIR (1947) PC 67,
wherein it was held that it is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered"
within the section as equivalent to the object produced. The fact
discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given, must relate
distinctly to this fact. Information as to the past user, or the past
history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the
setting in which it is discovered. Therefore, what is admissible is the
place from where the polythene bag containing pistol and other articles was
allegedly recovered. The fact that some terrorist organisation had given
the pistol and other articles to the appellant or its use would not be
admissible.
The other feature of the case is that the recovery was made from an open
place which was accessible to all and everyone. PW1 NP Rai, has clearly
admitted in his cross-examination that the recovery of the polythene bag
was made from an open ’Gher’ in a lonely place, where anyone could easily
come. In Sanjay Dull v. State through C.B.I., Bombay, [1994] 5 SC 540 it
has been held by a Constitution Bench that with a view to hold an accused
guilty of an offence under Section 5 of TADA, the prosecution is required
to prove satisfactorily that the accused was in conscious possession,
unauthorisedly in a notified area of any arm or ammunition of the specified
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
description. In Trimbak v. State of MP, AIR (1954) SC 39 recovery of
certain stolen articles was made at the pointing out of the accused and on
that basis he was convicted under Section 411 IPC by the High Court.
Reversing the judgment it was held by this Court that when the field from
which the ornaments were recovered was an open one and accessible to all
and sundry, it is difficult to hold positively that the accused was in
possession of these articles. It was further held that the fact of recovery
by the accused is compatible with the circumstance of somebody else having
placed the articles there and of the accused somehow acquiring knowledge
about their whereabouts and that being so, the fact of discovery cannot be
regarded as conclusive proof that the accused was in possession of these
articles. In Raosaheb Balu Killedar v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 3 Crl.
Law Journal 2632 the accused had made a disclosure statement and had led
the police party to a place behind a mill, pointed out the place and
himself removed the earth and from a pit about 6 inches deep recovered a
revolver loaded with a live cartridge wrapped in a polythene bag. It was
held by this Court that the statement made by the accused was capable of an
interpretation that the appellant had the knowledge about the concealment
of the revolver at the particular place from where it was got recovered and
not that he had concealed [ the same and therefore it was not possible to
say conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had
conscious possession of the revolver and the cartridge. This principle was
reiterated in Khudeswar Dutta v. State of Assam, [1998] 4 SCC 492 and it
was held that mere knowledge of the accused that incriminating articles
were kept at certain place does not amount to conscious possession and
conviction under Section 5 of TADA was set aside. The principle laid down
in the decisions of this Court referred to above is fully applicable here
and it is not possible to hold that the appellant was in possession of the
articles alleged to have been recovered from his possession.
For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that it will not be
safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant as the evidence adduced by
the prosecution fails to establish the charge against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction of
the appellant and also the sentence imposed upon him by the learned
Sessions Judge (Designated Court), Meerut is set aside. The appellant is on
bail. He need not surrender. His sureties and bail bonds are discharged.