Crl. Appeal No.2295-2296of 2010

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2295-2296 OF 2010

Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Ors. Appellants

Versus
State of Gujarat ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2011

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
These appeal s ar e f i l ed by t he convi ct ed accused-
appel l ant s as t hey ar e aggr i eved by t he convi ct i on and
sent ences awar ded t o t hemby t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) ,
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -2-

and conf i r med by t he Hi gh Cour t of Guj ar at f or t he
of f ences puni shabl e under t he pr ovi si ons of t he I ndi an
Penal Code, 1860 ( her ei naf t er I PC ) , t he Ar ms Act ,
1959, t he Expl osi ve Subst ances Act , 1908 and t he
Pr event i on of Ter r or i smAct , 2002 ( her ei naf t er POTA )
as per l i st i n par a 2 bel ow, f or t he at t ack on t he
Akshar dhamt empl e i n Gandhi nagar bet ween t he af t er noon
of 24. 09. 2002 and ear l y mor ni ng of 25. 09. 2002,
wher ei n 33 peopl e wer e ki l l ed and mor e t han 85 peopl e
wer e i nj ur ed.

2. The f ol l owi ng l i st out l i nes t he char ges agai nst
each of t he accused and t he convi ct i on and sent ences
met ed out t o t hem by t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) ,
Ahmedabad, and uphel d by t he Hi gh Cour t of Guj ar at .
Accused no. 1 i s not i n appeal bef or e us. The appel l ant
nos. 1- 5 bef or e us wi l l her ei naf t er be r ef er r ed t o as
per t hei r posi t i on as accused i . e A- 2 t o A- 6.
Appel l ant no. 4, Abdul l ami ya Yasi nmi ya Kadr i ( A- 5) has
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -3-

al r eady under gone 7 year s out of t he 10 year s of
sent ence awar ded by t he l ear ned J udge, Speci al Cour t
( POTA) and by or der dat ed 03. 12. 2010, t hi s Cour t
di r ect ed hi m t o be r el eased t o t he sat i sf act i on of
t he t r i al cour t . The f ol l owi ng l i st out l i nes t he
char ges, convi ct i on and sent ences awar ded t o each of
t he accused- appel l ant s.

Al l t he accused per sons had been char ged wi t h of f ences
under t he f ol l owi ng sect i ons by t he l ear ned J udge,
Speci al Cour t ( POTA) :
1. Sect i on 120B of t he I PC.
2. Sect i on 120B of t he I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons 121,
123, 124A, 153A, 302 and 307 of t he I PC.
3. Sect i on 120B of t he I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons
25( 1AA) 27 and 29 of t he Ar ms Act .
4. Sect i on 120B of t he I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons 3, 4
and 6 of t he Expl osi ve Subst ances Act .
5. Sect i on 120B of t he I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons
3( 1) ( a) and ( b) , 3( 3) , 4, 20 and 21( 2) ( b) of t he
POTA.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -4-

6. Addi t i onal l y, A- 2 had been char ged wi t h of f ence
under Sect i on 452 of t he I PC ( f or ent er i ng
Akshar dhami l l egal l y) .
7. Addi t i onal l y, A- 6 had been char ged under Sect i on
135( 1) of t he Bombay Pol i ce Act , 1951 ( f or
i l l egal l y possessi ng ar ms and expl osi ves despi t e
not i f i cat i on, i n f or ce, i ssued by Gandhi nagar
Di st r i ct Pol i ce Of f i ci al ) .

The Speci al Cour t ( POTA) f r amed t he af or esai d char ges
and convi ct ed and sent enced t he accused per sons as per
nat ur e of of f ences det ai l ed her eunder :
Altaf Malek (hereinafter A-1)
Gat her ed t he I ndi an Musl i ms who had gone t o Saudi
Ar abi a.
Associ at ed wi t h banned or gani zat i ons l i ke
Lashkar - e- Toi ba.
Col l ect ed f unds f r omJ ai sh- e- Mohammed.

Convicted and sentenced under:
Sect i on 22 ( 1) of POTA. Ri gor ous I mpr i sonment f or
5 year s wi t h a f i ne of Rs. 5, 000/ - and i n def aul t
of payment of f i ne, si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 6
mont hs. He was acqui t t ed of r est of t he char ges.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -5-

Adambhai Ajmeri (hereinafter A-2)
Tal ked t o l ocal s t o get i dea about ci t y, and t o
get i dea about l odgi ng et c. They t ook hi m t o A- 4
and A- 5.
Recei ved money t hr ough Haval a.
Meet i ng on 24. 06. 2002 wi t h wi t ness at G Royal
Hot el , Hyder abad. Abscondi ng accused gave hi m Rs
3, 500
Pi cked up t he t wo assai l ant s ( her ei naf t er
r ef er r ed t o as t he fidayeens) f r om t he r ai l way
st at i on and gave t hemshel t er .
Moved ar ound i n an aut o r i ckshaw and showed t he
fidayeens pl aces ar ound t he ci t y, wher e st r i kes
coul d be done and al so ar r anged f or t hei r ni ght
st ay at hi s br ot her s pl ace.
Was pr esent at Akshar dham at t he t i me of t he
i nci dent and exi t ed when t he f i r i ng st ar t ed.

Sect i on 3 ( 3) of POTA- Li f e i mpr i sonment and a
f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - and i n case of def aul t ,
si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
Sect i on 3 ( 3) r ead wi t h Sect i on 5 of POTA-
Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 10 year s and a f i ne of
Rs. 5, 000/ - and i n case of def aul t , si mpl e
i mpr i sonment f or 1 year .
Sect i on 22 ( 2) ( a) and ( b) of POTA - Ri gor ous
i mpr i sonment f or 10 year s and f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ -
and i n case of def aul t , si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 1
year .
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 4 of Expl osi ve
Subst ances Act - Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 10
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -6-

year s and f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - and i n case of
def aul t , si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons 3 and 6 of
Expl osi ve Subst ances Act - l i f e i mpr i sonment and
f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - .
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 302 I PC
Deat h penal t y ( hangi ng by neck t i l l deat h) and
f i ne of Rs. 25, 000/ - .
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 307 I PC l i f e
i mpr i sonment and f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - and i n case
of def aul t , si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 1 year .
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 27 of Ar ms
Act - Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 7 year s and f i ne
of Rs. 10, 000/ - and i n case of def aul t of f i ne,
si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 1 year .
The accused was acqui t t ed of t he r est of t he
char ges.

Mohammed Salim Hanif Sheikh (hereinafter A-3)
Gat her ed I ndi an Musl i ms wor ki ng i n Saudi Ar abi a
at hi s home and showed t hemi nst i gat i ng vi deos.
I s a member of J ai sh- e- Mohammed and Lashkar - e-
Toi ba.
Made i nst i gat i ng speeches wi t h t he i nt ent i on of
endanger i ng t he uni t y and i nt egr i t y of I ndi a.
Became a member of J ai sh- e- Mohammed and t ook
f undi ng f r omt hem.


f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - and i n case of def aul t ,
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -7-

Sect i on 3( 3) r ead wi t h sect i on 5 of POTA,
Sect i on 20 of POTA - Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 5
year s and f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - and i n case of
def aul t , r i gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 1 year .
Sect i on 21 ( 2) ( b) of POTA - Ri gor ous
i mpr i sonment f or 10 year s and a f i ne of
Sect i on 22 ( 1) ( a) of POTA - Ri gor ous
i mpr i sonment f or 10 year s and a f i ne of
i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
year s and a f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - and i n case of
def aul t , si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons 3 and 6 of
f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - .
i mpr i sonment t i l l hi s nat ur al l i f e ( t i l l he i s
al i ve) and a f i ne of Rs. 25, 000/ - .
i mpr i sonment and f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - and i n case
of def aul t , si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 1 year .
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 121A I PC
i mpr i sonment f or 6 mont hs.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -8-

Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 27 of Ar ms
Act , Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 7 year s and a f i ne
of Rs. 10, 000/ - , and i n case of def aul t , si mpl e
char ges.

Abdul Qaiyum Muftisaab Mohmed Bhai (hereinafter A-4)
Gave shel t er t o t he fidayeens.
Wr ot e t he t wo Ur du l et t er s r ecover ed f r om t he
fidayeens, whi ch spoke of i nst i gat i ng vi ol ence
and at r oci t i es and communal r i ot s.

f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - and i n def aul t of payment ,
Sect i on 3 ( 3) r ead wi t h sect i on 5 of POTA -
Rs. 5, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment of f i ne, si mpl e
year s and a f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - i n def aul t of
payment of f i ne, si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons 3 an 6 of
a f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - , i n def aul t of payment of
f i ne t o r ecover t he amount i n accor dance wi t h
l aw.
Deat h penal t y ( hangi ng by neck t i l l deat h) and a
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -9-

f i ne of Rs. 25, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment of f i ne
t o r ecover t he amount i n accor dance wi t h l aw.
i mpr i sonment and f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - i n def aul t
of payment of f i ne, a si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 1
year .
Rs. 5, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment of f i ne, a
si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 6 mont hs.
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 27 I PC of Ar ms
Act , Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 7 year s and a f i ne
of Rs. 10, 000/ - , i n def aul t of f i ne a si mpl e
Rs. 5, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment of f i ne, a
si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 1 year .
char ges.
Accused-5 Abdullamiya Yasinmiya (hereinafter A-5)
Member of J ai sh- e- Mohammed and Lashkar - e- Toi ba.
Gave shel t er t o t he fidayeens.
Dr opped t hem near Kal ur Rai l way St at i on, had al so
put t hem i n an ambassdor car t o t ake t hem t o t he
t empl e.

Convicted and sentenced

Sect i on 3 ( 3) of POTA- Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or
10 year s and a f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - and i n def aul t
of payment , si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
char ges.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -10-

Accused-6 Chand Khan (hereinafter A-6)
Met t he dead t er r or i st s, al so bought an
ambassador car wor t h Rs 40, 000 and made secr et
compar t ment f or st or i ng weapons and expl osi ves.
Came f r om Ahmedabad t o Bar ei l l y wi t h expl osi ves,
moved t he fidayeens i n an aut o, and hel ped t o
t r ansf er t he weapons.
Recei ved Rs 30, 000/ - f r om Zuber ( a dead
t er r or i st , ki l l ed i n a separ at e encount er )

f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment of
f i ne, si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
Sect i on 3 ( 1) of POTA, l i f e i mpr i sonment and a
f i ne of Rs. 25, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment of
f i ne, t he same shal l be r ecover ed i n accor dance
wi t h l aw.
Sect i on 3 ( 3) r ead wi t h Sect i on 5 of POTA,
Ri gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 10 year s and f i ne of
Rs. 5, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment , si mpl e
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i ons 3 an 6 of
a f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - , i n def aul t of payment of
f i ne t o r ecover t he amount i n accor dance wi t h
l aw.
year s and a f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - i n def aul t of
payment of f i ne, si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 2 year s.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -11-

Deat h penal t y ( hangi ng by neck t i l l deat h) and a
f i ne of Rs. 25, 000/ - i n def aul t of payment of f i ne
t o r ecover t he amount i n accor dance wi t h l aw.
i mpr i sonment and f i ne of Rs. 20, 000/ - i n def aul t
of payment of f i ne, si mpl e i mpr i sonment f or 1
year .
Sect i on 120B I PC r ead wi t h Sect i on 25 ( 1AA) of
Ar ms Act - r i gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 7 year s and
a f i ne of Rs. 10, 000/ - , i n def aul t of f i ne a
char ges.

3. The af or esai d sent ences i mposed upon each accused
per son wer e or der ed t o r un concur r ent l y. The accused
per sons wer e al l owed t o set of f t he sent ences f or t he
t i me spent i n cust ody, wher ever appl i cabl e.
Var i ous sent ences of r i gor ous i mpr i sonment , l i f e
i mpr i sonment and deat h sent ence as det ai l ed i n t he
l i st above wer e passed agai nst t he accused per sons by
t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) i n POTA case No. 16 of 2003
by t he j udgment dat ed 01. 07. 2006, whi ch was af f i r med
by t he Hi gh Cour t of Guj ar at at Ahmedabad by t he
i mpugned j udgment and or der dat ed 01. 06. 2010 i n
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -12-

Cr i mi nal Conf i r mat i on Case No. 2 of 2006 al ong wi t h
Cr i mi nal Appeal Nos. 1675 of 2006 and 1328 of 2006.

4. Aggr i eved by t he sai d i mpugned j udgment and or der
of t he Hi gh Cour t of Guj ar at , al l t he accused per sons
except A- 1 have appeal ed bef or e t hi s Cour t chal l engi ng
t he cor r ect ness of t hei r convi ct i on and sent ences
i mposed upon t hem, ur gi ng var i ous l egal and f act ual
gr ounds i n suppor t of t he quest i ons of l aw r ai sed by
t hem.

5. Cer t ai n r el evant f act s ar e st at ed her ei n bel ow f or
t he pur pose of exami ni ng t he cor r ect ness of t he
f i ndi ngs and r easons r ecor ded by t he Hi gh Cour t i n t he
i mpugned j udgment and or der whi l e af f i r mi ng t he
f i ndi ngs and r easons r ecor ded i n t he j udgment and
or der passed by t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) . The f act s of
t he i nci dent l eadi ng up t o t he case, t he ar r est of t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -13-

accused per sons and t hei r t r i al and convi ct i on ar e
det ai l ed bel ow:
On 24. 09. 2002 at about 4. 30 p. m. , t wo per sons
ar med wi t h AK- 56 r i f l es, hand gr enades et c. ent er ed
t he pr eci nct s of t he Swami nar ayan Akshar dham t empl e
si t uat ed at Gandhi nagar , Guj ar at f r om gat e No. 3. They
f i r ed i ndi scr i mi nat el y t owar ds t he chi l dr en, games and
r i des and st ar t ed t hr owi ng hand gr enades. Whi l e
cont i nui ng t he at t ack, t hey r eached gat e No. 2 of t he
t empl e and f i r ed at t he wor shi pper s, devot ees,
vol unt eer s and vi si t or s and t hen pr oceeded t owar ds t he
mai n bui l di ng. Si nce t he mai n door of t he t empl e was
l ocked, t hey moved t owar ds t he Sachchi danand
Exhi bi t i on Hal l , ki l l i ng and i nj ur i ng women, chi l dr en
and ot her s. Ther eaf t er , i mmedi at el y CRPF per sonnel ,
Deput y I nspect or Gener al ( DI G) , Guj ar at St at e and
ot her seni or pol i ce of f i cer s al ong wi t h SRP commandos
r ushed t o t he pl ace of of f ence t o r et ur n t he f i r e.
Ambul ances wer e cal l ed and ot her pol i ce f or ces wer e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -14-

al so ur gent l y cal l ed at t he pl ace. The t eam l ed by
Mr . V. B. Rabar i - I nspect or Gener al of Pol i ce, Mr .
R. B. Br ahambhat t - Deput y Super i nt endent of
Pol i ce, Gandhi nagar and f our ot her speci al r eser ve
pol i ce commandos cl i mbed on t he r oof . By t hat t i me,
t he t er r or i st s (fidayeens) once agai n st ar t ed f i r i ng.
A f i er ce gun bat t l e ensued, and t her e was al so a bomb
bl ast .

6. I n t he meant i me, a t eam of Nat i onal Secur i t y Guar d
( NSG) commandos was summoned f r om New Del hi . They
ar r i ved by a char t er ed f l i ght and t ook cont r ol at
about 12. 00 at mi dni ght . Af t er under st andi ng t he
t opogr aphy of t he ar ea, t hey began t he count er at t ack
agai nst t he fidayeens. Exchange of f i r i ng cont i nued
and l ast ed f or near l y 5 hour s whi ch went on i nt o t he
wee hour s of 25. 9. 2002. Event ual l y bot h of t hem wer e
ki l l ed i n t he ear l y mor ni ng hour s as t hey succumbed t o
t he i nj ur i es r ecei ved i n t he sai d oper at i on. I t i s
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -15-

t he f ur t her case of t he pr osecut i on t hat a l ar ge
quant i t y of f i r e ar ms and expl osi ve subst ances wer e
car r i ed by t he t wo fidayeens. Some of t he expl osi ves
wer e sei zed al ong wi t h ot her ar t i cl es f r om t he
pr emi ses. The at t ack r esul t ed i n t he ki l l i ng of 33
per sons, i ncl udi ng NSG commandos, per sonnel f r om t he
St at e Commando For ce and t hr ee ot her per sons f r om SRP
gr oup. Near l y 86 per sons, i ncl udi ng 23 pol i ce of f i cer s
and j awans wer e gr i evousl y i nj ur ed. Those who wer e
i nj ur ed or ki l l ed dur i ng t he at t ack wer e r emoved t o
Sol a Ci vi l Hospi t al and t o Ci vi l Hospi t al ,
Ahmedabad.

7. A compl ai nt was l odged by t he t hen ACP Mr . G. L.
Si nghal , ( Pr osecut i on Wi t ness ( her ei naf t er PW ) - 126)
on 24. 09. 2002 at t he Gandhi nagar Sect or 21 pol i ce
st at i on. Af t er t he possessi on of t he t empl e pr emi ses
was handed over f r om NSG Commandos t o t he st at e
pol i ce, an FI R was r egi st er ed bei ng I
st
CR No. 314 of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -16-

2002 on 25. 09. 2002 f or t he of f ences puni shabl e under
Sect i ons 120- B, 302, 307, 153- A, 451 of t he I PC by PW-
126. A Repor t under Sect i on 157 of t he Code of
Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e ( her ei naf t er Cr PC ) was al so
pr epar ed. The same was l odged agai nst t he unknown
per sons aged bet ween 20 t o 25 year s and t he
i nvest i gat i on was handed over t o Pol i ce I nspect or Mr .
V. R. Tol i ya ( PW- 119) of t he l ocal Cr i me Br anch,
Gandhi nagar .
I t i s t he case of t he pr osecut i on t hat some
ar t i cl es wer e r ecei ved f r om Br i gadi er Raj Si t apat i ,
Head of t he NSG, whi ch wer e col l ect ed f r om t he
cl ot hes of t he dead bodi es of t he fidayeens, and
accor di ng t o t hem, t hese ar t i cl es i ncl uded t wo l et t er s
wr i t t en i n Ur du l anguage, al l egedl y f ound i n t he
pocket of each one of t he fidayeens.

8. The i nvest i gat i on of t he cr i me cont i nued f or
somet i me under t he sai d Pol i ce I nspect or and
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -17-

t her eaf t er , t he Ant i Ter r or i st Squad ( ATS) was
di r ect ed by t he Di r ect or Gener al of pol i ce, St at e of
Guj ar at t o t ake over t he i nvest i gat i on of t he case.
The i nvest i gat i on cont i nued but not hi ng f r ui t f ul came
out of t he at t empt of t he i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer t o
t r ace t he accused per sons who wer e i nvol ved i n t he
conspi r acy and ot her of f ences commi t t ed by t wo
fidayeens. The i nvest i gat i on of t he case was
t r ansf er r ed t o ACP Si nghal ( PW- 126) of t he Cr i me
Br anch who was t he compl ai nant i n t he case, on
28. 08. 2003 at t he di r ect i on of t he DGP f r om Mr . K. K.
Pat el of ATS wi t h 14 f i l es, each wi t h i ndex.

9. On 29. 08. 2003 at 2 p. m. , A- 1 t o A- 5 wer e ar r est ed
by PW- 126 and t he mat t er was i nvest i gat ed f ur t her .
The pr osecut i on al l eged t hat t he cr i mi nal conspi r acy
was hat ched at Saudi Ar abi a, Hyder abad, Ahmedabad and
J ammu and Kashmi r by some cl er i cs, al ong wi t h a f ew
ot her s, as t hey had become spi t ef ul af t er t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -18-

i nci dent s of r i ot s whi ch had t aken pl ace i n t he st at e
of Guj ar at af t er t he Godhr a t r ai n bur ni ng i nci dent i n
2002.
Subsequent l y, A- 6 was al so t aken i nt o cust ody and
ar r est ed by t he Guj ar at pol i ce on 12. 09. 2003 f r om t he
St at e of J ammu and Kashmi r . I t i s al so t he case of
t he pr osecut i on t hat af t er i nvest i gat i on, t he mat t er
was concl uded and t he char ge sheet was f i l ed agai nst
al l t he si x accused per sons by t he Cr i me Br anch, af t er
obt ai ni ng necessar y sanct i on f r omt he St at e Gover nment
f or t he pur pose of t aki ng cogni zance of t he of f ence i n
compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 50 of POTA. I n t he sai d char ge
sheet , 26 per sons wer e shown as abscondi ng accused.
The f i ve accused per sons, who wer e ar r est ed on
29. 08. 2003, r emai ned i n t he pol i ce cust ody, whi ch had
been sought f r om t he J udi ci al Magi st r at e, Gandhi nagar
on 29. 08. 2003. Pr ovi si ons of POTA wer e i nvoked by t he
pol i ce on 30. 08. 2003. The char gesheet was f i l ed bef or e
t he desi gnat ed Cour t const i t ut ed under Sect i on 23 of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -19-

POTA, on 25. 11. 2003. I t i s f ur t her t he case of t he
pr osecut i on t hat t he char gesheet was f i l ed by t he
I nvest i gat i ng Of f i cer af t er obt ai ni ng necessar y
sanct i on or der as r equi r ed under Sect i on 50 of POTA
f r om t he gover nment of t he st at e of Guj ar at vi de
sanct i on or der dat ed 21. 11. 2003 [ Exhi bi t ( her ei naf t er
Ex. ) 498] .

10. I t i s t he case of t he pr osecut i on t hat t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons wer e
r ecor ded by t he Super i nt endent of Pol i ce, Sanj aykumar
Gadhvi ( PW- 78) , as pr ovi ded under Sect i on 32 of
t he POTA by f ol l owi ng t he mandat or y pr ocedur e.

11. Ther e wer e 376 wi t nesses shown i n t he
char gesheet . Out of t hose, 126 wi t nesses wer e exami ned
by t he pr osecut i on t o pr ove t he char ges agai nst t he
accused per sons. The pr osecut i on wi t nesses wer e
exami ned on var i ous dat es and t hr ough t hem, var i ous
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -20-

Exs. namel y, 117 t o 679 wer e mar ked. The det ai l s of
t he names of t he pr osecut i on wi t nesses and t he dat es
of exami nat i on and t he mar ki ng of exhi bi t s t o t hemar e
descr i bed i n t he j udgment passed by t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) and t he same need not be adver t ed t o i n t hi s
j udgment as i t i s unnecessar y.

12. The Speci al Cour t ( POTA) had f or mul at ed 8 poi nt s
f or i t s consi der at i on and answer ed t he same i n t he
j udgment by accept i ng t he case of t he pr osecut i on and
passed an or der of convi ct i on agai nst al l t he accused
per sons and sent enced A- 2, A- 4 and A- 6 t o deat h, A- 3
t o l i f e i mpr i sonment , A- 1 t o r i gor ous i mpr i sonment f or
5 year s and A- 5 t o r i gor ous i mpr i sonment f or 10 year s.

13. A r ef er ence was made t o t he Hi gh Cour t of Guj ar at
under Sect i on 366 of t he Cr PC f or conf i r mat i on of t he
deat h sent ence i mposed upon A- 2, A- 4 and A- 6. Al l t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -21-

accused per sons appeal ed bef or e t he Hi gh Cour t agai nst
t hei r convi ct i on and sent ences i mposed on t hem.
14. The Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t , af t er
adver t i ng t o t he char ges f r amed agai nst each one of
accused per sons under t he pr ovi si ons of POTA,
Expl osi ve Subst ances Act , Ar ms Act and I PC, and t he
puni shment i mposed f or each one of t he of f ences under
t he af or esai d pr ovi si ons of t he Act s and Code,
conf i r med t he or der passed by t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) .
Br i ef l y st at ed, t he Hi gh Cour t hel d t hat t he at t ack
was an act of r et al i at i on agai nst t he i nci dent s of
communal r i ot s whi ch t ook pl ace i n t he St at e of
Guj ar at i n t he mont hs of Mar ch and Apr i l , 2002 dur i ng
whi ch sever al Musl i m per sons had l ost t hei r l i ves and
pr oper t i es. The Hi gh Cour t st at ed:
Ther ef or e, t he t er r or i st at t ack was
concei ved by some unknown per sons of f or ei gn
or i gi n pr esumabl y of Paki st an and Saudi
Ar abi a. The I ndi an Musl i ms r esi di ng i n Saudi
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -22-

Ar abi a wer e i nst i gat ed t o r et al i at e f or t he
i nci dent s whi ch happened dur i ng t he mont hs
of Mar ch and Apr i l , 2002 and wer e ent i ced t o
f und t he t er r or i st at t ack. The Fi dayeens
wer e r ecr ui t ed by t he sai d mast er mi nds who
t r avel ed t o Ahmedabad by t r ai n f r om Kashmi r
via Bar ei l y and t hey wer e pr ovi ded wi t h
r i f l es, hand gr enades, gun- powder and ot her
weapons. The sai d accused per sons j oi ned
t hem i n pr ovi di ng necessar y hi de- out s i n t he
ci t y of Ahmedabad and al so pr ovi ded t hem
t r anspor t t o go i n and ar ound t he ci t y of
Ahmedabad and hel ped t hem i n sel ect i ng t he
pl ace and t i me f or car r yi ng out t he at t ack.
The accused per sons al so hel ped i n gi vi ng
t hem l ast r i t es of namaaz f or t hei r wel l
bei ng ( Hi f azat ) .

15. The Hi gh Cour t f ur t her hel d t hat a cr i mi nal
conspi r acy was hat ched t o st r i ke t er r or amongst t he
Hi ndus i n t he St at e of Guj ar at . The accused per sons
and t he abscondi ng accused, wer e i n conni vance, had
gat her ed t he I ndi an Musl i ms wor ki ng i n t he t owns of
J i ddah, Shi f f a and Ri yadh of Saudi Ar abi a at t he
r esi dence of A- 3. A- 1, A- 3 and A- 5 and t he abscondi ng
accused Nos. 3 t o 5 and 12 t o 22, who at t he i nst ance
of t he I SI of Paki st an became member s of t he t er r or i st
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -23-

out f i t J ai sh- e- Mohammad, and col l ect ed f unds f or i t
t o spr ead t er r or i n t he St at e of Guj ar at . They showed
t he casset t es of t he l oss caused t o t he Musl i ms i n t he
St at e of Guj ar at and t he gr uesome phot os and t he
vi deos of t he dead bodi es of Musl i m men, women and
chi l dr en, at t he r esi dence of A- 3; di st r i but ed t he
casset t es and made ent i ci ng st at ement s t o damage t he
uni t y and i nt egr i t y of I ndi a and t o cause l oss t o t he
per son and pr oper t y of Hi ndu peopl e. I t was al so
obser ved by t he Hi gh Cour t t hat t o car r y out t he
cr i mi nal conspi r acy, t he abscondi ng accused No. 16
vi si t ed t he r el i ef camps r un at Ahmedabad dur i ng t he
communal r i ot s.
16. The st at ement s of t he i nj ur ed wi t nesses wer e
exami ned, whi ch i s al so adver t ed t o i n t he i mpugned
j udgment and t he Hi gh Cour t st at ed t hat t he casual t i es
ar e al so pr oved by t he post mor t em not es Exs. 170 and
171 and by exami ni ng var i ous doct or s and pr osecut i on
wi t nesses.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -24-

17. The Hi gh Cour t i n t he i mpugned j udgment al so not ed
t hat t her e i s a r ef er ence made t o t he i nj ur i es
sust ai ned by t he i ndi vi dual s whi ch i s pr oved by t he
medi cal cer t i f i cat es and t he same have been pr oved by
t he doct or s. The Hi gh Cour t al so r ef er r ed t o handi ng
over of t he l i st ( Ex. 524) , r ecover ed f r om t he bodi es
of fidayeens, i ncl udi ng not es i n Ur du, by Maj . J aydeep
Lamba ( PW- 91) t o PW- 126 under Panchnama ( Ex. 440) and
t he same i s pr oved by t he Panch- Vi nodkumar Val j i bhai
Udhecha ( PW- 74. ) Ref er ence of r ecover y of whi t e
col our ed AD Gel pen f r om t he scene of of f ence under
Panchnama ( Ex. 650) i s pr oved by t he Panch- Har eshbhai
Chi manl al Shah ( PW- 11 : Ex. 649) . The sai d pen was sent
t o t he For ensi c Sci ence Labor at or y ( i n shor t FSL )
under Panchnama ( Ex. 621) . The FSL r epor t ( Ex. 668)
conf i r med t hat t he Ur du wr i t i ngs ( Ex. 658) wer e i n t he
same i nk as t hat of t he muddamal pen. Ther e was al so
r ef er ence made of r ecover y of muddamal ar t i cl es i n t he
af t er noon of 25. 9. 2002 ( 84 i n number ) f r om t he t empl e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -25-

pr eci nct s under Panchnama ( Ex. 396) whi ch i s pr oved by
panch- Pr akashi nh Rat ansi nh Waghel a ( PW- 71 : Ex. 395) .
Ther e was f ur t her r ef er ence of r ecover y of empt y
bul l et of Ri f l e- 303, Ri f l e But t No. 553, di sposal of
l ef t out hand gr enades, r ecover y of empt i es f r om t he
f i r e ar ms of t he SRP J awans, t he empt i es pr oduced by
I . G. Shr i V. V. Rabar i , pr oduct i on and seal i ng of
Dongr i of t he pol i ce const abl e, r ecover y of bul l et s
f r om t he i nj ur ed wi t nesses, pr oduct i on of cl ot hes of
i nj ur ed PSI-Digvijaysinh Chudasama and i nj ur ed
wi t ness, t he spl i nt er s of hand gr enades and bul l et s
r ecover ed f r omt he i nj ur ed and t hese ar e pr oved by t he
panchnama Exs. 553, 106, 121, 107, 596, 108 597, 109,
110, 111 and 160. Al so, t he r ef er ence of r ecover y of
t he di sput ed si gnat ur e of wi t ness- Abdul Wahi d ( PW- 56)
i n t he ent r y r egi st er of Hot el G. Royal Lodge,
Naampal l i , Hyder abad and t he col l ect i on of hi s
speci men si gnat ur e col l ect ed under Panchnama ( Ex. 583)
i s pr oved by Panch- Manubhai Chhaganl al Thakker ( PW-
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -26-

101: Ex. 581) and col l ect i on of t he nat ur al si gnat ur e of
t he wi t ness Abdul Wahi d ( PW- 56) under Panchnama
( Ex. 684) i s pr oved by t he i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer ACP
Si nghal ( PW- 126 : Ex. 679) . Ref er ence was made t o t he
Panchnama ( Ex. 682) pr oved by Panch- Di pakshi nh
Ghanshyamsi nh Chudasama ( PW- 62: Ex. 344) r egar di ng
sei zur e of Aut o- r i ckshaw No. GRW- 3861 wher ei n t he
fidayeens vi si t ed var i ous pl aces and t he r out e t hey
had t aken i n Aut o- r i ckshaw on 22. 09. 2002 and t he r out e
t o Akshar dhamTempl e on 24. 09. 2002, was t r aced by A- 2.
Ref er ence was al so made of t he house of Abbas ( t he
br ot her of A- 2) i n whi ch fidayeens and Ayub
( abscondi ng accused No. 23) wer e pr ovi ded l odgi ng, was
i dent i f i ed by A- 2 under Panchnama ( Ex. 580) pr oved by
t he Panch- J i gnesh Ar vi ndbhai Shr i mal i ( PW- 100
: Ex. 579) . Ther e i s al so r ef er ence of sei zur e of
Panchnama ( Ex. 336) of t he Passpor t and a pi ece of
paper cont ai ni ng t el ephone number s, a t el ephone di ar y
and el ect r i ci t y bi l l of Febr uar y, 2003 of A- 2 pr oved
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -27-

by t he Panch- Sant osh Kumar R. Pat hak ( PW- 59 : Ex. 335) .
The panchnama ( Ex. 446) of col l ect i on of t he nat ur al
si gnat ur e of A- 2 i s pr oved by t he Panch- Mukeshbhai
Nat war l al Mar wadi ( PW- 75: Ex. 445) and r ecover y of
speci men handwr i t i ng of A- 2 under Panchnama ( Ex. 448)
i s pr oved by Panch- Di neshbhai Chunaj i Par mar ( PW-
76: Ex. 447) . Ther e i s al so panchnama of sei zur e of
r ecover y of Rai l way t i cket ( Ex. 589) f r om Ahmedabad t o
Mumbai dat ed 22. 04. 2002, communi cat i on r egar di ng
cancel l at i on of t i cket dat ed 22. 04. 2002, t el ephone
char ge sl i ps and t he expense account f or mat t r esses,
f an, pet r ol , f ood and hot el f r om t he r esi dence of A- 2
has been pr oved by t he Panch- Navi nchandr a Bechar das
Kahaar ( PW- 103 : Ex. 585) . Ther e i s al so sei zur e of t he
Account s Di ar y f r omMehboob- el l ahi Abubakar Kar i m( PW-
82) t o pr ove r ecei pt of Rs. 10, 000/ - and Rs. 20, 000/ -
sent f r om Ri yadh and pai d t o t he A- 2 under t he Code
J I HAD under Panchnama ( Ex. 481) , whi ch i s pr oved by
t he Panch- Bhar at bhai Babul al Par mar ( PW- 102 : Ex. 584) .
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -28-

Ther e i s r ecover y of nat ur al handwr i t i ng ( Ex. 613) of
A- 4 f r om a di ar y i dent i f i ed by hi m, whi ch was
r ecover ed under Panchnama ( Ex. 309) and pr oved by t he
Panch- Ashok Manaj i Mar wadi ( PW- 49 : Ex. 308) . Col l ect i on
of t he speci men wr i t i ng ( Ex. 698) of A- 4 under
Panchnama ( Ex. 334) i s pr oved by t he Panch- Ar vi ndbhai
J ehabhai Chavda ( PW- 58 : Ex. 333) .
The Hi gh Cour t st at ed t hat t he handwr i t i ng exper t
J agdi shbhai J et habhai Pat el ( PW- 89 : Ex. 507) has
pr oved t hat t he di sput ed wr i t i ngs mar ked A/ 5/ A and
A/ 5/ B ( Ur du wr i t i ngs Ex. 658) wer e t he same as t he
nat ur al handwr i t i ng and t he speci men wr i t i ng of A- 4.
The r epor t ( Ex. 511) , whi ch i s t he opi ni on of t he
handwr i t i ng exper t , i s al so conf i r med by t he exper t
r epor t ( Mar k- T) of R. K. J ai n, Di r ect or at e of For ensi c
Sci ences, Hyder abad and i n t he pr esence of t he Panch -
Bhi khaj i Bachuj i Thakor e ( PW- 6: Ex. 343) . Under
Panchnama ( Ex. 681) , A- 4 and A- 5 i dent i f i ed t he pl ace
wher e t he l ast namaaz was per f or med f or t he fidayeens
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -29-

and t he pl ace wher e t he weapons wer e packed. The
wi t ness i dent i f i ed A- 4 and A- 5 i n t he cour t . Ref er ence
was made t o t he r ecover y of muddamal - ambassador Car
No. KMT- 413 f r om t he compound of SOG Camp, Sr i nagar ,
J &K. The exi st ence/ di scl osur e of conceal ed cavi t y
under t he r ear seat of t he car i n Panchnama ( Ex. 671) ,
i s pr oved by t he Pol i ce I nspect or - Shabi r ahmed ( PW- 123
: Ex. 670) and t he Assi st ant Sub- I nspect or Gul ammohamad
Dar ( PW- 124 : Ex. 673) . Ref er ence was made of t he
di sput ed handwr i t i ng of Yusuf bhai Val i bhai Gandhi ( PW-
57) f r om ent r y No. 81 dat ed 23. 09. 2002 and hi s nat ur al
handwr i t i ng f r om ent r y Nos. 224, 225 and 226 of
24. 05. 2003 and 26. 05. 2003 f r om t he passenger r egi st er
of Gul shan Guest House i n Panchnama ( Exs. 317 and 319)
whi ch have been pr oved by t he Panch- Poonambhai
Nar shi bhai Par mar ( PW- 54: Ex. 318) and Panch- Ashok
Sahadevbhai Kahaar ( PW- 53: Ex. 316) r espect i vel y. The
Panch- Poonambhai Nar shi bhai has al so pr oved r ecover y
of t he di sput ed si gnat ur e of A- 6, f r omcol umn No. 13 of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -30-

t he af or esai d ent r y No. 81. The col l ect i on of speci men
handwr i t i ng of Yusuf Gandhi ( PW- 57) i n Panchnama
( Ex. 321) i s pr oved by Panch- Saj ubha Adar j i Thakor e
( PW- 55: Ex. 320) . The Hi gh Cour t has made f ur t her
r ef er ence t hat A- 6 i dent i f i ed STD boot hs used by hi m
dur i ng hi s st ay i n Ahmedabad on 23. 09. 2002 and
24. 09. 2002 under Panchnama ( Ex. 342) pr oved by Panch-
Pr ahl ad Bagadaj i Mar wadi ( PW- 60 : Ex. 341) . Fur t her ,
t her e i s r ef er ence t o A- 6, who i dent i f i ed t he pl aces
vi si t ed by hi m, and t he way t o Gul shan Guest House
f r om Rai l way St at i on under Panchnama ( Ex. 591) pr oved
by Panch- Nat war bhai Faki r chand Kahar ( PW- 104 :
Ex. 590) . Ref er ence i s al so made by t he Hi gh Cour t of
t he Taxi Dr i ver , Raj ni kant ( Raj uj i ) Thakor e, who
i dent i f i ed t he dead bodi es of t he fidayeens under
Panchnama ( Ex. 130) whi ch i s pr oved by Panch- Bhupat si nh
Chandaj i Waghel a ( PW- 5 : Ex. 129) . The r out e of t he
fidayeens f r om Kal upur Rai l way St at i on t o Akshar dham
gat e no. 3 i s i dent i f i ed by Taxi dr i ver Raj ni kant
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -31-

Thakor e ( PW- 68) under Panchnama ( Ex. 131) pr oved by
Panch- Bhupat si nh Andaj i Waghel a ( PW- 5: Ex. 129) .
18. Fr om par agr aph 75 onwar ds i n t he i mpugned
j udgment , t he Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t has
r ef er r ed t o t he j udgment s of t hi s Cour t . Rel i ance was
pl aced on t he cases of S.N. Dube v. N.B. Bhoir & Ors.
1

and Lal Singh etc.etc. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
2

whi ch made r ef er ence t o t he conf essi onal st at ement
r ecor ded under Sect i on 15 of Ter r or i st and Di sr upt i ve
Act i vi t i es ( Pr event i on) Act , 1987 ( her ei naf t er TADA ) ,
wher ei n t hi s Cour t r ej ect ed t he cont ent i on ur ged on
behal f of t he accused per sons t hat t he conf essi onal
st at ement s wer e i nadmi ssi bl e i n evi dence because ( a)
t he st at ement s wer e r ecor ded by t he i nvest i gat i ng
of f i cer or t he of f i cer s super vi si ng t he i nvest i gat i on
( b) t he accused per sons wer e not pr oduced bef or e t he
j udi ci al Magi st r at e i mmedi at el y af t er r ecor di ng t he

1
( 2000) 2 SCC 254
2
( 2001) 3 SCC 221
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -32-

conf essi onal st at ement s and ( c) gui del i nes l ai d down
i n t he case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
3
wer e
not f ol l owed. Rel i ance was al so pl aced by t he Hi gh
Cour t on t he case of State of Maharashtra v. Bharat
Chaganlal Raghani & Ors.
4
, wher ei n t hi s Cour t hel d t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons t o be
admi ssi bl e i n evi dence. The Cour t f ur t her hel d t hat
conf essi onal st at ement s havi ng been pr oved t o be
vol unt ar i l y made and l egal l y r ecor ded, can be used
agai nst al l or some of t he accused per sons i n t he
l i ght of ot her evi dence pr oduced i n t he case.
19. The Hi gh Cour t r ef er r i ng t o t he br oad pr i nci pl es
cover i ng t he l aw of conspi r acy as l ai d down i n t he
case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini & Ors.
5
, and
al so r ef er r i ng t o Sect i on 120- A of I PC whi ch
const i t ut es t he of f ence of cr i mi nal conspi r acy, hel d

3
( 1994) 3 SCC 569
4
( 2001) 9 SCC 1
5
( 1999) 5 SCC 253
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -33-

t hat t he act s subsequent t o achi evi ng an obj ect of
cr i mi nal conspi r acy may t end t o pr ove t hat a
par t i cul ar accused per son was a par t y t o t he
conspi r acy. Conspi r acy i s hat ched i n pr i vat e or i n
secr ecy and i t i s r ar el y possi bl e t o est abl i sh a
conspi r acy by di r ect evi dence. Usual l y, bot h t he
exi st ence of t he conspi r acy and i t s obj ect s have t o be
i nf er r ed f r omt he ci r cumst ances and t he conduct of t he
accused per sons.
Fur t her , r ef er ence was al so made t o t he j udgment i n
t he case of State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar &
Ors.
6
, wher ei n i t was hel d t hat t he cour t s shoul d bear
i n mi nd t he t i me const r ai nt s on t he pol i ce of f i cer s i n
t he pr esent syst em, t he i l l equi pped machi ner y t hey
have t o cope wi t h and t he t r adi t i onal apat hy of
r espect abl e per sons t owar ds t hem.

6
( 2000) 8 SCC 382
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -34-

The Hi gh Cour t al so r el i ed upon t he case of Rotash v.
State of Rajasthan
7
, wher ei n t hi s Cour t hel d t hat t he
i nvest i gat i on was not f ool pr oof but t hat def ect i ve
i nvest i gat i on woul d not l ead t o t ot al r ej ect i on of t he
pr osecut i on case. Fur t her , r ef er ence of State of M.P.
v. Mansingh
8
i n t he case of Rotash ( supr a) i n suppor t
of t he af or esai d pr oposi t i on of l aw.
20. The Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t al so r ef er r ed
t o t he evi dence of Asf aq Abdul l a Bhavnagar i ( PW- 50:
Ex. 312) who had wor ked at Ri yadh i n Saudi Ar abi a and
whose st at ement was r ecor ded by t he pol i ce, whi ch
accor di ng t o t he pr osecut i on, l ed t o t he r evel at i on of
t he ent i r e conspi r acy.
21. The Hi gh Cour t f ur t her pl aced r el i ance upon t he
st at ement of Mohammed Munaf Haj i mi ya Shai kh ( PW- 52 :
Ex. 315) who gave evi dence agai nst A- 2, A- 4 and A- 5

7
( 2006) 12 SCC 64
8
( 2003) 10 SCC 414
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -35-

r egar di ng r unni ng of r el i ef camp i n t he St at e of
Guj ar at and agai nst hi s br ot her Abdul Rashi d
Sul emanbhai Aj mer i ( abscondi ng accused No. 4) .
Accor di ng t o t he wi t ness, A- 5 and A- 4 advi sed A- 2 t o
go ahead wi t h t he pl an and gave t el ephone number of
one Nasi r Doman t o A- 2. He i dent i f i ed A- 2, A- 4 and A- 5
i n t he cour t .
22. The Hi gh Cour t al so pl aced r el i ance on t he
st at ement of Abdul Wahi d ( PW- 56 : Ex. 325) , who
admi t t ed t hat on 24. 04. 2002 he had gone t o Hyder abad
wi t h A- 2 and t hat t hey had met Khal i d ( abscondi ng
accused No. 16) t her e. Accor di ng t o t hi s wi t ness, t he
sai d Abdul Raheman @ Abu Tal ah @ Khal i d had made
ar r angement f or t hei r l odgi ng at Hot el G- Royal . He
al so admi t t ed t o havi ng met Ayub ( abscondi ng accused
No. 23) at Hyder abad. He f ur t her admi t t ed t he di sput ed
si gnat ur e i n t he hot el r egi st er ( muddamal ar t i cl e no.
129) and t he speci men si gnat ur e ( muddamal ar t i cl e no.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -36-

131) as t hat of hi s own. He al so i dent i f i ed A- 2 i n t he
cour t .
23. The Hi gh Cour t al so pl aced r el i ance on t he
st at ement of Mehboob- e- l l ahi Abubakar Kar i mi ( PW- 82)
who has admi t t ed t o t r ansf er of money t hr ough hi m. He
al so admi t t ed t he payment made t o A- 2 and i dent i f i ed
t he muddamal Di ar y ( ar t i cl e no. 106) and t he ent r i es
( Ex. 477) and ( Ex. 478) made i n r espect of t he af or esai d
t r ansf er of money. The Hi gh Cour t f ur t her pl aced
r el i ance on t he st at ement of Sevakr am Bul aki ( PW- 97 :
Ex. 563) , owner of Hot el G. Royal Lodge, Hyder abad, who
suppor t ed t he pr osecut i on ver si on and admi t t ed t o
havi ng al l ot t ed Room No. 322 t o t wo per sons namel y
Abdul Shai kh and A. S. Shai kh who came f r om Ghat kopar ,
Bombay on 26. 04. 2002. He f ur t her admi t t ed ent r y
( Ex. 326) made i n t he ent r y r egi st er .
24. The Hi gh Cour t f ur t her r ef er r ed t o t he st at ement
of A- 1 ( Ex. 456) r ecor ded bef or e t he Deput y
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -37-

Commi ssi oner of Pol i ce Zone- I V, Ahmedabad under
Sect i on 32 of POTA, who admi t t ed t hat he and ot her
Musl i ms f r om Guj ar at , wor ki ng at Ri yadh used t o meet
at t he r esi dence of A- 3 and al so admi t t ed t hat one
Kar i m Annan Moul vi ( abscondi ng accused No. 20) , who
was a nat i ve of Paki st an, al so used t o at t end t he
meet i ngs. He al so st at ed t hat he used t o col l ect f unds
i n t he name of I sl am and was connect ed wi t h Paki st ani
J i hadi gr oup Si ppa- e- Saheba and had al so become a
member of J ai sh- e- Mohammed. The Hi gh Cour t al so
st at ed t hat t he conf essi onal st at ement made by hi m i s
suppor t ed by t he evi dence of Abdul Raheman Panar a ( PW-
51: Ex. 314)
25. I n par agr aph 19 of t he i mpugned j udgment , t he
Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t exami ned t he
admi ssi bi l i t y of t he conf essi onal st at ement s made by
A- 1, A- 2, A- 3, A- 4 and A- 6 and t hei r pr obat i ve val ue
and hel d t hat t he conf essi onal st at ement s wer e made by
t he accused per sons under Sect i on 32 of POTA bef or e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -38-

Sanj ay Gadhvi , Deput y Commi ssi oner of Pol i ce ( Zone- I V)
( PW- 78: Ex. 452) , Ahmedabad, who had been exami ned by
t he pr osecut i on. He had deposed bef or e t he Speci al
Cour t ( POTA) about t he manner i n whi ch t he
r ecor ded. He al so i dent i f i ed and pr oved t hei r
conf essi onal st at ement s ( mar ked as Exs. 454, 456, 458,
460 and 462) . He st at ed bef or e t he cour t t hat t he
pr ovi si ons of POTA wer e expl ai ned t o t he accused
per sons bef or e t hei r st at ement s wer e r ecor ded, and
f ur t her st at ed t hat he had war ned t hem t hat t hei r
st at ement s may be used agai nst t hemand t hat t hey wer e
not bound t o make such st at ement s bef or e hi m.
26. The cont ent i on of t he counsel f or t he accused t hat
t he af or esai d st at ement s have been r ecor ded
mechani cal l y by PW- 78, wi t hout f ol l owi ng t he mandat or y
pr ocedur al saf eguar ds pr ovi ded under Sect i on 32 of
POTA, was r ej ect ed by t he Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh
Cour t , whi ch hel d t hat t he same have been r ecor ded
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -39-

af t er f ol l owi ng t he mandat or y pr ocedur al saf eguar ds
pr ovi ded under Sect i on 32 of POTA, af t er car ef ul
exami nat i on of t he above pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 32. The
Hi gh Cour t opi ned t hat sub- sect i ons ( 4) and ( 5) of
Sect i on 32 do not make i t mandat or y f or t he Pol i ce
( Recor di ng Of f i cer ) t o send t he accused t o j udi ci al
cust ody af t er r ecor di ng hi s conf essi onal st at ement
under Sect i on 32 of POTA.
27. The Hi gh Cour t came t o t he concl usi on t hat t he
Chi ef J udi ci al Magi st r at e i s obl i ged t o send t he
accused t o j udi ci al cust ody onl y i n case t he accused
per sons compl ai n of i l l - t r eat ment or t or t ur e by t he
pol i ce. Al l t he accused per sons who made conf essi onal
st at ement s appear ed bef or e t he CJ M ( PW- 99) , and t hey
made no compl ai nt agai nst t he pol i ce and t hey had al so
admi t t ed t he st at ement made by t hem. The Di vi si on
Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t hel d t hat t he af or esai d f act s
t end t o pr ove t hat none of t he accused per sons maki ng
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -40-

t he conf essi onal st at ement had been i l l t r eat ed by t he
pol i ce or had been oppr essed or l ur ed t o do so.
28. Ther ef or e, t he Hi gh Cour t has concl uded at
par agr aph 131 of t he i mpugned j udgment t hat t he
pr osecut i on had pr oved t hat t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of al l t he si x accused per sons wer e
pr oper l y r ecor ded and pr ocedur al r equi r ement s under
t he st at ut e wer e compl i ed wi t h.
The Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t f ur t her r ecor ded
t he concur r ent f i ndi ng at par a 132 of t he i mpugned
j udgment t hat i f t he st at ut or y saf eguar ds ar e pr oper l y
f ol l owed by t he pol i ce of f i cer and t he CJ M, and ot her
f act s and evi dence on r ecor d i ndi cat e f r ee wi l l of t he
accused per sons i n maki ng t he conf essi onal st at ement ,
such st at ement i s admi ssi bl e i n evi dence and can be
r el i ed upon as a t r ut hf ul account of f act s of t he
cr i me.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -41-

29. The Hi gh Cour t f ur t her exami ned t he evi dence of
Sur esh Kumar Padhya CJ M ( PW- 99 : Ex. 568) who had
r ecor ded t he st at ement of A- 1 and A- 3 on t he r equest
of PW- 78, DCP on 18. 09. 2003, i . e a day af t er t hei r
conf essi onal st at ement s wer e r ecor ded. A- 2 and A- 4
made t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s bef or e PW- 78 on
24. 09. 2003 and wer e sent t o PW- 99 on 25. 09. 2003. A- 6
made hi s conf essi onal st at ement on 05. 10. 2003 and was
sent t o PW- 99 on 06. 10. 2003. PW- 99 had st at ed bef or e
t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) t hat accused per sons had
st at ed bef or e hi m t hat t hey wer e not i l l t r eat ed by
t he pol i ce. Thei r st at ement s wer e r ead over t o t hem.
Wi t h r egar d t o cr oss exami nat i on of PW- 99, he admi t t ed
t hat he had not i nqui r ed f r om t he accused per sons as
t o how l ong t hey wer e i n t he pol i ce cust ody nor di d he
send t hem t o j udi ci al cust ody af t er r ecor di ng t hei r
st at ement s. He deposed t hat he di d not t hi nk i t
necessar y t o send t he accused per sons t o t he j udi ci al
cust ody. He has al so admi t t ed t hat he had not r ecor ded
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -42-

a speci f i c st at ement t hat t he accused per sons had made
conf essi onal st at ement of t hei r own vol i t i on.
30. The Hi gh Cour t consi der ed t he evi dence of PW- 99
and came t o t he concl usi on t hat t he pr ocedur al
saf eguar ds pr ovi ded under Sect i on 32 of POTA have been
f ol l owed by PW- 78 t o r ecor d t he st at ement s of t he
accused per sons as per t he gui del i nes i ssued by t he
Apex Cour t i n var i ous j udgment s par t i cul ar l y State of
Tamil Nadu v. Nalini & Ors.( supr a) and Jayawant
Dattatraya Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra
9
. The Hi gh
Cour t came t o t he concl usi on t hat t hi s Cour t i n t he
case of Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
10

hel d t hat t he i ni t i al bur den i s on t he pr osecut i on t o
pr ove t hat al l t he r equi r ement s under Section 15 of
TADA and Rule 15 of TADA Rules were complied wi t h.
Once t hat i s done and t he pr osecut i on di schar ges i t s
bur den, t hen i t i s f or t he accused t o sat i sf y t he

9
( 2001) 10 SCC 109
10
( 2002) 5 SCC 234
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -43-

cour t t hat t he conf essi onal st at ement was not made
vol unt ar i l y. The Hi gh Cour t opi ned t hat i n pr esent
case, each accused maki ng conf essi onal st at ement was
gr ant ed t i me of ar ound 15 mi nut es t o r ef l ect over hi s
deci si on t o make conf essi onal st at ement , and t he Hi gh
Cour t st at ed t hat t her e i s no evi dence on r ecor d t o
suggest t hat 15 mi nut es t i me was i nadequat e so as t o
r ender t he conf essi onal st at ement s i nadmi ssi bl e i n
evi dence or unr el i abl e as none of t he f i ve accused
per sons whi l e maki ng t he conf essi onal st at ement had
asked f or f ur t her t i me. None of t hem had made a
compl ai nt of i nadequacy of t i me bef or e PW- 99 and on
t he ot her hand, admi t t ed t he conf essi ons made by t hem.
31. The Hi gh Cour t f ur t her st at ed t hat t he cont ent i on
made by t he l ear ned counsel f or t he accused per sons
t hat t hey wer e kept i n pol i ce cust ody f or ar ound 45
days bef or e t he of f i ci al dat e of ar r est , i s absol ut el y
unbel i evabl e. Fur t her , sendi ng t he accused per sons t o
j udi ci al cust ody af t er r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -44-

st at ement i s a mat t er of pr udence and not a st at ut or y
r equi r ement . PW- 99 had made a speci f i c not e on t he
wr i t i ngs ( Exs. 453, 455, 457, 459 and 461) , t hat each
of t he accused per son was asked whet her he had
suf f er ed i l l - t r eat ment at t he hands of t he pol i ce and
t hat none of t hem had compl ai ned of i l l - t r eat ment by
t he pol i ce. The Di vi si on Bench hel d t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of t he accused per sons t o be admi ssi bl e i n
evi dence i n or der t o pr ove t hei r gui l t , r el yi ng on
var i ous deci si ons of t hi s Cour t .
32. Af t er r ecor di ng such f i ndi ngs, t he def ence
evi dence was al so exami ned. Def ence wi t ness
( her ei naf t er DW ) Nos. 1 t o 7 have gi ven evi dence and
t he same have been adduced by t he def ence t o suppor t
t hei r cl ai m t hat t he accused per sons wer e ar r est ed
l ong bef or e t he of f i ci al dat e r ecor ded and t hat t hey
wer e t or t ur ed by t he pol i ce t o make t he conf essi onal
st at ement s. The af or esai d evi dence of DW- 3 r ef er r ed t o
A- 2 and A- 3. The Hi gh Cour t r ef er r ed t o al l t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -45-

def ence wi t nesses, except DW- 3 t o hol d t hat none of
t he af or esai d evi dence r emot el y suppor t s t he def ence
ver si on t hat A- 2 and A- 3 wer e ar r est ed l ong bef or e
29. 08. 2003, i . e t he dat es of ar r est as ment i oned i n
t hei r ar r est memos. The Hi gh Cour t hel d t hat t he
evi dence of t he doct or s al so does not pr ove t he pol i ce
at r oci t i es al l egedl y commi t t ed upon t he accused
per sons dur i ng t he per i od t hey wer e i n t he pol i ce
cust ody. Al l t he si x accused per sons, i n t hei r
r et r act i on st at ement s, compl ai ned of havi ng been
beat en up by ACP Si nghal ( PW- 126) , V. D. Vanar and R. I .
Pat el , because of whi ch t hey coul d not st and up on
t hei r f eet . On denyi ng t hei r compl i ci t y i n t he
Akshar dham at t ack, t hey wer e t hr eat ened of bei ng
encount er ed. Each accused per sons sai d t hat ever y day
t hey wer e cal l ed ei t her by Si nghal , V. D. Vanar or by
R. I . Pat el and wer e f or ced t o admi t t hei r compl i ci t y
i n t he Akshar dham at t ack. On 05. 11. 2003, t he accused
per sons wer e pr oduced bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA)
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -46-

f r om t he j udi ci al cust ody. Each one of t hem was gi ven
audi ence bef or e t he j udge of t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA)
wher ei n, t hey al l made an or al compl ai nt of pol i ce
at r oci t i es dur i ng t he pol i ce cust ody and al so
compl ai ned of havi ng been i n pol i ce cust ody f or l ong
t i me. Accor di ng t o each accused per son, he was made t o
si gn t he conf essi onal st at ement pr epar ed by t he pol i ce
under coer ci on and dur ess and had not made t he same of
hi s own f r ee wi l l .
At par agr aph 144 of t he i mpugned j udgment , t he
Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t had r ecor ded i t s
f i ndi ng t hat t he af or esai d r et r act i ons ar e ex facie
unbel i evabl e, wi t hout gi vi ng any r eason.
33. At par a 145 of t he i mpugned j udgment , t he Hi gh
Cour t exami ned t he evi dence i n r espect of t he l et t er s
wr i t t en i n Ur du ( Ex. 658) , whi ch i s a vi t al
i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence agai nst A- 4. Accor di ng t o t he
def ence, t hese l et t er s wer e pl ant ed by t he pol i ce at a
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -47-

l at er st age, and t hey pl aced r el i ance on t he evi dence
of PW- 42 ( Ex. 266) , t he i nquest Panchnama( Ex. 267) of
t he bodi es of t he deceased fidayeens, t he post mor t em
not es( Ex. 492 and Ex. 493) and t he muddamal cl ot hes of
t he fidayeens and submi t t ed t hat si nce bot h of t hem
di ed of bul l et wounds sust ai ned dur i ng t he count er
at t ack by t he NSG commandos, t he bodi es wer e wounded
and soi l ed i n bl ood, and t hei r cl ot hes wer e t at t er ed
by t he bul l et hol es and t he spl i nt er s. Ther e wer e
hol es i n t he cl ot hes of t he fidayeens par t i cul ar l y on
t he pocket s of t hei r t r ouser s. I n t he af or esai d
ci r cumst ances, i t i s not possi bl e t hat t he l et t er s
r ecover ed al l egedl y f r om t he pocket s of t he t r ouser s
of t he fidayeens wer e unsoi l ed and i n per f ect
condi t i on, and t her ef or e, t he exper t opi ni on ( Ex. 511)
i s not ver y accur at e and i s not r el i abl e. The Hi gh
Cour t st at ed t hat i t i s t r ue t hat t he Ur du l et t er s
r ecover ed f r om t he bodi es of t he deceased fidayeens
wer e i n per f ect condi t i on i n spi t e of t he mul t i pl e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -48-

i nj ur i es r ecei ved by t he fidayeens and assi gned t he
r eason i n par agr aph 189 of t he i mpugned j udgment as
But then the truth is stranger than fiction and t hat
i t i s not possi bl e t o di sbel i eve t hat t wo Ur du l et t er s
( Exh. 658) wer e r ecover ed f r om t he bodi es of t he
fidayeens. I t was st at ed by t he Hi gh Cour t t hat bot h
t he l et t er s wer e si gned by Br i g. Raj Si t apat i of NSG.
The r ecover y of t hese l et t er s i s r ecor ded i n t he
muddamal ar t i cl es as per l i st ( Ex. 524) whi ch wer e
r ecei ved by ACP G. L Si nghal ( PW- 126) i n t he pr emi ses
of Akshar dham t empl e i t sel f under Panchnama ( Ex. 440) ,
si gned by t he Pol i ce Of f i cer Shr i Pr akashchandr a Mehr a
( PW- 105 : Exh. 592) . The evi dence and t he opi ni on
( Exh. 511) of t he handwr i t i ng exper t J . J . Pat el ( PW- 89:
Exh. 507) was r el i ed upon t o pr ove t hat t he sai d
l et t er s wer e wr i t t en by A- 4.
34. The ar gument advanced by t he l ear ned counsel f or
t he accused per sons r egar di ng t he subsequent pl ant i ng
of l et t er s was r ej ect ed by t he Hi gh Cour t , st at i ng
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -49-

t hat i f t hi s ar gument was t o be accept ed, t hen t he
af or esai d evi dence adduced by t he pr osecut i on has t o
be di sbel i eved and i t has t o be hel d t hat t he pol i ce
had such pr esence of mi nd t hat i n t he:
mi l i eu of t he af t er mat h of t he t er r or i st
at t ack, t he pol i ce t hought of cr eat i ng t he
evi dence, f ound out a per son who knew Ur du,
got t hemt o wr i t e t he wr i t e- ups i n handwr i t i ng
t hat woul d mat ch t he handwr i t i ng of accused
no. 4, Abdul Kayyum, made Lt . Col Lamba and
Br i g. Raj Si t apat hi t hei r accompl i ces and t hat
t he t wo of f i cer s of t he NSG r eadi l y agr eed t o
be t he accompl i ces. SO di d t he panch wi t ness,
Vi nod Kumar ( PW- 74) and Di l i p Si nh ( PW- 1) . Thi s
possi bi l i t y i s t oo f ar - f et ched t o bel i eve.

The Hi gh Cour t t her ef or e hel d t hat t he accused per sons
had commi t t ed of f ences f or whi ch t hey had been char ged
and conf i r med t he convi ct i on and sent ence, i . e. deat h
sent ence awar ded t o A- 2, A- 4 and A- 6, l i f e-
i mpr i sonment t o A- 3, f i ve year s Ri gor ous I mpr i sonment
t o A- 1 and t en year s Ri gor ous I mpr i sonment t o A- 5 and
t he appeal s of t he accused per sons wer e di smi ssed.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -50-

The cor r ect ness of t he i mpugned j udgment and or der s
passed by t he Hi gh Cour t i s under chal l enge i n t hese
appeal s by t he accused appel l ant s, i n suppor t of
whi ch t hey ur ged var i ous f act s and l egal cont ent i ons
bef or e t hi s Cour t .
35. The r i val l egal cont ent i ons ur ged on behal f of t he
accused per sons and t he pr osecut i on wi l l be deal t wi t h
as her eunder :
Contentions on behalf of the prosecution
We wi l l f i r st exami ne t he cont ent i ons ur ged on behal f
of t he pr osecut i on r epr esent ed by Mr . Ranj i t Kumar ,
t he l ear ned seni or counsel appear i ng on behal f of t he
St at e of Guj ar at who has advanced t he f ol l owi ng
ar gument s t o est abl i sh t he gui l t of t he accused
per sons:
The procedure under Section 50 of POTA was followed by
the State Government while granting sanction:
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -51-

36. I t was cont ended by t he l ear ned seni or counsel
t hat on compl et i on of t he i nvest i gat i on, PW- 126
f or war ded a compl et e set of paper s and hi s r epor t
t hr ough of f i ci al channel r ecommendi ng pr osecut i on
agai nst al l si x accused per sons under t he pr ovi si ons
of POTA. The sanct i on gr ant ed by t he Home Depar t ment
was gi ven under t he si gnat ur e of t he Deput y Secr et ar y
of t he sai d depar t ment , Mr . J . R Raj put by sanct i on no.
SB. V/ POTA/ 10/ 2003/ 152 ( Ex. 498) . Al l t he paper s wer e
r ecei ved by t he sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y on 12. 11. 2003
and t he sect i on of f i cer put up t he f i l e t o t he Under
Secr et ar y on 13. 11. 2003 and af t er pr oper appl i cat i on
of mi nd, t he sanct i on was appr oved by Kul deep Chand
Kapur , Pr i nci pal Secr et ar y, Home Depar t ment ( PW- 88) on
15. 11. 2003 and i t was sent back t o t he Mi ni st er f or
St at e ( Home) who appr oved i t on 18. 11. 2003 and
r ecei ved back t hese paper s f r om t he Mi ni st er on
19. 11. 2003 and t her eaf t er sanct i on or der was i ssued on
21. 11. 2003. I t was f ur t her submi t t ed t hat t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -52-

pr ocedur e f or gr ant i ng sanct i on by t he Home Depar t ment
was f ol l owed as per t he Guj ar at Gover nment Rul es of
Busi ness, 1990. I t was submi t t ed t hat t he sanct i on
or der was passed by t he St at e Gover nment af t er pr oper
appl i cat i on of mi nd by t he compet ent aut hor i t y.
The l ear ned seni or counsel al so submi t t ed t hat t he
l ear ned counsel f or A- 6, Ms. Kami ni J ai swal pl aced
r el i ance on t he case of Ramanath Gadhvi v. State of
Gujarat
11
qua t he sanct i on under Sect i on 20- A ( 2) of
TADA, whi ch has been decl ar ed per i ncur i am by a 5
J udge Bench i n t he case of Prakash Bhutto v. State of
Gujarat
12
and t her ef or e t he j udgment has no r el evance.

Confessions of A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-6 are valid:
37. The l ear ned seni or counsel cont ended t hat t he
pr ocedur e f or r ecor di ng of t he conf essi ons as under

11
( 1997) 7 SCC 744
12
( 2005) 2 SCC 409
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -53-

Sect i on 32 of POTA was scr upul ousl y f ol l owed. The
accused per sons di d not make any compl ai nt s of
beat i ngs or i l l t r eat ment by t he pol i ce when pr oduced
bef or e t he CJ M f or r emand on di f f er ent dat es. When t he
compl ai nt s wer e made l at er , a medi cal exami nat i on was
car r i ed out i n whi ch none of t he compl ai nt s wer e f ound
t o be t r ue. The l ear ned seni or counsel al so submi t t ed
t hat t he conf essi onal st at ement s of A- 2 and A- 4 wer e
r ecor ded on 24- 09- 2003, t hat of A- 3 on 17- 09- 2003 and
t hat of A- 6 on 05- 10- 2003. A- 5 di d not make any
conf essi on at al l . The r et r act i on t o t hese
conf essi onal st at ement s came ar ound f i ve weeks l at er .
He cont ended t hat i t i s cl ear t hat t hese r et r act i ons
ar e mechani cal as even A- 5, who had not made any
conf essi onal st at ement , sent hi s r et r act i on.
The Urdu letters were collected from the dead bodies
of the two fidayeens:
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -54-

38. The i nquest panchnama was dr awn of t he dead bodi es
of t he t wo fidayeens by Pol i ce Of f i cer Shr i
Pr akashchandr a Mehr a ( PW- 105: Exh. 592) , who i n hi s
st at ement has conf i r med t he col l ect i on of t he t wo Ur du
l et t er s. PW- 91, Maj . J aydeep Lamba, who was t he
commander of t he t ask f or ce, al so st at ed t hat t wo Ur du
l et t er s wer e f ound f r om t he dead bodi es of t he
fidayeens by hi mand Br i g. Raj Si t apat i , and t hat t hey
cont ai n t he si gnat ur e of Br i g. Raj Si t apat i at t he
bot t om and t hat a l i st was pr epar ed of t he ar t i cl es
r ecover ed ( Ex. 524) whi ch` was si gned by hi m.
Rel i ance was al so pl aced by t he l ear ned seni or counsel
on t he evi dence of PW- 89 who had opi ned t hat t he
l et t er s ( Ex. 658) had been wr i t t en by A- 4.
The l ear ned seni or counsel al so submi t t ed t hat PW- 91
deposed bef or e t he cour t , and t hat i n hi s cr oss
exami nat i on, he was not quest i oned r egar di ng t he
condi t i on of t he l et t er s wr i t t en i n Ur du, as
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -55-

r ecover ed f r om t he t wo fidayeens. Si mi l ar l y, even PW-
126 was not cr oss exami ned by t he counsel f or t he
accused per sons on t he condi t i on of t he l et t er s. On
bei ng quest i oned by us as t o why t he l et t er s di d not
have any bl ood st ai ns on t hem, t he l ear ned seni or
counsel submi t t ed t hat t he panchnama st at ed t hat t he
t r ouser s wer e st ai ned wi t h bl ood and not soaked wi t h
i t . Thei r t r ouser s became wet due t o t he oozi ng of
bl ood whi ch has gone t o t he back of t he t r ouser s
because of gr avi t y as t he bodi es wer e l yi ng on t hei r
back af t er shoot i ng.
The link of accused persons to Akshardham attack has
been established.
39. The l ear ned seni or counsel had r el i ed upon t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons t o dr aw
t he l i nk bet ween t hemand t he at t ack on t he Akshar dham
t empl e. He had submi t t ed t hat t he conf essi onal
st at ement s woul d cl ear l y go t o show how each one of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -56-

t he accused per sons had a di f f er ent and
compar t ment al i zed r ol e f r om t he pr ocur ement of ar ms
and ammuni t i ons t o pr ovi di ng t he l ogi st i cs t o t he
fidayeens f or car r yi ng out t he oper at i on and t he
mot i vat i on pr ovi ded f or t he at t ack.
The role of A-6 has also been proved.
40. The l ear ned seni or counsel submi t t ed t hat A- 6
pl ayed a cr uci al r ol e i n br i ngi ng t he weapons f r om
Kashmi r t o Bar ei l l y- i n hi s ambassador car bear i ng
r egi st r at i on no. KMT 413, i n a secr et cavi t y made
under neat h t he back seat , and t her eaf t er he car r i ed
t he weapons, conceal ed i n t he beddi ng i n t he t r ai n and
accompani ed t he fidayeens t o Ahmedabad.
The Navgam Pol i ce St at i on at J ammu & Kashmi r had
ar r est ed A- 6 i n of f ence r egi st er ed i n FI R: CR no. 130
of 2003, and i t was dur i ng t he i nt er r ogat i on i n t he
above sai d of f ence t hat he had di scl osed hi s
i nvol vement i n t he Akshar dham at t ack. A f ax message
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -57-

was r ecei ved by t he Guj ar at ATS f r om t he I GP Kashmi r
r egar di ng t he same on 31. 08. 2003. The i nvest i gat i on
was conduct ed by PW- 126 who was t he t hen ACP and was
aut hor i zed t o do so as per sect i on 51 of POTA. A t eam
was f or med under t he pr oper aut hor i zat i on f or
col l ect i ng mat er i al s f r om di f f er ent pl aces dur i ng
i nvest i gat i on. I . K Chauhan ( PW- 125) was asked t o go
f or i nqui r y t o J ammu & Kashmi r .
I t was submi t t ed t hat t her e wer e many ot her evi dences,
ot her t han hi s conf essi onal st at ement , i ncl udi ng t he
t est i mony of Yusuf Gandhi , owner of Gul shan Guest
House, ( PW- 57) who had st at ed bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) t hat A- 6 st ayed t her e, and al so t he panchnama
of t he ambassador car KMT 413 ( Ex. 671) .
Delay in cracking the case.
41. The l ear ned seni or counsel submi t t ed t hat
i ni t i al l y t he i nvest i gat i on was conduct ed by V. R Tol i a
( PW- 113) of t he Local Cr i me Br anch, Gandhi nagar , and
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -58-

t her eaf t er by K. K Pat el of t he ATS. The i nvest i gat i on
was t hen handed over t o G. L Si nghal , ACP Cr i me Br anch
( PW- 126) on 28. 08. 2003. I t was on 28. 08. 2003, t hat
Ashf aq Bhavnagr i ( PW- 50) was i nt er r ogat ed, who
r eveal ed t he ent i r e conspi r acy as wel l as t he r ol e of
A- 1 and A- 3 i n commi t t i ng t he dast ar dl y of f ences.
The Conspiracy.
42. I t was f ur t her submi t t ed t hat i t has been pr oved
t hat t he accused per sons, al ong wi t h t he abscondi ng
accused hat ched a conspi r acy t o cr eat e t er r or and t ake
r evenge on t he Hi ndus on account of t he Godhr a r i ot s.
For t hi s pur pose, secr et meet i ngs wer e hel d at J i ddah,
Ri yadh, Hyder abad and Kashmi r . A- 2 was cont act ed by
hi s br ot her who ensur ed suppl y of f i nance, weapons and
t r ai ned t er r or i st s. A- 4 and A- 5, who wer e r unni ng
r el i ef camps and wer e al so r el i gi ous l eader s, accept ed
t o gar ner l ocal suppor t and t hus money was sent
t hr ough havala. A- 2 and t he t wo fidayeens vi si t ed
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -59-

var i ous pl aces i n Ahmedabad and f i nal l y chose
Akshar dham t empl e i n Gandhi nagar as t he si t e f or t he
at t ack on 24. 09. 2002. A- 4, at t he i nst ance of A- 5,
wr ot e t he t wo Ur du l et t er s and gave t hem t o t he
fidayeens. A- 5 t ook t he fidayeens t o t he r ai l way
st at i on, f r omwher e t hey t ook a t axi t o t he Akshar dham
t empl e. The ar ms and ammuni t i ons wer e br ought f r om
Kashmi r by A- 6.
Concurrent findings of the courts below
43. I t was f ur t her submi t t ed by t he l ear ned seni or
counsel f or t he pr osecut i on t hat t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) as wel l as t he Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh
Cour t , af t er pr oper appr eci at i on and anal ysi s of
evi dence, gave concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act and t hus
t he convi ct i on and t he sent ences or der ed by t he cour t s
bel ow ought t o be uphel d.
44. The l ear ned seni or counsel f or t he pr osecut i on
t hus submi t s t hat i t has pr oved beyond r easonabl e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -60-

doubt t hat t he accused per sons wer e i nvol ved i n t he
conspi r acy f or t he at t ack on t he Akshar dhamt empl e and
t he sent ences met ed out t o t hem by t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) and conf i r med by t he Hi gh Cour t must be uphel d
by t hi s Cour t as t he concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act
r ecor ded on t he char ges f r amed agai nst t he accused
per sons does not war r ant any i nt er f er ence by t hi s
Cour t .
Contentions on behalf of A-2 & A-4 and A-3 & A-5.
45. We wi l l now exami ne t he cont ent i ons ur ged on
behal f of A- 2 and A- 4 who ar e r epr esent ed by l ear ned
seni or counsel , Mr . K. T. S Tul si and t her eaf t er A- 3 and
A- 5, who ar e r epr esent ed by l ear ned seni or counsel ,
Mr . Amar endr a Shar an. Subsequent l y, t he cont ent i ons
ur ged on behal f of A- 6 who i s r epr esent ed by l ear ned
counsel , Ms. Kami ni J ai swal wi l l be deal t wi t h. The
cont ent i ons wi l l be deal t wi t h t opi c wi se.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -61-

That the Sanction required under Section 50 of POTA
was not obtained in a proper manner.
46. Sect i on 50 of POTA pr ovi des t hat no cour t shal l
t ake cogni zance of any of f ence under t he Act wi t hout
t he pr evi ous sanct i on of t he Cent r al Gover nment or as
t he case may be by t he St at e Gover nment . The
pr osecut i on has r el i ed on t he t est i mony of Kul deep
Chand Kapoor ( PW- 88) t o pr ove t hat t he sanct i on was
gr ant ed i n accor dance wi t h t he l aw.
I t was cont ended by t he l ear ned counsel f or A- 6 t hat
t he per usal of t he st at ement of PW- 88 woul d show t hat
al l t he document s per t ai ni ng t o t he i nvest i gat i on wer e
not pl aced bef or e t he sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y and i t was
onl y on t he appr oval of t he Mi ni st er t hat t he sanct i on
was gr ant ed. The sanct i on was gr ant ed wi t hout due
appl i cat i on of mi nd. Thus t he sai d sanct i on i s not a
pr oper pr evi ous sanct i on, on t he basi s of whi ch t he
cour t coul d have t aken cogni zance of t he of f ences.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -62-

Evidentiary value of confessions:
47. Al l t he t hr ee l ear ned counsel have si mi l ar
submi ssi ons wi t h r espect t o t he r el i ance pl aced by t he
cour t s bel ow on t he conf essi onal st at ement s made by
t he accused per sons t o hol d t hat t he accused per sons
ar e gui l t y of t he of f ences t hey ar e char ged wi t h. They
submi t t ed t hat t he concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act
uphol di ng t he convi ct i on of t he accused per sons on t he
basi s of t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s i s er r oneous,
keepi ng i n mi nd t hat t her e i s no admi ssi bl e or
r el i abl e evi dence on r ecor d whi ch connect t hem wi t h
t he of f ences.
I t i s cont ended by bot h t he l ear ned seni or counsel Mr .
K. T. S. Tul si and Mr . A. Shar an on behal f of A- 2 and A-
4 and A- 3 and A- 5 r espect i vel y, t hat t he pr osecut i on
had not compl i ed wi t h t he st at ut or y pr ovi si ons under
Sect i on 32( 5) of POTA, t hough t hey pr oduced t he
accused per sons bef or e t he l ear ned CJ M PW- 99, wi t hi n
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -63-

48 hour s as pr ovi ded under Sect i on 32( 4) of POTA. I t
i s cont ended t hat af t er r ecor di ng t hei r st at ement s,
CJ M ( PW- 99) f ai l ed t o di schar ge t he vi t al obl i gat i on
of sendi ng t hem t o j udi ci al cust ody and t hus,
commi t t ed a gr ave er r or i n r emandi ng t hem back t o
pol i ce cust ody whi ch was a cl ear vi ol at i on of Sect i on
32( 5) of POTA and Ar t i cl e 20( 3) of t he Const i t ut i on.
I t was submi t t ed t hat t he Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh
Cour t had er r oneousl y made an obser vat i on i n t he
i mpugned j udgment i n t hi s r egar d wi t h r ef er ence t o
Sect i on 32( 5) of POTA, st at i ng t hat t he Chi ef J udi ci al
Magi st r at e has t he power t o send a per son t o a
j udi ci al cust ody onl y when he compl ai ns of i l l
t r eat ment and t or t ur e by t he pol i ce. The af or esai d
f i ndi ng i s cont r ar y t o t he l aw l ai d down by t hi s Cour t
i n NCT v. Navjot Sandhu.
13

13
( 2005) 11 SCC 600
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -64-

48. Fur t her , t he l ear ned seni or counsel pl aced
r el i ance on t he deposi t i on of PW- 99 t o cont end t hat i t
l eaves no manner of doubt t hat he was nei t her mi ndf ul
of hi s obl i gat i ons under Sect i on 32 of POTA nor di d he
make any enqui r y r egar di ng f ear or t or t ur e l i kel y t o
have been f aced by t he accused per sons whi l e maki ng
t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s. On t he cont r ar y, he
mechani cal l y sent t he accused per sons back t o pol i ce
cust ody af t er r ecor di ng t hei r st at ement s. I t was
f ur t her submi t t ed t hat t he CJ M had f ai l ed t o per f or m
t he most i mpor t ant dut y of i nf or mi ng hi msel f about t he
sur r oundi ng ci r cumst ances f or maki ng t he conf essi onal
st at ement s by t he accused. Remandi ng t he accused
per sons t o j udi ci al cust ody has been consi der ed as t he
most si gni f i cant saf eguar d and pr ot ect i on agai nst
t or t ur e by pol i ce, whi ch was t hr own t o t he wi nd by t he
CJ M, t her eby he had vi ol at ed t he f undament al r i ght s
guar ant eed t o t he accused per sons under Ar t i cl es 20( 3)
and 21 of t he Const i t ut i on. I t was f ur t her cont ended
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -65-

by t he l ear ned seni or counsel t hat t her e was a f ai l ur e
on t he par t of t he cour t s bel ow i n not consi der i ng t he
evi dence of doct or s who wor k i n Gover nment Hospi t al s
and who deposed i n t he case on behal f of t he accused
per sons t hat A- 2 t o A- 6 had compl ai ned of havi ng
r ecei ved sever e beat i ng by t he pol i ce pr i or t o
r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s. The sai d
evi dence i s cl ear f r om t he deposi t i ons of DW-
2( Ex. 731) , DW- 4( Ex. 736) , DW- 5( Ex. 737) and DW-
7( Ex. 744) . Fr om t he evi dence of DW- 2, i t i s r eveal ed
t hat t he X- r ay pl at es and case paper s of A- 4 wer e
f ound mi ssi ng and f r om t he af or esai d evi dence, t he
onl y concl usi on t hat can be dr awn i s t hat once t he
accused per sons had compl ai ned of havi ng r ecei ved
sever e beat i ngs by t he pol i ce pr i or t o t hei r maki ng of
t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s, t he cr edi bi l i t y of such
conf essi ons became doubt f ul as t he same had not been
made vol unt ar i l y bef or e PW- 78 by t hem. Ther ef or e, i t
had been ur ged t hat nei t her t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA)
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -66-

nor t he Di vi si on Bench of t he Hi gh Cour t shoul d have
pl aced r el i ance upon t he sai d conf essi onal st at ement s
t o r ecor d t he f i ndi ng of gui l t agai nst t he accused
per sons. The cour t s bel ow shoul d have consi der ed t hat
t her e was a st at ut or y obl i gat i on upon t he pr osecut i on
not t o suppr ess any evi dence or document on r ecor d
whi ch i ndi cat es t he i nnocence of t he accused per sons.
Thus, i n t he l i ght of evi dence of DW- 2, t he conduct of
t he pr osecut i on i n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he
case becomes unj ust i f i ed. The l ear ned seni or counsel
i n suppor t of t he sai d cont ent i on pl aced r el i ance upon
t he deci si on of t hi s Cour t i n t he case of Sidhartha
Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi)
14
.
49. Fur t her , t he l ear ned seni or counsel on behal f of
t he accused per sons cont ended t hat t her e wer e ser i ous
i nf i r mi t i es wi t h r egar d t o t he manner i n whi ch t he
al l eged conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons

14
( 2010) 6 SCC 1
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -67-

wer e r ecor ded wi t hout suf f i ci ent t i me bei ng gi ven f or
r ef l ect i on, whi ch was i n vi ol at i on of t he pr i nci pl e
l ai d down by t hi s cour t i n t he cases of Ranjit Singh @
Jita & Ors. v. State of Punjab
15
, Navjot Sandhu case
( supr a) and State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh & Ors.
16
.
I t was f ur t her ur ged t hat t he cour t s bel ow had f ai l ed
t o t ake i nt o consi der at i on t he el ement of f ear of
f ur t her t or t ur e by t he pol i ce, i n t he mi nds of t he
accused per sons whi ch was bound t o be pr esent ,
especi al l y when t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s wer e
r ecor ded by PW- 78 i n hi s of f i ce wi t hout t hem bei ng
assur ed of bei ng sent t o j udi ci al cust ody i mmedi at el y
af t er maki ng t hei r st at ement s. These above i mpor t ant
f act s had cer t ai nl y vi t i at ed t he conf essi onal
st at ement s made by t he accused per sons, maki ng t hem
hi ghl y unr el i abl e and unnat ur al . Ther ef or e, t he cour t s
bel ow shoul d not have pl aced r el i ance on t he same t o

15
( 2002) 8 SCC 73
16
( 2008) 1 SCC 601
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -68-

r ecor d t he f i ndi ng of gui l t agai nst t he accused
per sons. The r emai ni ng evi dence on r ecor d pl aced on
behal f of t he pr osecut i on, does not est abl i sh even
r emot el y t hat t hey wer e par t y t o any of t he mat er i al
i ngr edi ent s of t he conspi r acy of t he at t ack on
Akshar dham t empl e. I n suppor t of t he sai d cont ent i on,
t he l ear ned seni or counsel i nvi t ed our at t ent i on t o
concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act of t he cour t s bel ow
cont endi ng t hat t he same ar e l i abl e t o be set asi de as
t hey have r el i ed sol el y upon t he conf essi onal
st at ement s made by t he accused per sons whi l e uphol di ng
t hei r convi ct i on. The cour t s bel ow had gr avel y er r ed
i n not consi der i ng t he ver y i mpor t ant l egal aspect of
t he mat t er , t hat a t r i al cour t cannot begi n by
exami ni ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused
per sons t o convi ct t hem. I t was cont ended t hat i t must
begi n wi t h ot her evi dence adduced by t he pr osecut i on
and af t er i t has f or med i t s opi ni on wi t h r egar d t o t he
qual i t y and ef f ect of ot her evi dence, onl y t hen, t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -69-

cour t must t ur n t o t he conf essi ons i n or der t o be
assur ed as t o t he concl usi on of gui l t , whi ch t he
j udi ci al mi nd i s about t o r each, based on t he sai d
ot her evi dence. I n suppor t of t he af or esai d l egal
submi ssi ons he had pl aced r el i ance upon t he j udgment
of t hi s Cour t i n t he case of Haricharan Kurmi v. State
of Bihar
17
and t he Navjot Sandhu case( supr a) .
50. Fur t her el abor at i ng t hei r submi ssi ons, t he l ear ned
seni or counsel ur ged t hat t he conf essi on of an accused
per son has been r egar ded by t hi s Cour t as f r agi l e and
f eebl e evi dence whi ch can onl y be used t o suppor t
ot her evi dence. I n suppor t of t hi s cont ent i on he
r el i ed upon t he j udgment of t hi s Cour t i n t he Prakash
Kumar v. State of Gujarat
18
. The appr oach of t he
cour t s bel ow t o r ecor d t he f i ndi ng of gui l t agai nst
t he accused per sons, shoul d be t o f i r st mar shal l
evi dence agai nst t he accused per sons excl udi ng t hei r

17
( 1964) 6 SCR 623
18
( 2007) 4 SCC 266
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -70-

conf essi ons and see whet her convi ct i on can saf el y be
based upon i t .
Retracted confessions.
51. The l ear ned seni or counsel Mr . A. Shar an appear i ng
f or A- 3 and A- 5 had f ur t her cont ended t hat t he cour t s
bel ow had f ai l ed t o t ake i nt o consi der at i on t hat t he
conf essi onal st at ement s made by t he accused per sons
had been r et r act ed at t he ear l i est possi bl e
oppor t uni t y avai l abl e t o t hem. The evi dence of t he
doct or s t hat t he sust ai ned f r act ur e bei ng f ound on t he
bodi es of t he accused per sons by t he exami ni ng doct or
and subsequent di sappear ance of t he X- r ay pl at es f r om
t he r ecor ds, r ai sed a ser i es of doubt s r egar di ng t he
manner i n whi ch t he conf essi onal st at ement s wer e
r ecor ded. I n suppor t of t hi s cont ent i on t he l ear ned
seni or counsel pl aced r el i ance upon t he deci si on of
t hi s Cour t i n t he case of Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -71-

v. State of Gujarat
19
. The l ear ned seni or counsel
f ur t her cont ended t hat i n t he pr esent set of f act s,
t her e was suf f i ci ent pr oof t hat t he conf essi onal
st at ement s wer e not made vol unt ar i l y and i n t he l i ght
of t he above, t he cour t s bel ow wer e dut y bound t o
cor r obor at e t he conf essi onal st at ement s wi t h ot her
i ndependent evi dence t o t est t hei r ver aci t y.
Lear ned seni or counsel Mr . K. T. S Tul si r epr esent i ng A-
2 and A- 4 and l ear ned counsel , Ms. Kami ni J ai swal
r epr esent i ng A- 6 have r ei t er at ed t he same and
submi t t ed t hat t her e had t o be i ndependent evi dence
cor r obor at i ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he
accused per sons i f t hey had been r et r act ed.
Evidence of accomplices.
52. The l ear ned seni or counsel Mr . K. T. S Tul si
submi t t ed t hat t he l ear ned seni or counsel f or t he

19
( 1992) 1 SCC 473
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -72-

pr osecut i on had pl aced r el i ance on t he evi dence of PW-
50 as subst ant i al evi dence agai nst t he accused
per sons. He cont ended t hat a car ef ul r eadi ng of t he
evi dence of PW- 50 showed t hat t he sai d wi t ness had
cl ear l y admi t t ed t hat he was an accompl i ce i n as much
as he admi t t ed t o havi ng cont r i but ed money, even when
A- 3 i nf or med t hem t hat t he money was t o be used f or
t aki ng r evenge. I t was f ur t her cont ended t hat a cour t
shoul d not r el y on t he evi dence of an accompl i ce t o
r ecor d f i ndi ng of gui l t agai nst t he accused per sons
and t o but t r ess t he sai d submi ssi on, he pl aced
r el i ance upon t he j udgment of t hi s Cour t i n t he case
of Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura
20
. I n suppor t of t he
sai d submi ssi on, he had f ur t her pl aced r el i ance upon
t he j udgment of t hi s Cour t i n t he case of Bhiva Doulu
Patil v. State of Maharashtra
21

20
( 2011) 9 SCC 479
21
AI R 1963 SC 599
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -73-

Fur t her el abor at i ng hi s submi ssi on i n t hi s r egar d, he
pl aced r el i ance upon anot her j udgment of t hi s Cour t i n
t he case of Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra v. K.S.
Dalipsinghji
22
, wher ei n t hi s Cour t had f ur t her st at ed
wi t h r egar d t o t he combi ned ef f ect of Sect i ons 133 and
114, I l l ust r at i on ( b) of t he I ndi an Evi dence Act , 1872
and hel d t hat cor r obor at i on must connect t he accused
per sons wi t h t he cr i me.
53. The l ear ned seni or counsel r el i ed upon t he case of
Sarwan Singh v. State of Pubjab
23
, wher ei n t hi s Cour t
has l ai d down t he l egal pr i nci pl e t hat t he cour t s ar e
nat ur al l y r el uct ant t o act on such t ai nt ed evi dence
unl ess i t i s cor r obor at ed and t hat i ndependent
cor r obor at i on shoul d suppor t t he mai n st or y di scl osed
by t he appr over apar t f r oma f i ndi ng t hat t he appr over
i s a r el i abl e wi t ness. The accompl i ce evi dence shoul d
sat i sf y a doubl e t est , i . e. he i s a r el i abl e wi t ness

22
( 1969) 3 SCC 429
23
AI R 1957 SC 637
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -74-

and t hat t her e i s suf f i ci ent cor r obor at i on by ot her
evi dence t o hi s st at ement . Thi s t est i s speci al t o t he
case of weak or t ai nt ed evi dence l i ke t hat of t he
appr over .
I n suppor t of t he sai d pr i nci pl e, he f ur t her
pl aced r el i ance on t he cases of Ravinder Singh v.
State of Haryana
24
, Abdul Sattar v. U.T. Chandigarh
25
,
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra
26
,
Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra
27
and
Bhuboni Sahu v. R.
28
.
54. The l ear ned seni or counsel speci f i cal l y r ef er r ed
t o t he case of K. Hashim v. State of Tamil Nadu
29

wher ei n t hi s Cour t , af t er adver t i ng t o Sect i ons 133
and 114, I l l ust r at i on ( b) of t he Evi dence Act has hel d
t hat t he sai d pr ovi si ons st r i ke a not e of war ni ng

24
( 1975) 3 SCC 742
25
( 1985) Suppl ( 1) SCC 599
26
( 2000) 8 SCC 457
27
( 1970) 2 SCC 122
28
( 1948- 49) 76 I A 147
29
( 2005) 1 SCC 237
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -75-

caut i oni ng t he cour t t hat an accompl i ce does not
gener al l y deser ve t o be bel i eved.
55. He t hen dr ew our at t ent i on t o an unr epor t ed
j udgment of t hi s Cour t del i ver ed by one of us, A. K.
Pat nai k, J . i n t he case of State of Rajasthan v.
Balveer ( Cr l . Appeal No. 942 of 2006 deci ded on
31. 10. 2013) wher ei n t hi s Cour t obser ved, whi l e
r ef er r i ng t o i l l ust r at i on ( b) of Sect i on 114 of t he
Evi dence Act , and obser ved t hat t he Cour t wi l l pr esume
t hat an accompl i ce i s unwor t hy of cr edi t unl ess he i s
cor r obor at ed by mat er i al par t i cul ar s.
56. I t was f ur t her ur ged t hat t he l ear ned seni or
counsel on behal f of t he pr osecut i on had st r ongl y
r el i ed on t he st at ement of PW- 51, wher eas t he
af or esai d deposi t i on was vi r t ual l y r ender ed usel ess
dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) . The ver si on gi ven by t he sai d wi t ness i n hi s
cr oss exami nat i on was mor e cr edi bl e, nat ur al and cast s
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -76-

a ser i ous doubt about t he manner i n whi ch t he evi dence
was sought t o be f abr i cat ed by pol i ce of f i cer , D. G
Vanzar a whose ent r ust i ng of t he case t o t he Cr i me
Br anch on 28. 08. 2003 suddenl y r esul t ed i n f ever i sh
act i vi t y, wher eupon t he accused per sons wer e ar r est ed
and t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s wer e r ecor ded.
The l ear ned seni or counsel f or t he pr osecut i on had
r el i ed upon t he deposi t i on of PW- 52 who had st at ed i n
hi s evi dence about sendi ng money t hr ough A- 3, as wel l
as t he weapons f or t he car nage and had al so i dent i f i ed
A- 2, A- 4 and A- 5 bef or e t he Cour t . The l ear ned seni or
counsel , Mr . K. T. S Tul si submi t t ed t hat t he sai d
st at ement of t hi s wi t ness was excul pat or y as he had
st at ed t hat no wor k was assi gned t o hi m. Ther ef or e,
such st at ement can nei t her be consi der ed t o be
r el i abl e nor wor t hy of accept ance wi t hout
cor r obor at i on i n mat er i al par t i cul ar s f r omi ndependent
sour ces. I n vi ew of t he t est l ai d down by t hi s cour t
i n a cat ena of j udgment s r ef er r ed t o supr a, upon whi ch
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -77-

st r ong r el i ance had been pl aced by t he l ear ned counsel
based on t he pr esumpt i on cont ai ned i n i l l ust r at i on ( b)
of Sect i on 114 r ead wi t h sect i on 133 of t he I ndi an
Evi dence Act , i t was submi t t ed t hat pr ovi si ons of t he
Evi dence Act ar e of no avai l t o t he pr osecut i on case.
Letters purportedly recovered from the pockets of the
fidayeens cannot be relied upon:
57. Bot h t he l ear ned seni or counsel , Mr . K. T. S Tul si
and Mr . A. Shar an cont ended t hat i t was not possi bl e
t o bel i eve t hat t he l et t er s wer e r ecover ed f r om t he
pocket s of t he t wo fidayeens, mai nl y on t he evi dence
f r om t he post mor t em of t he dead bodi es of t he
fidayeens whi ch showed t hat t he bodi es had 46 and 60
ext er nal i nj ur i es, r espect i vel y, due t o mul t i pl e
bul l et shot s and t he panchnama of t he cl ot hes of t he
assai l ant s cl ear l y demonst r at ed t hat t hei r cl ot hes
wer e f ul l of bl ood and mud and t her ef or e, i t was
hi ghl y i mpr obabl e and di f f i cul t t o bel i eve t hat t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -78-

al l eged l et t er s wer e r ecover ed i n a per f ect condi t i on
f r om t he cl ot hes of t he fidayeens. The Hi gh Cour t had
f ai l ed t o r econci l e t he f act of absence of bul l et
hol es on t he l et t er s wi t h t he pr esence of mul t i pl e
bul l et hol es on t he pocket s of t he t r ouser s, f r om
whi ch t he l et t er s wer e pur por t ed t o have been
r ecover ed. Wi t h r egar d t o t he l et t er s bei ng i n a
per f ect condi t i on, t he Hi gh Cour t mer el y obser ved t hat
Truth is stranger than fiction and i t was submi t t ed
t hat t he cour t s bel ow ought not t o have r el i ed upon
such a document t o r ecor d t hei r f i ndi ngs of gui l t
agai nst t he accused per sons on t he basi s of t he same.
58. The l ear ned seni or counsel al so r ef er r ed t o
var i ous di scr epanci es i n t he st at ement s of t he t wo
i mpor t ant wi t nesses i n r el at i on t o t he l et t er s, i . e of
PW- 91, Lt . Col . J ayadeep Lamba, who, accor di ng t o t he
pr osecut i on, had r ecover ed t hem f r om t he pocket s of
t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens, but whose st at ement was
not r ecor ded under Sect i on 161 Cr PC and t hat of PW-
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -79-

121, t he t r ansl at or of t he l et t er s. I t was cl ai med by
t he pr osecut i on t hat PW- 91 was not exami ned by t he
i nvest i gat i on of f i cer under Sect i on 161 Cr PC si nce t he
NSG had r ef used t o gr ant per mi ssi on t o i t s per sonnel
t o di scl ose any i nf or mat i on r egar di ng t hei r oper at i on
wi t h r espect t o t he at t ack. The pr osecut i on had pl aced
r el i ance upon a l et t er dat ed 11. 02. 2002 by t he
Mi ni st r y of Home Af f ai r s t o pr ove t he same. The
l ear ned seni or counsel cont ended t hat t he pr osecut i on
had however , r el i ed upon t he st at ement made by t hi s
wi t ness, PW- 91 bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) , who
was a char gesheet wi t ness al t hough hi s st at ement under
Sect i on 161 Cr PC was never r ecor ded and t hus, t he
accused per sons had been nat ur al l y depr i ved of an
oppor t uni t y t o ef f ect i vel y cr oss- exami ne t he wi t ness
and t her eby t hey wer e ver y much pr ej udi ced.
59. The l ear ned seni or counsel al so cont ended t hat t he
cl ai m of t he pr osecut i on t hat t he l et t er s wer e f ound
i n a pouch whi ch was pr esent i n t he pocket of t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -80-

t r ouser s of t he fidayeens cannot be bel i eved as t her e
i s no evi dence t o suppor t t he same and on t he
cont r ar y, t he r ecei pt voucher of t he ar t i cl es
col l ect ed f r om t he fidayeens onl y l i st ed t wo
handwr i t t en l et t er s i n Ur du and t her e was no ment i on
of t he pouch what soever .
Delay in recording statements of accomplices and
confessional statements of the accused persons.
60. The l ear ned seni or counsel , Mr . A. Shar an had
submi t t ed t hat t he pr el i mi nar y i nvest i gat i on of t he
case was i ni t i al l y car r i ed out by t he pol i ce f r om
27. 09. 2002 and t her eaf t er , t he i nvest i gat i on was
handed over t o t he ATS on 03. 10. 2002. Af t er t he mat t er
was i nvest i gat ed f or a year , i t was t r ansf er r ed t o t he
Cr i me Br anch on 28. 08. 2003 and sur pr i si ngl y, on t he
ver y next day i . e, 29. 08. 2003, al l t he accused
per sons, except A- 6 wer e ar r est ed and on 30. 08. 2003,
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -81-

t he pr ovi si ons of POTA wer e i nvoked by t he Cr i me
Br anch agai nst t hem.
61. I t was f ur t her cont ended by hi mt hat t hi s made t he
pr osecut i on st or y hi ghl y i mpr obabl e and t he f act t hat
t he accused per sons wer e appr ehended a year af t er t he
i nci dent made t he conduct of t he pr osecut i on hi ghl y
doubt f ul and t ot al l y unr el i abl e.
I t was f ur t her cont ended by hi m t hat i t i s a wel l
set t l ed pr i nci pl e of l aw t hat t her e shoul d not be an
i nor di nat e del ay i n t he r ecor di ng of t he st at ement s of
t he accompl i ces by t he pol i ce. PW- 50, PW- 51, PW- 52 and
PW- 56 had st at ed i n t hei r deposi t i ons t hat t hei r
st at ement s wer e r ecor ded ar ound t he 7
t h
or 8
t h
mont h of
2003. Thus, t hi s i nor di nat e del ay l eads one t o dr aw an
adver se i nf er ence and al so l eads one t o bel i eve t hat
t he pol i ce had suf f i ci ent t i me t o f abr i cat e t he st or y
and r ope i n t he accused per sons f al sel y i n t hi s case.
Rel i ance was pl aced by t he l ear ned seni or counsel on
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -82-

t he case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.Swarnalatha &
Ors.
30
, wher ei n even 26 days del ay i n r ecor di ng
st at ement s of pr osecut i on wi t nesses was not al l owed by
t hi s Cour t . The l ear ned seni or counsel al so r ef er r ed
t o t he case of Jagjit Singh @ Jagga v. State of
Punjab
31
i n suppor t of t he above posi t i on of l aw.
I t was cont ended t hat t he del ay i n r ecor di ng t he
st at ement s of t he accused and wi t nesses by pol i ce and
r el i ance pl aced upon t he same by t he cour t s bel ow
vi t i at ed t he f i ndi ng r ecor ded t hat t he accused per sons
ar e gui l t y, and t he same i s l i abl e t o be set asi de.
Ther e was del ay i n r ecor di ng t he st at ement of PW- 52
and PW- 56 whi ch i s evi dent f r om t he r ecor d t hat PW- 52
had st at ed t hat hi s st at ement was r ecor ded on
07. 09. 2003, whi l e PW- 56 st at ed t hat hi s st at ement was
r ecor ded i n t he 7
t h
or 8
t h
mont h of 2003. Thus, t her e

30
( 2009) 8 SCC 383
31
( 2005) 3 SCC 689
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -83-

was a del ay of al most of a year i n r ecor di ng t he
st at ement of t he af or esai d wi t ness by t he Pol i ce.
Failure of prosecution to establish a nexus between
the accused persons and the crime as well as link
between the fidayeens and the accused persons.
62. The l ear ned seni or counsel Mr . A. Shar an cont ended
t hat f or t he pr osecut i on t o i nvoke common i nt ent i on
under Sect i on 34 I PC or common obj ect under Sect i on
149 I PC, i t i s r equi r ed t o est abl i sh beyond r easonabl e
doubt t he connect i on bet ween t he accused per sons and
t he common i nt ent i on/ obj ect of t he cr i me wi t h whi ch
t hey ar e char ged. I n t hi s r egar d, i t was submi t t ed
t hat al l t he mai n pr osecut i on wi t nesses, i . e PW- 50,
PW- 51, PW- 52 and PW- 56 upon whi ch st r ong r el i ance had
been pl aced by t he l ear ned seni or counsel on behal f of
t he pr osecut i on, had f ai l ed t o show and est abl i sh t he
nexus ei t her wi t h common i nt ent i on or obj ect , or t he
cumul at i ve ef f ect of t he pr oved ci r cumst ances, t o
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -84-

est abl i sh any connect i on bet ween t he accused per sons
and t he conspi r acy of t he at t ack on Akshar dham.
Fur t her , i t was cont ended t hat t he cour t s bel ow had
gr ossl y er r ed i n pl aci ng st r ong r el i ance upon t he
evi dence of above pr osecut i on wi t nesses t o hol d t hat
t her e was a l i nk or connect i on bet ween t he fidayeens
and t he accused per sons, and t hat i t was on t he
f ai l ur e of t he pr osecut i on t o est abl i sh such
connect i on, t hat t hey had been subsequent l y r oped i n.
63. Fur t her , i t was cont ended t hat even f r om t he
conf essi onal st at ement of A- 6, wher ei n he had nar r at ed
as t o how t he t wo fidayeens wer e br ought f r om J ammu &
Kashmi r t o Guj ar at , t her e was no ment i on of A- 1 t o A-
5. Ther ef or e, t he pr osecut i on had f ai l ed t o est abl i sh
t he connect i on bet ween A- 6 and A- 2, A- 4, A- 3 and A- 5
and t hi s i mpor t ant aspect of t he mat t er had not been
consi der ed at al l by t he cour t s bel ow whi l e r ecor di ng
t he f i ndi ng of gui l t agai nst t he accused per sons and
t he same cannot be al l owed t o sust ai n.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -85-

Defence Witnesses to be given same weightage as
prosecution witnesses.
64. The l ear ned seni or counsel al so cont ended t hat t he
cour t s bel ow shoul d have gi ven same wei ght age t o t he
evi dence of t he def ence wi t nesses as t hat of t he
pr osecut i on wi t nesses and i n suppor t of t hi s
cont ent i on, he pl aced r el i ance upon t he cases of
Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar
32
, I.C.D.S. Ltd. v.
Beena Shabeer & Anr.
33
and State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Babu Ram
34

Suppression of material witness draws an adverse
inference against the prosecution.
65. I t was cont ended by t he l ear ned seni or counsel
t hat PW- 126 st at ed t hat hi s seni or of f i cer D. G
Vanzar a, had or al l y t ol d hi m t hat PW- 50 was awar e of

32
( 2002) 1 SCC 351
33
( 2002) 2 SCC 426
34
( 2000) 4 SCC 515
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -86-

t he det ai l s of t he conspi r acy, but D. G. Vanzar a was
never pr oduced as a pr osecut i on wi t ness. The case i s
t he same wi t h Br i g. Raj Si t apat i , who was al so a
wi t ness t o t he r ecover y of t he t wo Ur du l et t er s, and
t hi s mat er i al wi t ness had al so been conveni ent l y
br ushed asi de bot h by t he pol i ce and t he pr osecut i on.
Rel i ance was pl aced by t he l ear ned seni or counsel i n
t hi s r egar d on Tulsiram Kanu v. The State
35
, Ram
Prasad & Ors. v. State of U.P.
36
and State of U.P. v.
Punni & Ors.
37

Alternative stories put forth by the prosecution.
66. Fur t her , i t was cont ended by t he l ear ned seni or
counsel Mr . A Shar an t hat al t er nat i ve st or i es had been
put f or t h by t he pr osecut i on. I t was bor ne out f r om
t he conf essi onal st at ement of A- 4 t hat t he t wo
fidayeens, i . e. Doct or 1 ( Mur t uza/ Haf i z Yasi r ) &

35
AI R 1954 SC 1
36
( 1974) 3 SCC 388
37
( 2008) 11 SCC 153
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -87-

Doct or 2 ( Ashr af / Mohd. Far uk) bel onged t o Lahor e and
Rawal pi ndi r espect i vel y. As per t he conf essi onal
st at ement of A- 6, t he names of t he t wo f i dayeens wer e
Saki l and Abdul l ah, who bel onged t o J ammu and Kashmi r
and had t r avel l ed al ong wi t h A- 6 t o Guj ar at . I t was
obser ved f r om t he deposi t i on of Maj . J aydeep Lamba
( PW- 91) t hat i t was wr i t t en i n t he t wo Ur du l et t er s
t hat t he t wo fidayeens wer e f r om At ok r egi on of
Paki st an. I t was submi t t ed t hat t he pr osecut i on had
come f or t h wi t h t hr ee di f f er ent ver si ons i nsof ar as
t he or i gi n of t he t wo fidayeens was concer ned. Even
t he pr osecut i on was not cer t ai n as t o whi ch of t he
t hr ee ver si ons was t r ue. I t was submi t t ed t hat
t her ef or e, i n t he pr esence of t hese maj or
di scr epanci es i n t he pr osecut i on st or y, and t he non-
r el i abi l i t y of t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he
accused per sons, t hey wer e ent i t l ed t o acqui t t al .

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -88-

Contentions on behalf of A-6.
67. The cont ent i ons ur ged by l ear ned counsel Ms. Kami ni
J ai swal on behal f of A- 6 wi l l now be adver t ed t o as he
was ar r est ed l at er and hi s si t uat i on i s di f f er ent f r om
t hat of t he ot her accused per sons.
Arrest of A-6 in an offence investigated by Jammu and
Kashmir police.
68. I t i s cont ent ed t hat as per t he case of t he
pr osecut i on, A- 6 was under ar r est at t he Navgampol i ce
st at i on Kashmi r , i n r el at i on t o of f ence i n FI R no. 130
of 2003 under Sect i ons 120- B and 153- A of Ranbi r Penal
Code( RPC) and Sect i ons 7 and 27 of t he Ar ms Act . I t
was al so t he case of t he pr osecut i on t hat a f ax
message was sent by t he I GP Kashmi r t o ATS, Guj ar at on
31. 08. 2003, and t hat pur suant t o t he r ecei pt of t he
f ax, t he Tr ansf er War r ant was sought f r om t he Speci al
Desi gnat ed Cour t ( POTA) , Ahmedabad and on t hat basi s,
t he Appl i cat i on f or Remand was made t o t he Chi ef
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -89-

J udi ci al Magi st r at e, Badgaum. A- 6 was br ought t o
Ahmedabad on 12. 09. 2003 and was ar r est ed by t he
Guj ar at pol i ce i n CR No. 314 of 2002 at 9: 30 P. M.
Confessional statement of A-6 is not admissible
against him.
69. I t was f ur t her submi t t ed t hat t he ent i r e case of
t he pr osecut i on r est ed sol el y on t he al l eged
conf essi on of A- 6 whi ch was r ecor ded on 05. 10. 2003
( Exs. 461- 462) , whi l e he was i n pol i ce cust ody. I t had
been submi t t ed t hat t her e wer e sever al vi ol at i ons of
t he mandat or y r equi r ement s of Sect i on 32 of POTA whi l e
r ecor di ng hi s conf essi onal st at ement . Lear ned seni or
counsel Mr . K. T. S Tul si , appear i ng on behal f of A- 2
and A- 4 and Mr . A. Shar an l ear ned seni or counsel
appear i ng on behal f of A- 3 and A- 5 had al so advanced
ar gument s i n det ai l as t o how t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of t he accused per sons wer e not r ecor ded i n
accor dance wi t h t he mandat or y pr ocedur al saf eguar ds
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -90-

under Sect i on 32 of POTA and t he l ear ned counsel f or
A- 6, Ms. Kami ni J ai swal had al l uded t o t hem wi t h
r espect t o A- 6 al so. Hence, we wi l l not r ei t er at e t he
same i n t hi s por t i on of t he j udgment .
That the other evidence produced by the prosecution
also does not point to the guilt of A-6.
70. The l ear ned counsel submi t t ed t hat dur i ng t he
r emand of A- 6, t he i nvest i gat i on was car r i ed on by V. D
Vanar ( PW- 112) , at Bar ei l l y and Ahmedabad. He had
dr awn panchnama of a PCO f r om wher e t he accused had
al l egedl y made t el ephone cal l s, but t hough he st at ed
t hat a panchnama was dr awn at Bar ei l l y, no such
panchnama had been br ought on r ecor d. He was al so sai d
t o have r ecor ded t he st at ement of PW- 69, Mi nhaas
Ashf aq Ahmed who had st at ed t hat A- 6 got t he
ambassador car r epai r ed at Das Mot or s and al so t he
st at ement of one Dr . Sudhanshu Ar ya ( PW- 93) who had
st at ed t hat t he accused came t o hi m f or t r eat ment of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -91-

hi s chi l d. However , i t i s cont ent ed t hat none of t hese
i nci dent s i n any way connect ed t he accused t o t he
at t ack on t he Akshar dhamt empl e.
Some ot her evi dence whi ch t he pr osecut i on sought t o
r el y on t o est abl i sh t he gui l t of A- 6 wer e t he
deposi t i on of t he owner of Gul shan Guest House, Yusuf
Gandhi , ( PW- 57: Ex. 328) , Panchnama of speci men
si gnat ur e of A- 6 i n t he r egi st er of t he guest house
( Ex. 683) , r ecover y of t he ambassador car f r om t he
cust ody of t he J & K Pol i ce ( Ex. 672) and t he r epor t of
t he RTO r egar di ng t he owner shi p of t he sai d ambassador
car . ( Ex. 672) .
I t was submi t t ed t hat t he r egi st er of t he Guest House,
whi ch was sei zed ar ound 27. 08. 2002 and 28. 08. 2002, was
never seal ed, and t hat t he poi nt i ng out of t he
si gnat ur e by A- 6 whi l e bei ng i n cust ody of t he pol i ce
was not admi ssi bl e i n evi dence.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -92-

I t was f ur t her submi t t ed t hat wi t h r egar d t o t he
owner shi p of t he ambassador car , t he r epor t of t he RTO
( Ex. 672) , showed t hat i t was r egi st er ed i n t he name of
Abdul Maj i d Rat hor . The pr osecut i on had al so not been
abl e t o br i ng anyt hi ng on r ecor d t o connect A- 6 wi t h
t he sai d owner or wi t h t he car , or of t he case wi t h
t he at t ack at Akshar dhamt empl e.
That there had also been a violation of Section 51 of
POTA.
71. I t was cont ended by t he l ear ned counsel t hat
Sect i on 51 of POTA, whi ch st ar t s wi t h t he non-obstante
cl ause, makes i t mandat or y t hat t he i nvest i gat i on
under POTA be car r i ed out onl y by t he of f i cer of t he
r ank of Deput y Super i nt endent of Pol i ce or a pol i ce
of f i cer of an equi val ent r ank. I t was ar gued t hat t he
i nvest i gat i on i n t he pr esent case was most l y car r i ed
out by t he of f i cer of t he r ank of a Pol i ce I nspect or .
The POTA, unl i ke Cr PC does not cont ai n any pr ovi si on
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -93-

wher e t he power s of t he I . O coul d be del egat ed t o any
ot her per son. Thus, i t was cont ent ed t hat any
i nvest i gat i on, i f car r i ed out by any of f i cer bel ow t he
r ank of ACP i s i l l egal and evi dence, i f any, col l ect ed
dur i ng such i nvest i gat i on coul d not be l ooked at .
Findings of this Court:
72. We have hear d t he r i val f act ual and l egal
cont ent i ons r ai sed at l engt h f or a number of days and
per used i n det ai l t he wr i t t en submi ssi ons on r ecor d
pr oduced by t he l ear ned counsel r epr esent i ng bot h t he
par t i es. We have al so per used t he mat er i al obj ect s and
evi dence on r ecor d avai l abl e wi t h t hi s Cour t i n
connect i on wi t h t hi s case. The f ol l owi ng poi nt s t hat
woul d ar i se i n t hese appeal s f or t he pur pose of
adj udi cat i on of t he appeal s by t hi s Cour t ar e:
1. Whet her sanct i on gi ven by t he Guj ar at St at e
Gover nment dat ed 21. 11. 2003 i n t hi s case i s
i n compl i ance wi t h Sect i on 50 of POTA?
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -94-

2. Whet her t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he
accused per sons wer e r ecor ded as per t he
pr ocedur e l ai d down i n Sect i on 32 of POTA,
Cr PC and t he pr i nci pl es l ai d down by t hi s
Cour t ?
3. Whet her t he st at ement s of t he accompl i ces
di scl osi ng evi dence of t he of f ences, and t he
connect i on of t he accused per sons t o t he
of f ence, can be r el i ed upon t o cor r obor at e
t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s?
4. Whet her t he t wo l et t er s i n Ur du pr esent ed as
Ex. 658 whi ch have been t r ansl at ed i n Engl i sh
vi de Ex. 775, wer e f ound f r om t he pocket s of
t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens who wer e
ki l l ed i n t he at t ack?
5. Whet her t he l et t er s al l egedl y f ound f r om t he
pocket s of t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens
wer e wr i t t en by A- 4?
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -95-

6. Whet her t her e i s any evi dence apar t f r om t he
r et r act ed conf essi onal st at ement of A- 6
whi ch connect s hi mt o t he of f ence?
7. Whet her t her e i s any i ndependent evi dence on
r ecor d apar t f r om t he conf essi onal
st at ement s r ecor ded by t he pol i ce, of t he
accused per sons and t he accompl i ces, t o hol d
t hemgui l t y of t he cr i me?
8. Whet her A- 2 t o A- 6 i n t hi s case ar e gui l t y
of cr i mi nal conspi r acy under Sect i on 120- B
I PC?
9. Whet her t he concur r ent f i ndi ngs of t he
cour t s bel ow on t he gui l t of t he accused
per sons can be i nt er f er ed wi t h by t hi s cour t
i n exer ci se of i t s appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on
under Ar t i cl e 136 of t he Const i t ut i on?
10. What Or der ?

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -96-

We wi l l now pr oceed t o answer each poi nt i n det ai l .
73. J ust i ce Vi vi an Bose whi l e deal i ng wi t h t he
i nci pi ent const i t ut i on i n t he case of State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar
38
, made an obser vat i on
whi ch i s ver y per t i nent t o be quot ed her ei n, whi ch
r eads t hus:
90. I f i nd i t i mpossi bl e t o r ead t hese
por t i ons of t he Const i t ut i on wi t hout r egar d
t o t he backgr ound out of whi ch t hey ar ose. I
cannot bl ot out t hei r hi st or y and omi t f r om
consi der at i on t he br oodi ng spi r i t of t he
t i mes. They ar e not j ust dul l , l i f el ess wor ds
st at i c and hi de- bound as i n some mummi - f i ed
manuscr i pt , but , l i vi ng f l ames i nt ended t o
gi ve l i f e t o a gr eat nat i on and or der i t s
bei ng, t ongues of dynami c f i r e, pot ent t o
moul d t he f ut ur e as wel l as gui de t he
pr esent . The Const i t ut i on must , i n my
j udgment , be l ef t el ast i c enough t o meet f r om
t i me t o t i me t he al t er i ng condi t i ons of a
changi ng wor l d wi t h i t s shi f t i ng emphasi s and
di f f er i ng needs. I f eel t her ef or e t hat i n
each case j udges must l ook st r ai ght i nt o t he
hear t of t hi ngs and r egar d t he f act s of each
case concr et el y much as a j ur y woul d do; and
yet , not qui t e as a j ur y, f or we ar e
consi der i ng her e a mat t er of l aw and not j ust

38
AI R 1952 SC 75
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -97-

one of f act : Do t hese l aws whi ch have been
cal l ed i n quest i on of f end a st i l l gr eat er l aw
bef or e whi ch even t hey must bow?
( emphasi s l ai d by t hi s Cour t )

POTA was r epeal ed i n 2004. Yet , t he t r i al s, i t s
i mpl ement at i on has ent ai l ed, ar e cont i nui ng t i l l dat e.
POTA was r epeal ed f or t he gr oss vi ol at i on of human
r i ght s i t caused t o t he accused per sons due t o abuse
of power by t he pol i ce. Thi s i s an i mpor t ant aspect t o
be kept i n mi nd whi l e deci di ng t hi s case and hence, i t
was per t i nent t o ment i on t hi s i n t he begi nni ng t o say
t hat we ar e war y of t he abuse t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s
Act mi ght br i ng. And we ar e consci ous of i t .
Answer to point no.1
74. I t was cont ended by Ms. Kami ni J ai swal , t he
l ear ned counsel f or A- 6 t hat a per usal of t he
st at ement of PW- 88 woul d show t hat not al l document s
per t ai ni ng t o t he i nvest i gat i on wer e pl aced bef or e t he
sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y and t hat i t was onl y on t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -98-

appr oval of t he Home Mi ni st er of t he St at e of Guj ar at
t o pr osecut e t he accused, t hat sanct i on as r equi r ed
under Sect i on 50 of POTA was gr ant ed i n t hi s case.
PW- 88 Kul deep Chand Kapoor I AS, Pr i nci pal Secr et ar y,
Home Depar t ment , had st at ed i n hi s st at ement ( Ex. 497)
r ecor ded bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) as under :
I agr ee t hat t he l ast par agr aph of t he
l et t er of ACP ( Ex. 502) cont ai ns t he det ai l s
of paper s submi t t ed t o t he Home Depar t ment
and t hese ar e t he onl y paper s t hat had been
r ecei ved by me.
I am pr oduci ng Pat r ak- A and B det ai l s of
ar r est s of al l t he si x accused. Pat r ak- A,
Pat r ak B and det ai l s of t he accused
ar r est ed ar e bei ng gi ven r espect i vel y Ex.
503, Ex. 505 and Ex. 506.
I t i s t r ue t hat whi l e gr ant i ng t he sanct i ons
agai nst al l t he si x accused t o be pr osecut ed,
I had per used Pat r ak- A and B ot her t wo
Pat r aks.
( q) . Di d you not i ce whi l e gr ant i ng sanct i on
agai nst t he accused t hat no expl osi ves
subst ance has been sei zed f r om any of t he
accused?
( a) . Expl osi ve subst ances and f i r ear ms wer e
f ound at t he si t e.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -99-

I agr ee t hat f r om t hese si x accused, no
expl osi ve subst ance had been r ecover ed.
I do not know t hat A- summar y had been f i l ed
ear l i er .
( q) . Whet her t her e wer e any paper s of
i nvest i gat i on by Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad
conduct ed at J ammu and Kashmi r ?
( a) . As f ar as I know, t her e was no
i nvest i gat i on by Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad at
J ammu and Kashmi r Pol i ce. Ther ef or e, I cannot
say whet her t her e wer e no paper s t o my
knowl edge t o t hat ef f ect and i t was t he
pol i ce of J ammu and Kashmi r who had i nt i mat ed
t he Guj ar at Pol i ce about t he wher eabout s of
Chand Khan f r om J ammu and Kashmi r Pol i ce by
f ol l owi ng due pr ocess of l aw.
I was not suppl i ed t he paper s of
i nvest i gat i on car r i ed out by J ammu and
Kashmi r pol i ce. Ther ef or e, I cannot say
whet her t her e wer e any such paper s or not .
Wi t ness vol unt eer s t hat i n my opi ni on t hose
paper s wer e not r el evant f or me t o come t o
t he concl usi on f or per mi t t i ng t he pr osecut i on
t o pr osecut e agai nst t he accused.
I have no i dea whet her t he accused Adam
Aj mer i and Adbul Qayuma Muf t i had been t aken
t o J ammu and Kashmi r f or i nvest i gat i on by
Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad. Wi t ness vol unt eer s
t hat as Cr i me Br anch woul d not need t o t ake
my per mi ssi on f or t aki ng accused f or
I nvest i gat i on of St at e of J ammu and Kashmi r ,
I amnot awar e.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -100-

I had ver i f i ed t he case paper s and sat i sf i ed
t hat sect i on 52 of POTA had been compl i ed
wi t h compl et el y.
Ther e wer e no paper s suggest i ng compl i ance of
sect i on 52 of POTA i n t he bunch of paper s
sent t o me. Accor di ng t o me, t hose paper s
wer e not r el evant f or my pur pose as
compl i ance was t o be obser ved by t he I . O. and
I was not i nvest i gat i ng t he case.
I do not agr ee t hat t he ent i r e I nvest i gat i on
had not been done by t he compet ent of f i cer of
t he l evel of ACP.
I do not agr ee t o t he suggest i on t hat nei t her
Mi ni st er nor I appl i ed mi nd whi l e gr ant i ng
sanct i on nor of f i cer bel ow al so appl i ed mi nd
f or such a gr ant .

( t r ansl at i on ext r act ed f r omt he Addi t i onal document s
submi t t ed on behal f of St at e of Guj ar at )

PW- 88, i n hi s deposi t i on had st at ed t hat PW- 126 had
f or war ded t o hi m t he r el evant document s as
af or ement i oned f or t he pur pose of deci di ng whet her i t
was a f i t case f or gr ant i ng sanct i on under Sect i on 50
of POTA. He had r ei t er at ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he
had per used al l t hese document s, especi al l y Pat r ak- A,
whi ch cont ai ned t he det ai l s of t he t wo Ur du l et t er s
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -101-

and t he opi ni on of t he handwr i t i ng exper t f r omt he FSL
and Pat r ak B, t he cont ent s of whi ch wer e not ment i oned
i n hi s st at ement , and al so t he det ai l s of t he ar r est
of t he accused per sons. But gl ar i ngl y, PW- 88 had
st at ed i n hi s deposi t i on t hat he had not enqui r ed
about whet her t her e wer e any i nvest i gat i on paper s
r egar di ng t he i nvol vement of A- 6 i n t he cr i me by t he
Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad, at J ammu and Kashmi r . Thi s
aspect i s i mpor t ant as he had st at ed t hat he had no
knowl edge of whet her t he cust ody of A- 6 was t aken i n
accor dance wi t h due pr ocess of l aw. He f ur t her st at ed
t hat he had ver i f i ed t he case paper s and had sat i sf i ed
hi msel f t hat Sect i on 52 of POTA had been compl i ed wi t h
compl et el y but i n t he ver y next sent ence, he st at ed:
Ther e wer e no paper s suggest i ng compl i ance
of Sect i on 52 of POTA i n t he bunch of paper s
sent t o me. Accor di ng t o me, t hose paper s
wer e not r el evant f or my pur pose as
compl i ance was t o be obser ved by t he I . O and
I was not i nvest i gat i ng t he case.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -102-

( t r ansl at i on ext r act ed f r omt he Addi t i onal
document s submi t t ed on behal f of St at e of
Guj ar at )

Thus, i t i s cl ear f r omt he st at ement of PW- 88 t hat he
was an i mpor t ant par t of t he pr ocess of gr ant i ng
sanct i on under POTA and coul d t hr ow l i ght on t he
aspect s t aken i nt o consi der at i on whi l e gr ant i ng
sanct i on. He was t he onl y pr osecut i on wi t ness who was
exami ned by t he cour t i n t hi s r egar d and i t i s
appar ent t hat he had not appl i ed hi s mi nd f or t he
same, whi ch i s cl ear l y vi si bl e f r om t he i nher ent
cont r adi ct i ons i n hi s st at ement as shown above.
75. I t has been hel d by t hi s Cour t t hat al l t he
r el evant document s r equi r ed f or gr ant i ng sanct i on
shal l be pr esent ed bef or e t he sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y so
t hat t he sanct i on can be gr ant ed on t he basi s of
r el evant mat er i al i nf or mat i on and document s col l ect ed
dur i ng t he cour se of i nvest i gat i on wi t h r espect t o t he
cr i me. I n t he case of Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi & Ors.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -103-

v. State of Gujarat
39
, t hi s Cour t , whi l e exami ni ng a
si mi l ar sanct i on Or der as pr ovi ded under Sect i on 15 of
TADA ( r epeal ed) , has hel d as under :
8. Taki ng cogni zance i s t he act whi ch t he
Desi gnat ed Cour t has t o per f or m and gr ant i ng
sanct i on i s an act whi ch t he sanct i oni ng
aut hor i t y has t o per f or m. Lat t er i s a condi t i on
pr ecedent f or t he f or mer . Sanct i on cont empl at ed
i n t he sub- sect i on i s t he per mi ssi on t o
pr osecut e a par t i cul ar per son f or t he of f ence
or of f ences under TADA. We must bear i n mi nd
t hat sanct i on i s not gr ant ed t o t he Desi gnat ed
Cour t t o t ake cogni zance of t he of f ence, but i t
i s gr ant ed t o t he pr osecut i ng agency t o
appr oach t he cour t concer ned f or enabl i ng i t t o
t ake cogni zance of t he of f ence and t o pr oceed
t o t r i al agai nst t he per sons ar r ai gned i n t he
r epor t . Thus a val i d sanct i on i s si ne qua non
f or enabl i ng t he pr osecut i ng agency t o appr oach
t he cour t i n or der t o enabl e t he cour t t o t ake
cogni zance of t he of f ence under TADA as
di scl osed i n t he r epor t . The cor ol l ar y i s t hat ,
i f t her e was no val i d sanct i on t he Desi gnat ed
Cour t get s no j ur i sdi ct i on t o t r y a case
agai nst any per son ment i oned i n t he r epor t as
t he cour t i s f or bi dden f r om t aki ng cogni zance
of t he of f ence wi t hout such sanct i on. I f t he
Desi gnat ed Cour t has t aken cogni zance of t he
of f ence wi t hout a val i d sanct i on, such act i on
i s wi t hout j ur i sdi ct i on and any pr oceedi ngs

39
( 1997) 7 SCC 744
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -104-

adopt ed t her eunder wi l l al so be wi t hout
j ur i sdi ct i on.
9. I n t hi s case t he pr osecut i on r el i es on Ext .
63, an or der i ssued by t he Di r ect or Gener al of
Pol i ce, Ahmedabad, on 3- 9- 1993, as t he sanct i on
under Sect i on 20- A( 2) of TADA. We ar e
r epr oduci ng Ext . 63 bel ow:
Sr . No. J - 1/ 1909/ 1/ Khambal i a 55/ 93
Di r ect or Gener al of Pol i ce, Dat ed 3- 9- 1993
Guj ar at St at e,
Ahmedabad.
Perused: ( 1) FI R i n r espect of of f ence
Regi st er ed No. 55/ 93 at Khambal i a Pol i ce
St at i on 25( 1) ( b) ( a) ( b) of Ar ms Act and Sect i ons
3, 4 and 5 of t he TADA.
( 2) Appl i cat i on sent by DSP J amnagar vi de
hi s l et t er No. RB/ D/ 122/ 1993/ 1820 dat ed 9- 8-
1993.
Havi ng consi der ed t he FI R i n r espect of
of f ence Regi st er ed No. 55/ 93 at Khambal i a
Pol i ce St at i on Di st r i ct J amnagar under Sect i on
25( 1) ( b) ( a) ( b) of Ar ms Act and Sect i ons 3, 4
and 5 of TADA and l et t er No. RB/ D/ 122/ 1993/ 1820
of DSP dat ed 9- 8- 1993 seeki ng per mi ssi on t o
appl y t he pr ovi si ons of TADA car ef ul l y, I A. K.
Tandon, Di r ect or Gener al of Pol i ce, Guj ar at
St at e, Ahmedabad under t he power s conf er r ed
under t he amended pr ovi si ons of TADA ( 1993)
Sect i on 20- A( 2) gi ve per mi ssi on t o add Sect i ons
3, 4 and 5 of TADA.
A. K. Tandon
Di r ect or Gener al of Pol i ce
Ahmedabad
Guj ar at
10. Appar ent l y Ext . 63 makes r ef er ence onl y t o
t wo document s whi ch al one wer e avai l abl e f or
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -105-

t he Di r ect or Gener al of Pol i ce t o consi der
whet her sanct i on shoul d be accor ded or not . One
i s t he FI R i n t hi s case and t he ot her i s t he
l et t er sent by t he Super i nt endent seeki ng
per mi ssi on or sanct i on. No doubt i n t hat l et t er
t o t he Di r ect or Gener al of Pol i ce t he
Super i nt endent of Pol i ce had nar r at ed t he f act s
of t he case. But we may obser ve t hat he di d not
send any ot her document r el at i ng t o t he
i nvest i gat i on or copy t her eof al ong wi t h t he
appl i cat i on. Nor di d t he Di r ect or Gener al of
Pol i ce cal l f or any document f or hi s per usal .
Al l t hat t he DGP had bef or e hi mt o consi der t he
quest i on of gr ant i ng sanct i on t o pr osecut e wer e
t he copy of t he FI R and t he appl i cat i on
cont ai ni ng some skel et on f act s. Ther e i s
not hi ng on r ecor d t o show t hat t he Di r ect or
Gener al of Pol i ce cal l ed t he Super i nt endent of
Pol i ce at l east f or a di scussi on wi t h hi m.


I t was f ur t her hel d by t hi s Cour t i n t he case of
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja and Anr. v. State of
Gujarat
40
, as under :
15. The af or esai d i s however not al l . Even i f
i t be accept ed t hat as an addi t i onal saf eguar d
agai nst ar bi t r ar y exer ci se of t he dr ast i c
pr ovi si ons, t he St at e Gover nment had pr ovi ded
by admi ni st r at i ve i nst r uct i ons an addi t i onal

40
( 1995) 5 SCC 302
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -106-

saf eguar d wher eunder t he DSP was r equi r ed t o
obt ai n t he sanct i on/ consent of t he St at e
Gover nment , we ar e of t he vi ew t hat i n t he
pr esent case t he same was gi ven by t he St at e
Gover nment wi t hout pr oper appl i cat i on of mi nd.
We have t aken t hi s vi ew because t he
sanct i on/ consent was gi ven by t he Gover nment
mer el y on t he basi s of t he f ax message dat ed
17- 3- 1995 of t he DSP. The r eason f or our sayi ng
so i s t hat t hough t her e i s no r ecor d a f ax
message of Deput y Di r ect or Gener al of Pol i ce
al so, whi ch i s dat ed 18- 3- 1995, t he
sanct i on/ consent or der has ment i oned above t he
f ax message of t he DSP onl y. Now, no doubt t he
message of t he DSP i s qui t e exhaust i ve, as
woul d appear f r om t hat message whi ch has been
quot ed above i n f ul l , we ar e i ncl i ned t o t hi nk
t hat bef or e agr eei ng t o t he use of har sh
pr ovi si ons of TADA agai nst t he appel l ant s, t he
Gover nment ought t o have t aken some st eps t o
sat i sf y i t sel f whet her what had been st at ed by
t he DSP was bor ne out by t he r ecor ds, whi ch
appar ent l y had not been cal l ed f or i n t he
pr esent case, as t he sanct i on/ consent was gi ven
post - hast e on 18- 3- 1995, i . e. , t he ver y next
day of t he message of t he DSP. I t seems t he DSP
emphasi sed t he pol i t i cal angl e i n t he f i r st t wo
par agr aphs of hi s message. The di sput e or
mot i ve st at ed was t hat t he Dar bar s wer e annoyed
because t hey wer e r ef used l oan and not because
of any pol i t i cal r i val r y. I n t he t hi r d
par agr aph t her e i s r ef er ence t o st at ement s of
accused af t er ar r est whi ch woul d or di nar i l y be
i nadmi ssi bl e i n evi dence. Ref er ence t o avoi d
i nci dent of t he past does not pr ovi de any
nexus. The St at e Gover nment gave t he sanct i on
wi t hout even di scussi ng t he mat t er wi t h t he
i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer and wi t hout assessi ng t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -107-

si t uat i on i ndependent l y. Al l t hese show l ack of
pr oper and due appl i cat i on of mi nd by t he St at e
Gover nment whi l e gi vi ng sanct i on/ consent .


I t was t he Deput y Secr et ar y, Law and Or der , Mr . J . R
Raj put who had si gned t he document of sanct i on i ssued
i n t he name of t he Gover nor ( Ex. 498) . However , he was
not exami ned by t he Cour t . On t he ot her hand, PW- 88,
t he Pr i nci pal Secr et ar y was exami ned. Ther ef or e, we
i nt end t o exami ne t he st at ement of PW- 88, si nce he
f or med t he onl y l i nk i n t he Home Mi ni st r y of St at e of
Guj ar at and coul d enl i ght en us wi t h t he f act s and
i nf or mat i on whi ch wer e t aken i nt o consi der at i on by hi m
whi l e gr ant i ng sanct i on.
Whi l e deposi ng bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) , PW- 88
st at ed t hat he had not di scussed anyt hi ng wi t h t he
Home Mi ni st er r egar di ng t he gr ant of sanct i on and t he
Mi ni st er had si mpl y si gned t he pr oposed not e as a mar k
of appr oval . PW- 88 f ur t her st at ed t hat he had not
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -108-

di scussed anyt hi ng wi t h t he I . O about gr ant i ng
sanct i on i n t he pr esent case. However , t he Speci al
Cour t ( POTA) er r oneousl y j ust i f i ed t he gr ant i ng of
sanct i on on t he gr ound t hat t he l ear ned counsel f or A-
2 and A- 4 bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) , Mr . R. K.
Shah, di d not i nsi st on exami nat i on of t he i nt er nal
not e and at no st age was such a r equest made i n
wr i t i ng.
76. I n t he case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v.
State of Gujarat
41
, i t has been hel d by t hi s Cour t as
under :
19. Si nce t he val i di t y of sanct i on depends
on t he appl i cabi l i t y of mi nd by t he sanct i oni ng
aut hor i t y t o t he f act s of t he case as al so t he
mat er i al and evi dence col l ect ed dur i ng
i nvest i gat i on, i t necessar i l y f ol l ows t hat t he
sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y has t o appl y i t s own
i ndependent mi nd f or t he gener at i on of genui ne
sat i sf act i on whet her pr osecut i on has t o be
sanct i oned or not . The mi nd of t he sanct i oni ng
aut hor i t y shoul d not be under pr essur e f r omany
quar t er nor shoul d any ext er nal f or ce be act i ng

41
( 1997) 7 SCC 622
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -109-

upon i t t o t ake a deci si on one way or t he
ot her . Si nce t he di scr et i on t o gr ant or not t o
gr ant sanct i on vest s absol ut el y i n t he
sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y, i t s di scr et i on shoul d be
shown t o have not been af f ect ed by any
ext r aneous consi der at i on. I f i t i s shown t hat
t he sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y was unabl e t o appl y
i t s i ndependent mi nd f or any r eason what soever
or was under an obl i gat i on or compul si on or
const r ai nt t o gr ant t he sanct i on, t he or der
wi l l be bad f or t he r eason t hat t he di scr et i on
of t he aut hor i t y not t o sanct i on was t aken
away and i t was compel l ed t o act mechani cal l y
t o sanct i on t he pr osecut i on.


77. However , t he pr esent case does not show t hat t he
sanct i oni ng aut hor i t y had appl i ed i t s mi nd t o t he
sat i sf act i on as t o whet her t he pr esent case r equi r ed
gr ant i ng of sanct i on. The pr osecut i on had f ai l ed t o
pr ove t hat t he sanct i on was gr ant ed by t he gover nment
ei t her on t he basi s of an i nf or med deci si on or on t he
basi s of an i ndependent anal ysi s of f act on
consul t at i on wi t h t he I nvest i gat i ng Of f i cer . Thi s
woul d go t o show cl ear non- appl i cat i on of mi nd by t he
Home Mi ni st er i n gr ant i ng sanct i on. Ther ef or e, t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -110-

sanct i on i s voi d on t he gr ound of non- appl i cat i on of
mi nd and i s not a l egal and val i d sanct i on under
Sect i on 50 of POTA.

Answer to Point no. 2
78. To begi n wi t h, t he pr ovi si ons f or r ecor di ng
conf essi onal st at ement s can be f ound i n Cr PC under
Sect i on 164 whi ch r eads as:
164. Recor di ng of conf essi ons and st at ement s.
( 1) Any Met r opol i t an Magi st r at e or J udi ci al
Magi st r at e may, whet her or not he has
j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he case, r ecor d any conf essi on
or st at ement made t o hi m i n t he cour se of an
i nvest i gat i on under t hi s Chapt er or under any
ot her l aw f or t he t i me bei ng i n f or ce, or at
any t i me af t er war ds bef or e t he commencement of
t he i nqui r y or t r i al :
Pr ovi ded t hat any conf essi on or st at ement made
under t hi s sub- sect i on may al so be r ecor ded by
audi o- vi deo el ect r oni c means i n t he pr esence of
t he advocat e of t he per son accused of an
of f ence:
Pr ovi ded f ur t her t hat no conf essi on shal l
be r ecor ded by a pol i ce of f i cer on whom any
power of a Magi st r at e has been conf er r ed under
any l aw f or t he t i me bei ng i n f or ce.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -111-

( 2) The Magi st r at e shal l , bef or e r ecor di ng any
such conf essi on, expl ai n t o t he per son maki ng
i t t hat he i s not bound t o make a conf essi on
and t hat , i f he does so, i t may be used as
evi dence agai nst hi m; and t he Magi st r at e shal l
not r ecor d any such conf essi on unl ess, upon
quest i oni ng t he per son maki ng i t , he has r eason
t o bel i eve t hat i t i s bei ng made vol unt ar i l y.
( 3) I f at any t i me bef or e t he conf essi on i s
r ecor ded, t he per son appear i ng bef or e t he
Magi st r at e st at es t hat he i s not wi l l i ng t o
make t he conf essi on, t he Magi st r at e shal l not
aut hor i se t he det ent i on of such per son i n
pol i ce cust ody.
( 4) Any such conf essi on shal l be r ecor ded i n t he
manner pr ovi ded i n sect i on 281 f or r ecor di ng
t he exami nat i on of an accused per son and shal l
be si gned by t he per son maki ng t he conf essi on ;
and t he Magi st r at e shal l make a memor andum at
t he f oot of such r ecor d t o t he f ol l owi ng
ef f ect : -
" I have expl ai ned t o ( name) t hat he i s not
bound t o make a conf essi on and t hat , i f he does
so, any conf essi on he may make may be used as
evi dence agai nst hi m and I bel i eve t hat t hi s
conf essi on was vol unt ar i l y made. I t was t aken
i n my pr esence and hear i ng, and was r ead over
t o t he per son maki ng i t and admi t t ed by hi m t o
be cor r ect , and i t cont ai ns a f ul l and t r ue
account of t he st at ement made by hi m.
( Si gned) A. B.
Magi st r at e" .
( 5) Any st at ement ( ot her t han a conf essi on)
made under sub- sect i on ( 1) shal l be r ecor ded
i n such manner her ei naf t er pr ovi ded f or t he
r ecor di ng of evi dence as i s, i n t he opi ni on of
t he Magi st r at e, best f i t t ed t o t he
ci r cumst ances of t he case ; and t he Magi st r at e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -112-

shal l have power t o admi ni st er oat h t o t he
per son whose st at ement i s so r ecor ded.
( 6) The Magi st r at e r ecor di ng a conf essi on or
st at ement under t hi s sect i on shal l f or war d i t
t o t he Magi st r at e by whom t he case i s t o be
i nqui r ed i nt o or t r i ed.

However , caut i on agai nst t he use of conf essi on
st at ement s made by accused per sons bef or e t he pol i ce,
i s speci f i cal l y pr ovi ded i n Sect i on 162 of t he Cr PC,
whi ch r eads as:
162. St at ement s t o pol i ce not t o be si gned:
Use of st at ement s i n evi dence. ( 1) No st at ement
made by any per son t o a pol i ce of f i cer i n t he
cour se of an i nvest i gat i on under t hi s Chapt er ,
shal l , i f r educed t o wr i t i ng, be si gned by t he
per son maki ng i t ; nor shal l any such st at ement
or any r ecor d t her eof , whet her i n a pol i ce
di ar y or ot her wi se, or any par t of such
st at ement or r ecor d, be used f or any pur pose,
save as her ei naf t er pr ovi ded, at any i nqui r y or
t r i al i n r espect of any of f ence under
i nvest i gat i on at t he t i me when such st at ement
was made:
Pr ovi ded t hat when any wi t ness i s cal l ed f or
t he pr osecut i on i n such i nqui r y or t r i al whose
st at ement has been r educed i nt o wr i t i ng as
af or esai d, any par t of hi s st at ement , i f dul y
pr oved, may be used by t he accused, and wi t h
t he per mi ssi on of t he Cour t , by t he
pr osecut i on, t o cont r adi ct such wi t ness i n t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -113-

manner pr ovi ded by sect i on 145 of t he I ndi an
Evi dence Act , 1872 ( 1 of 1872) ; and when any
par t of such st at ement i s so used, any par t
t her eof may al so be used i n t he r e- exami nat i on
of such wi t ness, but f or t he pur pose onl y of
expl ai ni ng any mat t er r ef er r ed t o i n hi s cr oss-
exami nat i on.
( 2) Not hi ng i n t hi s sect i on shal l be deemed t o
appl y t o any st at ement f al l i ng wi t hi n t he
pr ovi si ons of cl ause ( 1) of sect i on 32 of t he
I ndi an Evi dence Act , 1872 ( 1 of 1872) , or t o
af f ect t he pr ovi si ons of sect i on 27 of t hat
Act .
Expl anat i on. - An omi ssi on t o st at e a f act or
ci r cumst ance i n t he st at ement r ef er r ed t o i n
sub- sect i on ( 1) may amount t o cont r adi ct i on i f
t he same appear s t o be si gni f i cant and
ot her wi se r el evant havi ng r egar d t o t he cont ext
i n whi ch such omi ssi on occur s and whet her any
omi ssi on amount s t o a cont r adi ct i on i n t he
par t i cul ar cont ext shal l be a quest i on of
f act .

The caut i on agai nst t he use of conf essi onal
st at ement s of an accused gi ven t o pol i ce as
i ncr i mi nat i ng evi dence st ems f r omAr t i cl e 20( 3) of t he
Const i t ut i on whi ch pr ovi des t hat no per son shal l be
compel l ed t o be a wi t ness agai nst hi msel f . However ,
POTA makes a depar t ur e f r om t he above pr i nci pl e
t hr ough Sect i on 32 whi ch r eads as under :
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -114-

32. Cer t ai n conf essi ons made t o pol i ce
of f i cer s t o be t aken i nt o consi der at i on. -
( 1) Not wi t hst andi ng anyt hi ng i n t he Code or i n
t he I ndi an Evi dence Act , 1872 ( 1 of 1872) , but
subj ect t o t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s sect i on, a
conf essi on made by a per son bef or e a pol i ce
of f i cer not l ower i n r ank t han a Super i nt endent
of Pol i ce and r ecor ded by such pol i ce of f i cer
ei t her i n wr i t i ng or on any mechani cal or
el ect r oni c devi ce l i ke casset t es, t apes or
sound t r acks f r om out of whi ch sound or i mages
can be r epr oduced, shal l be admi ssi bl e i n t he
t r i al of such per son f or an of f ence under t hi s
Act or t he r ul es made t her eunder .
( 2) A pol i ce of f i cer shal l , bef or e r ecor di ng
any conf essi on made by a per son under sub-
sect i on ( 1) , expl ai n t o such per son i n wr i t i ng
t hat he i s not bound t o make a conf essi on and
t hat i f he does so, i t may be used agai nst hi m:
Pr ovi ded t hat wher e such per son pr ef er s t o
r emai n si l ent , t he pol i ce of f i cer shal l not
compel or i nduce hi mt o make any conf essi on.
( 3) The conf essi on shal l be r ecor ded i n an
at mospher e f r ee f r om t hr eat or i nducement and
shal l be i n t he same l anguage i n whi ch t he
per son makes i t .
( 4) The per son f r om whom a conf essi on has been
r ecor ded under sub- sect i on ( 1) , shal l be
pr oduced bef or e t he Cour t of a Chi ef
Met r opol i t an Magi st r at e or t he Cour t of a Chi ef
J udi ci al Magi st r at e al ong wi t h t he or i gi nal
st at ement of conf essi on, wr i t t en or r ecor ded on
mechani cal or el ect r oni c devi ce wi t hi n f or t y-
ei ght hour s.
( 5) The Chi ef Met r opol i t an Magi st r at e or t he
Chi ef J udi ci al Magi st r at e, shal l , r ecor d t he
st at ement , i f any, made by t he per son so
pr oduced and get hi s si gnat ur e or t humb
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -115-

i mpr essi on and i f t her e i s any compl ai nt of
t or t ur e, such per son shal l be di r ect ed t o be
pr oduced f or medi cal exami nat i on bef or e a
Medi cal Of f i cer not l ower i n r ank t han an
Assi st ant Ci vi l Sur geon and t her eaf t er , he
shal l be sent t o j udi ci al cust ody.

Si nce t hi s Act makes a depar t ur e f r om t he est abl i shed
cr i mi nal j ur i spr udence as wel l as t he pr ovi si ons of
t he Const i t ut i on, t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he Act
came t o be chal l enged bef or e t hi s Cour t i n t he case of
Peoples Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India
42
.
The Cour t uphel d t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he Act
af t er t aki ng i nt o account al l t he pr ovi si ons whi ch
seemi ngl y vi ol at e t he f undament al r i ght s guar ant eed
under t he Const i t ut i on. For t he pur pose of t hi s case,
we i nt end t o r ecor d t he f i ndi ng of t hi s cour t wi t h
r espect t o t he pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 32. The r el evant
par agr aphs of t he case r ead as under :

42
( 2004) 9 SCC 580
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -116-

63. Concer ni ng t he val i di t y and pr ocedur al
di f f i cul t i es t hat coul d ar i se dur i ng t he
pr ocess of r ecor di ng conf essi ons, t he
Pet i t i oner s submi t t ed t hat t her e i s no need t o
empower t he pol i ce t o r ecor d conf essi on si nce
t he accused has t o be pr oduced bef or e t he
Magi st r at e wi t hi n f or t y- ei ght hour s, i n t hat
case t he magi st r at e hi msel f coul d r ecor d t he
conf essi on; t hat t her e i s no j ust i f i cat i on f or
ext ended t he t i me l i mi t of f or t y ei ght hour s
f or pr oduci ng t he per son bef or e t he Magi st r at e;
t hat i t i s not cl ear i n t he Sect i on whet her t he
conf essi on r ecor ded by t he pol i ce of f i cer wi l l
have val i di t y af t er Magi st r at e has r ecor ded t he
f act of t or t ur e and has sent t he accused f or
medi cal exami nat i on; t hat i t i s not cl ear as t o
whet her bot h t he conf essi on bef or e t he pol i ce
of f i cer as wel l as conf essi onal st at ement
bef or e t he Magi st r at e shal l be used i n
evi dence; t hat t he Magi st r at es cannot be used
f or mechani cal l y put t i ng seal of appr oval on
t he conf essi onal st at ement s by t he pol i ce;
t hat , t her ef or e, t he Sect i on has t o be
nul l i f i ed. Val i di t y of t hi s Sect i on was
def ended by t he l ear ned At t or ney Gener al by
f or war di ng t he ar gument s t hat t he pr ovi si ons
r el at i ng t o t he admi ssi bi l i t y of conf essi onal
st at ement s, whi ch i s si mi l ar t o t hat of
Sect i on 32 i n POTA was uphel d i n Kar t ar
Si ngh case ; t hat t he pr ovi si ons of POTA ar e an
i mpr ovement over TADA by vi r t ue of enact ment of
Sect i ons 32( 3) t o 32( 5) ; t hat t he gener al
pr i nci pl es of l aw r egar di ng t he admi ssi bi l i t y
of a conf essi onal st at ement i s appl i cabl e
under POTA; t hat t he pr ovi si on whi ch ent ai l s
t he Magi st r at e t o t est and exami ne t he
vol unt ar i ness of a conf essi on and compl ai nt of
t or t ur e i s an addi t i onal saf eguar d and does not
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -117-

i n any manner i nj ect any const i t ut i onal
i nf i r mi t y; t hat t her e cannot be per enni al
di st r ust of t he pol i ce; t hat Par l i ament has
t aken i nt o account al l t he r el evant f act or s i n
i t s t ot al i t y and same i s not unj ust or
unr easonabl e.
64. At t he out set i t has t o be not ed t hat
Sect i on 15 of TADA t hat was si mi l ar t o t hi s
Sect i on was uphel d i n Kar t ar Si ngh case ( pp.
664- 83 of SCC) . Whi l e enact i ng t hi s Sect i on
Par l i ament has t aken i nt o account al l t he
gui del i nes, whi ch wer e suggest ed by t hi s Cour t
i n Kar t ar Si ngh case. Mai n al l egat i on of t he
Pet i t i oner s i s t hat t her e i s no need t o empower
t he pol i ce t o r ecor d conf essi on si nce t he
accused has t o be pr oduced bef or e t he
Magi st r at e wi t hi n f or t y- ei ght hour s i n whi ch
case t he Magi st r at e hi msel f coul d r ecor d t he
st at ement or conf essi on. I n t he cont ext of
t er r or i sm t he need f or maki ng such a pr ovi si on
so as t o enabl e Pol i ce of f i cer s t o r ecor d t he
conf essi on was expl ai ned and uphel d by t hi s
Cour t i n Kar t ar Si ngh case ( p. 680 par a 253 of
SCC) . We need not go i nt o t hat quest i on at t hi s
st age. I f t he r ecor di ng of conf essi on by pol i ce
i s f ound t o be necessar y by Par l i ament and i f
i t i s i n t une wi t h t he scheme of l aw, t hen an
addi t i onal saf eguar d under Sect i ons 32( 4) and
( 5) i s a fortiori l egal . I n our consi der ed
opi ni on t he pr ovi si on t hat r equi r es pr oduci ng
such a per son bef or e t he Magi st r at e i s an
addi t i onal saf eguar d. I t gi ves t hat per son an
oppor t uni t y t o r et hi nk over hi s conf essi on.
Mor eover , t he Magi st r at e s r esponsi bi l i t y t o
r ecor d t he st at ement and t he enqui r y about t he
t or t ur e and pr ovi si on f or subsequent medi cal
t r eat ment makes t he pr ovi si on saf er . I t wi l l
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -118-

det er t he pol i ce of f i cer s f r om obt ai ni ng a
conf essi on f r oman accused by subj ect i ng hi mt o
t or t ur e. I t i s al so wor t hwhi l e t o not e t hat an
of f i cer who i s bel ow t he r ank of a
Super i nt endent of Pol i ce cannot r ecor d t he
conf essi onal st at ement . I t i s a set t l ed
posi t i on t hat i f a conf essi on was f or ci bl y
ext r act ed, i t i s a nul l i t y i n l aw. Non-
i ncl usi on of t hi s obvi ous and set t l ed pr i nci pl e
does not make t he Sect i on i nval i d. ( See: Kar t ar
Si ngh case, p. 678, par a 248 49 of SCC) .
Ul t i mat el y, i t i s f or t he Cour t concer ned t o
deci de t he admi ssi bi l i t y of t he conf essi on
st at ement . ( See: Kar t ar Si ngh case p. 683, par a
264 of SCC) . J udi ci al wi sdom wi l l sur el y
pr evai l over i r r egul ar i t y, i f any, i n t he
pr ocess of r ecor di ng conf essi onal st at ement .
Ther ef or e we ar e sat i sf i ed t hat t he saf eguar ds
pr ovi ded by t he Act and under t he l aw ar e
adequat e i n t he gi ven ci r cumst ances and we
don t t hi nk i t i s necessar y t o l ook mor e i nt o
t hi s mat t er . Consequent l y we uphol d t he
val i di t y of Sect i on 32.

79. The pr ovi si ons of a Speci al Act pr evai l over t he
pr ovi si ons of Gener al Act . Si nce t he const i t ut i onal i t y
of t he POTA was decl ar ed as val i d by t hi s Cour t , i t s
pr ovi si ons woul d pr evai l over Cr PC. However ,
consi der i ng t he st r i ngency of t he pr ovi si ons of POTA
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -119-

and t he gr ave consequences t hat mi suse of t he Act
mi ght car r y i . e, vi ol at i on of r i ght t o l i f e and
per sonal l i ber t y, we need t o ensur e t hat t he
gui del i nes l ai d down i n t he Act ar e r i gor ousl y
obser ved whi l e r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s
of t he accused per sons. We wi l l exami ne her ei n t he
var i ous mandat or y pr ovi si ons t o be f ol l owed whi l e
r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s and whet her t he
same have been f ol l owed i n t he i nst ant case.
80. The l ear ned seni or counsel appear i ng on behal f of
A- 2, A- 3 and A- 4 submi t t ed t hat t he mandat or y
pr ovi si ons l ai d down i n Sect i on 32 wer e not f ol l owed
by PW- 78 Mr . Sanj aykumar Gadhvi whi l e r ecor di ng t hei r
conf essi onal st at ement s. I t was ar gued by t he l ear ned
seni or counsel t hat Sect i on 32( 2) had not been
compl i ed wi t h si nce t he accused per sons wer e not
st at ut or i l y i nf or med i n wr i t i ng t hat t hey wer e not
bound t o make conf essi onal st at ement s and t hei r
st at ement s, i f made, shal l be used agai nst t hem. The
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -120-

l ear ned seni or counsel on behal f of t he pr osecut i on,
on t he ot her hand cont ended t hat t he st at ut or y
mandat es had been compl i ed wi t h by t he pol i ce.
We have per used t he evi dence on r ecor d i n t hi s
aspect . We have f ound st ar k di scr epanci es i n t he
manner i n whi ch t he st at ement s of t he accompl i ces and
t hose of t he accused per sons wer e r ecor ded. Whi l e t he
st at ement s of t he accompl i ces i n t he pr esent case,
namel y- PW- 50, PW- 51 and PW- 52 wer e pr eceded by
wr i t t en r ecor ds of caut i ons i n t he same document , t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons do not
show such caut i on. On t he ot her hand, t he i nt i mat i on
by t he DCP Sanj aykumar Gadhvi ( PW- 78) appear ed on a
separ at e document s mar ked as separ at e Exhi bi t s f r om
t he conf essi ons. The same ar e as f ol l ows:
For A-2- Adambhai Sulaimanbhai Ajmeri
I nt i mat i on l et t er gi ven by DCP pr i or t o
conf essi on- Ex. 457
Conf essi onal St at ement - Ex. 458
For A-3-Mohammad Salim Mohammad Hanif Sheikh
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -121-

For A-4- Abdul Kayum
For A- 6- Shanmiya@ Chandkhan Sajjadkhan Pathan

On t hi s aspect of t he mat t er , t he CJ M, PW- 99 made t he
f ol l owi ng st at ement dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on by t he
l ear ned counsel f or t he accused per sons vi de Ex. 568:
. . . . I t i s t r ue t hat t he expl anat i on gi ven t o
t he accused and st at ement made by hi m, t he sai d
bot h wer e separ at e paper s. I agr ee t o t he f act
t hat gener al l y t he expl anat i on and t he
st at ement shoul d be i n same paper . As bot h of
t hi s wer e i n same paper s, I di d not suspect
t hat t he sai d expl anat i on whi ch was gi ven, has
been br ought l at er on

document s submi t t ed on behal f of t he
Appel l ant s)
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -122-

I t i s al so per t i nent t o ext r act one of t he i nt i mat i on
l et t er s gi ven by t he DCP pr i or t o t he conf essi on of
one of t he accused per sons. The i nt i mat i on l et t er
gi ven by DCP t o A- 2 r eads t hus:
. . . . . . . your st at ement under sect i on 32 of t he
POTA bef or e t he Super i nt endent of Pol i ce i s t o
be t aken. But you ar e not bound t o make t hi s
st at ement or conf essi on and t he conf essi on t hat
you wi l l make coul d be used agai nst you as
evi dence. So i t i s i nf or med t o you t hat you
gi ve t hi s st at ement wi l l i ngl y and f r ee f r omany
ki nd of pr essur e or t hr eat or al l ur ement .

Appel l ant s)

81. I t was hel d by t hi s Cour t i n t he case of Hardeep
Singh Sohal & Ors. v. State of Punjab through CBI
43

t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal

43
( 2004) 11 SCC 612
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -123-

st at ement under TADA i s r equi r ed t o gi ve i n wr i t i ng at
t he end of t he st at ement , t hat t he accused was
i nf or med t hat t he conf essi onal st at ement he has
vol unt ar i l y deci ded t o make, can be used agai nst hi m
as evi dence and al so t he f act t hat t he accused af t er
f ul l y knowi ng t he consequences has deci ded t o make t he
conf essi onal st at ement . The r el evant par agr aphs of t he
j udgment can be r ead as under :
16. The const i t ut i onal val i di t y of Sect i on 15
of t he TADA Act was chal l enged. A Const i t ut i on
Bench of t hi s Cour t i n Kartar Singh v. State of
Punjab uphel d t he const i t ut i onal val i di t y of
t he sai d pr ovi si on. The cont ent i on ur ged i n
Kartar Singh case was t hat t he pr ocedur e i n t he
TADA Act i s t he ant i t hesi s of a j ust , f ai r and
r easonabl e pr ocedur e and t hi s power coul d be
abused t o ext or t conf essi on by unl awf ul means
by usi ng t hi r d- degr ee met hods. Thi s pl ea was
r ej ect ed on t he gr ound t hat suf f i ci ent
saf eguar ds have been made i n t he Rul es as t o
t he manner i n whi ch t he conf essi on i s t o be
r ecor ded. Rul e 15 ext r act ed above woul d show
t hat conf essi on shal l be i n wr i t i ng and si gned
by t he per son who makes t he conf essi on. The
pol i ce of f i cer shal l al so cer t i f y under hi s own
hand t hat such conf essi on was t aken i n hi s
pr esence and r ecor ded by hi m and t hat t he
r ecor d cont ai ns a f ul l and t r ue account of t he
conf essi on made by t he per son and such pol i ce
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -124-

of f i cer shal l make a memor andum at t he end of
t he conf essi on and t he pr o f or ma of such
cer t i f i cat e al so i s appended t o Rul e 15.
17. Ext . PAA does not cont ai n such a
cer t i f i cat e havi ng been gi ven by PW 34. I t i s
t r ue t hat PW 34 had put cer t ai n quest i ons t o
t he accused as t o whet her he was awar e t hat t he
st at ement whi ch he want s t o make coul d be used
agai nst hi m and on t he basi s of t he same he
wi l l be sent enced. The of f i cer al so asked hi m
whet her t her e i s any pr essur e, f ear on hi m and
he answer ed i n t he negat i ve. However , PW34 di d
not gi ve t he cer t i f i cat e at t he end of t he
conf essi on. The cer t i f i cat e shoul d have
speci f i cal l y st at ed t hat he had expl ai ned t o
t he per son maki ng t he conf essi on t hat he was
not bound t o make t he conf essi on and, i f he
does so, t he conf essi on he may make may be used
agai nst hi m and t hat he bel i eved t hat t hi s
conf essi on was vol unt ar i l y made and i t was
t aken i n hi s pr esence and r ecor ded by hi m and
was r ead over t o t he per son maki ng i t and
admi t t ed by hi mt o be cor r ect , and i t cont ai ned
a f ul l and t r ue account of t he st at ement made
by hi m.
18. Thi s Cour t has i n a ser i es of deci si ons
depr ecat ed t he pr act i ce of non- obser vance of
t hi s pr ovi si on and hel d t hat such vi ol at i on
woul d be i nadmi ssi bl e. I n Bharatbhai v. State
of Gujarat t hi s Cour t hel d t hat Rul e 15( 3) ( b)
of t he TADA Rul es was not compl i ed wi t h and no
memor andumas r equi r ed was made. Ther e was al so
no cont empor aneous r ecor d t o show t he
sat i sf act i on of t he r ecor di ng of f i cer af t er
wr i t i ng of conf essi on t hat t he conf essi on was
vol unt ar i l y made or r ead over t o t he accused.
Thus, t he conf essi onal st at ement was
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -125-

i nadmi ssi bl e and cannot be made t he basi s f or
uphol di ng t he convi ct i on.
19. I n S.N. Dube v. N.B. Bhoir t hi s Cour t hel d
t hat wr i t i ng t he cer t i f i cat e and maki ng t he
memor andum under Rul e 15( 3) ( b) t o pr ove t hat
t he accused was expl ai ned t hat he was not bound
t o make a conf essi on and t hat i f he made i t , i t
coul d be used agai nst hi mas evi dence; t hat t he
conf essi on was vol unt ar y and t hat i t was t aken
down by t he pol i ce of f i cer f ul l y and cor r ect l y
ar e al l mat t er s not l ef t t o be pr oved by or al
evi dence.

Though t he case ment i oned supr a deal t wi t h TADA, t he
Rul es of whi ch cannot be i mpor t ed i nt o POTA, t he mai n
obj ect i ve behi nd ment i oni ng t hi s case was t hat t he
under l yi ng saf eguar ds whi ch wer e r equi r ed t o be t aken
whi l e maki ng conf essi onal st at ement t o t he pol i ce
cannot be compr omi sed wi t h.
82. The i nt i mat i on l et t er s of caut i on wr i t t en by PW- 78
f ai l t o pr ove t hat t he pr ocess of i nt i mat i on pr eceded
t he r ecor di ng of conf essi onal st at ement s as a
cont i nuous pr ocess. On t he ot her hand, t he l et t er s of
i nt i mat i on and t he conf essi onal st at ement s exi st as
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -126-

di sj unct i ve evi dence, f ai l i ng t o pr ove t he r equi r ed
chai n of pr ocedur e, i . e, t hat t he l et t er s of caut i on
pr ecede t he conf essi onal st at ement s and not vi ce
ver sa.
Fur t her , i n t he i nst ant case, t he CJ M ( PW- 99 : Ex. 568)
dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) by t he l ear ned counsel f or t he accused per sons,
on bei ng asked about sendi ng t he accused t o j udi ci al
cust ody af t er conf essi on, st at ed:
I had not sent hi m i n j udi ci al cust ody. I di d
not f eel t hat I shoul d send hi m i n j udi ci al
cust ody. . . . . . I had not asked t he accused about
how many days of hi s r emand ar e l ef t . I had not
t ol d hi m t hat he wi l l not be sent t o pol i ce
cust ody agai n.

I n t he case of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab
Alias Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra
44
, t he
accused was wi l l i ng t o make conf essi onal st at ement

44
( 2012) 9 SCC 1
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -127-

whi l e he was i n pol i ce cust ody. Yet , hi s conf essi on
was def er r ed on t he gr ound t hat he shal l be sent t o
j udi ci al cust ody af t er t he conf essi on was made bef or e
t he CJ M and t hi s woul d hi nder t he i nvest i gat i on
pr ocedur e. However , i n t he pr esent case, pr esent i ng
t he accused per sons bef or e t he CJ M f or hal f an hour
was a mer e f or mal i t y t o show compl i ance wi t h t he
pr ovi si ons of Sect i ons 32( 4) and 32( 5) of POTA si nce
t hey wer e sent back t o pol i ce cust ody i mmedi at el y
af t er bei ng pr esent ed bef or e t he CJ M.
83. I n t he pr esent case, t he CJ M ( PW- 99 : Ex. 568) ,
dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on went on t o r ecor d t hat :
. . . . . I di d not make i nqui r y wi t h any pol i ce
of f i cer s wi t h r egar d t o t he sai d conf essi ons. I
had not asked t he t wo accused pr oduced bef or e
me as t o whet her t hey need any l awyer or not . I
had not t aken t he sai d accused per sons i n my
cust ody. I t i s t r ue t hat I di d not i ssue any
war r ant f or t hem t o be sent t o j udi ci al
cust ody. I t i s t r ue t hat I di d not i nqui r e wi t h
t he accused about wher e and at what t i me and
who r ecor ded t hei r st at ement s. I t i s t r ue t hat
I have not kept any r oj kam or r ecor d i n my
cour t about t he accused per sons pr oduced bef or e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -128-

me on dat e 25
t h
. Ther e i s ent r y i n t he post al
book wi t h r egar ds t o t he cover s al ong wi t h t he
st at ement s havi ng been sent by me t o t he POTA
cour t .

appel l ant s)

The st at ement s made by t he CJ M show how casual l y t he
mandat es under Sect i ons 32( 4) and 32( 5) wer e f ol l owed,
r ender i ng t he sai d r equi r ement a hol l ow and empt y
exer ci se.
84. Now, we pr oceed t o exami ne t he st at ement of PW- 78,
DCP Mr . Sanj aykumar Gadhvi ( Ex. 452) , who r ecor ded t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons. On
bei ng cr oss exami ned by t he l ear ned counsel f or A- 1,
A- 3 and A- 5, he st at ed as under :
. . I have not asked t he accused about si nce how
many days t hey wer e i n cust ody. I had asked t o
t he of f i cer who had br ought t he accused about
si nce how many days t he accused was i n pol i ce
cust ody. I had asked hi m but I don t r emember
pr esent l y what r epl y was gi ven by hi m. Bef or e
t aki ng t he st at ement of t he accused per sons, I
di d not exami ne t hei r physi cal condi t i on by
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -129-

r emovi ng t hei r cl ot hes. I knew t hat t he f act
t hat t he accused per sons wer e br ought f r om t he
cust ody of Cr i me Br anch. I had not asked t o t he
accused per sons bef or e r ecor di ng conf essi onal
st at ement t hat si nce how many days t hey wer e i n
cust ody pr i or t o t he r ecor di ng of t he
conf essi onal st at ement . I had not i nf or med t he
accused per sons t hat i f t hey do not gi ve
conf essi onal st at ement t hey wi l l not be sent
back t o t he Cr i me Br anch cust ody. I have not
made any not e wi t h r egar ds t o t he f act t hat I
had sent back t he Cr i me Br anch Of f i cer al ong
wi t h vehi cl e. I t i s t r ue t hat I had al so not
wr i t t en t he f act at any pl ace wi t h r egar ds t o
t he i nst r uct i on gi ven by me t o r et ur n af t er
ar ound t hr ee hour s and onl y when cal l ed by me.
I had al so not made any not e wi t h r egar ds t o
t he f act t hat I had got t he accused per sons
seat ed i n my P. A. s r oom. The f act t hat I had
i nf or med accused per sons i n wr i t i ng t hat t hey
ar e not bound t o make st at ement and i f t hey
make t hen t he same can be used agai nst t hem,
wi t h r egar d t o t he sai d f act , I have not kept
any copy wi t h me. On aski ng me about how I had
r eached t o t he concl usi on as st at ed by me wi t h
r egar ds t o t he l anguage of Mohammad Sal i m, I
st at e t hat t hat he was speaki ng f ear l essl y and
what ever f act s wer e st at ed by hi m, i t s poi nt
wer e cl ear . Ther e was no si gn of f ear i n hi s
expr essi on and he was not cr yi ng. I have not
made any not e at any pl ace wi t h r egar ds t o t he
f act st at ed by me t o t he accused per sons t hat
t hei r case i s wi t h Cr i me Br anch and I am not
associ at ed wi t h Cr i me Br anch i n any way. I have
al so not made not e about havi ng st at ed t o t he
accused t hat I am Deput y Super i nt endent of
di f f er ent ar ea. I t i s t r ue t hat I have not
not ed t he f act separ at el y r egar di ng whi ch I
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -130-

have st at ed i n my deposi t i on t hat f or t he
pur pose t hat he can r e- t hi nk about gi vi ng
st at ement vol unt ar i l y, I had cal l ed my of f i ce
boy and had got hi m seat ed i n adj acent of f i ce
of my PA and had asked t o have wat er and t hi nk
over wi t h peacef ul mi nd f or 10- 15 mi nut es and
t hen come back t o my of f i ce.
I t i s t r ue t hat I have not made any not e wi t h
r egar ds t o t he f act t hat Af t er 15 mi nut es, he
had agai n come t o my of f i ce and had st at ed t hat
he had t hought wi t h peacef ul mi nd about hi s
good and bad, t her eby on t he basi s of f eel i ng
r egr et f el t by hi m, and t hat he i n f act desi r es
t o make hi s st at ement . I t i s t r ue t hat t her e
i s no not e r egar di ng t he f act t hat I had r ead
over t he st at ement t o t he accused. I have al so
not made not e about t he f act t hat I had st at ed
t o t he accused t hat t hi s st at ement i s st i l l
wi t h me and si nce i t i s i n t he f or m of
conf essi on, he i s f r ee t o gi ve or not gi ve
st at ement s, and he can al so deny t he same.

document s submi t t ed on behal f of t he St at e of
Guj ar at )

Fur t her , dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on by t he l ear ned
counsel f or A- 2 and A- 4, he st at ed t hat :
I t i s t r ue t hat wi t h r egar ds t o t he f act
st at ed by me dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on r egar di ng
non- pr esence of wr i t t en not es, t he sai d
wr i t t en not es ar e not pr esent i n case of ever y
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -131-

accused. . . . I t i s t r ue t hat t he t wo document s
whi ch have been shown t o me t oday i n cour t ,
except f or t he sai d document s, t her e ar e no
ot her wr i t t en r ecor ds wi t h r egar ds t o
conf essi onal st at ement . I t i s t r ue t hat t her e
i s no not e wi t h r egar ds t o t i me at any pl ace i n
t he st at ement under s. 32 or i n t he document of
under st andi ng. I t i s t r ue t hat t her e i s no
ment i on of any speci f i c pl ace of Ahmedabad ci t y
i n t he col umn f or pl ace t her ei n.

Guj ar at )

On bei ng asked about what ki nd of under st andi ng was
gi ven by hi m t o t he accused per sons bef or e t he
r ecor di ng of t he conf essi onal st at ement , he st at ed:
I had gi ven under st andi ng t o t he accused
dur i ng or al under st andi ng t hat t he t ype of hi s
st at ement i s conf essi onal st at ement .

Guj ar at )

Rever t i ng t o t he r equi r ement of Sect i on 32, t he pol i ce
of f i cer r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s i s
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -132-

r equi r ed t o expl ai n i n wr i t i ng t o t he accused t hat he
i s not bound t o make conf essi onal st at ement and once
such st at ement i s made, t he same can be used agai nst
hi m. Fur t her , i t i s i mper at i ve t hat t he accused i s
assur ed t hat i f he does not make t he conf essi onal
st at ement , i t wi l l not j eopar di ze hi s wel l - bei ng whi l e
i n pol i ce cust ody and al so t o ensur e t hat such
st at ement s ar e made bef or e a compet ent pol i ce of f i cer
i n a t hr eat - f r ee envi r onment . The deposi t i on of t he
pol i ce of f i cer PW- 78 who had r ecor ded t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of t he accused per sons however , r ef l ect s
ot her wi se. He admi t t ed t o t he f act t hat he di d not
assur e t he accused per sons t hat not maki ng t he
conf essi onal st at ement wi l l not put t hem i n adver se
posi t i on.
85. Fur t her , t her e i s not hi ng avai l abl e on r ecor d t o
show t hat r easonabl e r ef l ect i on t i me was gi ven t o t he
accused per sons bef or e maki ng t he conf essi onal
st at ement s, t hough t he pr osecut i on cl ai med t o have
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -133-

gi ven t hem 15 mi nut es as r ef l ect i on per i od. We wi l l
exami ne t hi s aspect of t he mat t er her ei n.
I t i s per t i nent t o ment i on her e t hat t he t wo
exhi bi t s r ef er r ed t o supr a, namel y, t he l et t er of
i nt i mat i on and t he st at ement s of conf essi on, i n t he
case of each of t he accused per sons, ar e of t he same
day. I t has been cont ended by t he l ear ned seni or
counsel of t he accused per sons t hat not enough t i me
was gi ven t o t hem t o r ef l ect on t he i nci dent bef or e
maki ng conf essi onal st at ement s. They wer e gi ven a
t oken amount of t i me i . e. , 15 mi nut es t o t hi nk and
r ef l ect and t her eaf t er t he r ecor di ng of conf essi onal
st at ement s began, whi ch f act i s on r ecor d as per t he
st at ement of PW- 78, who r ecor ded t hei r conf essi onal
st at ement s. Whi l e i t has been l ai d down by t hi s Cour t
t hat t he amount of t i me t o be gi ven f or r ef l ect i on
bef or e conf essi on depends on t he f act s and
ci r cumst ances of t he case, i t i s i mper at i ve t o bear i n
mi nd t hat i n t he pr esent case, t he accused per sons
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -134-

wer e maki ng conf essi ons af t er a per i od al most 11
mont hs af t er t he i nci dent . Hence, a mer e per i od of 15
mi nut es does not appear t o be r easonabl e t i me f or
r ef l ect i on on t he i nci dent of t he at t ack and t hei r
i nvol vement i n t he same. I n t hi s r egar d, we wi sh t o
ment i on t he obser vat i on made by t hi s Cour t on t hi s
i ssue. I n t he case of State of Rajasthan v. Ajit Singh
& Ors.
45
, t hi s Cour t obser ved as f ol l ows:

12. We have per used t he conf essi on of t he
seven accused and t he pr ef at or y pr oceedi ngs
r el at i ng t her et o. We f i r st exami ne t he
conf essi on made by Noor deen. Fr om Ext . P- 18,
t he not e r ecor ded by Shr i Ranj i t Basot as a
pr el ude t o t he r ecor di ng of t he conf essi on, i t
t r anspi r es t hat he had been pr oduced bef or e hi m
at 12. 30 p. m. on 21- 9- 1991 and af t er t he
compl et i on of t he f or mal i t i es t he r ecor di ng of
t he conf essi on had st ar t ed at 12. 45 p. m.
Li kewi se Aj i t Si ngh al i as Gur u Lal Si ngh had
been pr oduced bef or e t he of f i cer at 10. 50 a. m.
and t he r ecor di ng of t he conf essi on had st ar t ed
hal f an hour l at er . We have seen t he r ecor d of
conf essi ons of t he ot her accused as wel l and i t
shows t hat 15 t o 30 mi nut es t i me was gi ven t o
t he accused f or r ef l ect i on bef or e t he act ual

45
( 2008) 1 SCC 601
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -135-

conf essi ons wer e r ecor ded. We accor di ngl y f i nd
t hat suf f i ci ent cool i ng- of f t i me had not been
gi ven t o t he accused, i n t he backgr ound t hat
t hey had been i n pol i ce cust ody over a l ong
per i od of t i me. I t has been hel d i n Ranjit
Singh case: ( SCC pp. 76- 77, par as 10- 12)

10. Accor di ng t o t he deposi t i on of PW 3
i n cr oss- exami nat i on, t he accused wer e i n
pol i ce cust ody 18- 20 days pr i or t o
r ecor di ng of t hei r conf essi onal
st at ement s. PW 3 has deposed t hat he gave
t he r equi si t e war ni ng t o t he accused t hat
t hey wer e not bound t o make t he
conf essi onal st at ement and i f t hey make i t
wi l l be used as evi dence agai nst t hem, but
despi t e t he war ni ng t hey wer e pr epar ed and
wi l l i ng t o make t he st at ement . Af t er
r ecor di ng t he i nt r oduct or y st at ement i n
t hi s behal f i n quest i on- answer f or m he
st i l l consi der ed i t pr oper t o gi ve t hem
some t i me f or r et hi nki ng and f or t hi s
pur pose t hey wer e al l owed t o si t i n a
separ at e r oom f or some t i me and wer e
br ought t o hi m af t er about hal f an hour
and expr essed t hei r desi r e t o make
st at ement and t her eaf t er t he conf essi onal
st at ement s wer e r ecor ded.
11. Bef or e adver t i ng t o t he f act s sai d t o
have been nar r at ed by t he accused as
r ecor ded i n t he t wo conf essi onal
st at ement s, i t deser ves t o be not i ced t hat
i n case t he r ecor di ng of f i cer of t he
conf essi onal st at ement on admi ni st er i ng
t he st at ut or y war ni ng t o t he accused f or ms
a bel i ef t hat t he accused shoul d be
gr ant ed some t i me t o t hi nk over t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -136-

mat t er , i t becomes obl i gat or y on hi m t o
gr ant r easonabl e t i me f or t he pur pose t o
t he accused. I n ot her wor ds, t he cool i ng
t i me t hat i s gr ant ed has t o be r easonabl e.
What t i me shoul d be gr ant ed woul d of
cour se depend upon t he f act s and
ci r cumst ances of each case. At t he same
t i me, however , when t he t i me t o t hi nk over
i s gr ant ed t hat cannot be a mer e f ar ce f or
t he sake of gr ant i ng t i me. I n a gi ven
case, dependi ng on f act s, t he r ecor di ng
of f i cer wi t hout gr ant i ng any t i me may
st r ai ght away pr oceed t o r ecor d t he
conf essi onal st at ement but i f he t hi nks i t
appr opr i at e t o gr ant t i me, i t cannot be a
mechani cal exer ci se f or compl et i ng a
f or mal i t y.
12. I n Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State
of Punjab wher e a Magi st r at e gr ant ed about
hal f an hour t o t he accused t o t hi nk over
and soon t her eaf t er r ecor ded t he
conf essi onal st at ement , t hi s Cour t
r ei t er at ed t hat when an accused i s
pr oduced bef or e t he Magi st r at e by t he
i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer , i t i s of ut most
i mpor t ance t hat t he mi nd of t he accused
per son shoul d be compl et el y f r eed f r om any
possi bl e i nf l uence of t he pol i ce and t he
ef f ect i ve way of secur i ng such f r eedom
f r omf ear t o t he accused per son i s t o send
hi m t o j ai l cust ody and gi ve hi m adequat e
t i me t o consi der whet her he shoul d make a
conf essi on at al l . I t woul d nat ur al l y be
di f f i cul t t o l ay down any har d- and- f ast
r ul e as t o t he t i me whi ch shoul d be
al l owed t o an accused per son i n any gi ven
case.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -137-

13. Appl yi ng t he af or esai d pr i nci pl es t o t he
f act s of t he pr esent case, we ar e of t he
opi ni on t hat adequat e t i me had not been gi ven
t o any of t he accused as t hey had been i n
pol i ce cust ody f or al most 45 days i n each case.
We al so obser ve t hat t her e i s no evi dence on
r ecor d t o suggest t hat t he speci al r epor t
envi saged under sub- r ul e ( 5) of Rul e 15 had
been submi t t ed t o t he Magi st r at e. The
conf essi ons cannot , t her ef or e, be t aken i nt o
account f or any pur pose.


Fur t her , i n t he case of Ranjit Singh v. State of
Punjab
46
, whi ch case i s r el i ed upon i n t he case of Ajit
Singh( supr a) t hi s Cour t obser ved as under :
11. Bef or e adver t i ng t o t he f act s t o have been
nar r at ed by t he accused as r ecor ded i n t he t wo
conf essi onal st at ement s, i t deser ves t o be
not i ced t hat i n case t he r ecor di ng of f i cer of
t he conf essi onal st at ement on admi ni st er i ng t he
st at ut or y war ni ng t o t he accused f or ms a bel i ef
t hat t he accused shoul d be gr ant ed some t i me t o
t hi nk over t he mat t er , i t becomes obl i gat or y on
hi mt o gr ant r easonabl e t i me f or t he pur pose t o
t he accused. I n ot her wor ds, t he cool i ng t i me

46
( 2002) 8 SCC 73
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -138-

t hat i s gr ant ed has t o be r easonabl e. What t i me
shoul d be gr ant ed woul d of cour se depend upon
t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of each case. At
t he same t i me, however , when t he t i me t o t hi nk
over i s gr ant ed t hat cannot be a mer e f ar ce f or
t he sake of gr ant i ng t i me. I n a gi ven case,
dependi ng on f act s, t he r ecor di ng of f i cer
wi t hout gr ant i ng any t i me may st r ai ght away
pr oceed t o r ecor d t he conf essi onal st at ement
but i f he t hi nks i t appr opr i at e t o gr ant t i me,
i t cannot be a mechani cal exer ci se f or
compl et i ng a f or mal i t y.
13. Thi s Cour t f ur t her hel d: - " However ,
speaki ng gener al l y, i t woul d, we t hi nk, be
r easonabl e t o i nsi st upon gi vi ng an accused
per son at l east 24 hour s t o deci de whet her or
not he shoul d make a conf essi on. Wher e t her e
may be r eason t o suspect t hat t he accused has
been per suaded or coer ced t o make a conf essi on,
even l onger per i od may have t o be gi ven t o hi m
bef or e hi s st at ement i s r ecor ded. I n our
opi ni on, i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case i t
i s i mpossi bl e t o accept t he vi ew t hat enough
t i me was gi ven t o t he accused t o t hi nk over t he
mat t er . "
20. I n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances of t he
pr esent case t he gr ant of hal f an hour t o t he
accused t o t hi nk over bef or e r ecor di ng t hei r
conf essi onal st at ement cannot be hel d t o be a
r easonabl e per i od. We do not t hi nk t hat i s saf e
t o base convi ct i on on such conf essi onal
st at ement s. Fur t her , on t he f act s of t he
pr esent case, convi ct i on cannot be mai nt ai ned
on t he sol e t est i mony of t wo pol i ce of f i ci al s.
I t may al so be not i ced t hat al t hough PW6
Chander Bhan, Ar mour er , was exami ned by t he
pr osecut i on t o pr ove t hat t he weapons wer e i n
wor ki ng condi t i ons, no ef f or t was made t o pr ove
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -139-

t hat t he ammuni t i on or t he empt i es mat ched t he
weapons.
Ther ef or e, i n t he gi ven f act s and ci r cumst ances on
r ecor d and based on t he l egal pr i nci pl es l ai d down by
t hi s Cour t , we ar e of t he opi ni on t hat enough t i me was
not gi ven t o t he accused per sons t o r ecor d t hei r
conf essi onal st at ement s, par t i cul ar l y i n t he pr esent
case si nce t hey wer e maki ng conf essi ons af t er 11
mont hs of t he i nci dent .
86. I t i s al so per t i nent t o t ake not e of t he cal l ous
manner i n whi ch PW- 99 had di schar ged hi s dut y i n t he
pr esent case. Si nce A- 2 and A- 4 made conf essi onal
st at ement s on t he same day, t hey wer e pr oduced bef or e
t he CJ M PW- 99 t he ver y next day. I t i s per t i nent
t her ef or e, t o not e t he obser vat i on made by hi m wi t h
r espect t o A- 2 and A- 4. The st at ement of PW- 99 wi t h
r espect t o A- 2 i s r ecor ded as under :
The accused has si gned i n t hi s above st at ement
i n my pr esence at 16-30 hrs, t oday on
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -140-

25. 9. 2013. And t her ef or e, hi s st at ement by r ead
over and conveyi ng hi m not ed and he has si gned
by admi t t i ng.
Sd/ -
Chi ef J udi ci al Magi st r at e Rur al
appel l ant s)

The st at ement of CJ M wi t h r espect t o t he A- 4 i s as
under :
The accused has made hi s si gnat ur e i n t he
above st at ement made by hi m t oday on dat ed
25. 9. 2003 at 5 p.m. bef or e me. The st at ement i s
r ead over and expl ai ned t o accused and as he
admi t s t he same, he has made hi s si gnat ur e i n
hi s conf essi on.

Sd/ - i l l egi bl e
Chi ef J udi ci al Magi st r at e
Ahmedabad ( Rur al )
Ol d Hi gh Cour t , Ahmedabad

appel l ant s)
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -141-

Fr om t he above st at ement s of t he CJ M PW- 99, i t can be
i nf er r ed t hat he was abl e t o r ecor d t he st at ement of
t he accused per sons, r ead i t over t o t hem and enqui r e
about any coer ci on and t or t ur e, al l i n a per i od of
hal f an hour . I t i s hi ghl y i mpr obabl e t hat a
conf essi onal st at ement r unni ng t o mor e t han 15 pages
coul d be r ead back t o t hem wi t hi n hal f an hour . The
st at ement of PW- 99 on exami nat i on i n chi ef and al so on
cr oss exami nat i on has been ment i oned above and i t i s
cl ear t hat he di d not enqui r e about t he basi c
compl i ances he was r equi r ed t o make hi msel f awar e of ,
t o ensur e f ai r i nvest i gat i on agai nst t he accused
per sons. Hi s conduct i n r ecor di ng of st at ement under
Sect i on 32( 5) of POTA mer el y r esembl es t hat of a
passi ve r el uct ant of f i cer i nvol ved i n some pr ocedur al
f or mal i t y.
87. I t i s per t i nent t o not e her e t hat whi l e POTA makes
a depar t ur e f r om Cr PC i n t hat i t makes conf essi onal
st at ement s made bef or e a pol i ce of f i cer admi ssi bl e,
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -142-

t he pr ocedur al saf eguar ds t her ei n ar e not a mechani cal
f or mal i t y. On t he ot her hand, i t shoul d be abl e t o
i nspi r e conf i dence t o show t hat t he pr ocedur e has been
scr upul ousl y f ol l owed whi l e r ecor di ng conf essi onal
st at ement s par t i cul ar l y because of t he gr ave
consequences whi ch f ol l ow such st at ement s, whi ch mi ght
r esul t i n depr i vat i on of l i f e and per sonal l i ber t y of
t he per son, whi ch i s a f undament al r i ght guar ant eed by
t he Const i t ut i on t hat can be t aken away onl y by
f ol l owi ng t he pr ocedur e est abl i shed by l aw. Ther ef or e,
i t i s i ncumbent upon t he CJ M t o st r i ct l y and
scr upul ousl y f ol l ow al l t he st at ut or y pr ocedur al
saf eguar ds pr ovi ded f or under Sect i on 32 of POTA.
88. Fur t her , t he ot her st at ut or y mandat e under Sect i on
32 of POTA i s t hat t he per son maki ng t he conf essi onal
st at ement shal l be pr oduced f or medi cal exami nat i on
and t her eaf t er , be sent t o j udi ci al cust ody af t er t he
CJ M r ecor ds t he st at ement of t he accused per son. The
quest i on whi ch t hen ar i ses f or our consi der at i on i s
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -143-

whet her t hi s mandat e i s oper at i ve onl y i f t he accused
makes a compl ai nt of t or t ur e bef or e t he CJ M or whet her
t he CJ M i s dut y bound t o send t he accused per sons t o
j udi ci al cust ody as a st at ut or y r equi r ement af t er
r ecor di ng t he st at ement . I t had been cont ended by t he
l ear ned seni or counsel on behal f of t he accused
per sons t hat t hey wer e subj ect ed t o physi cal t or t ur e
by t he pol i ce bef or e t he conf essi onal st at ement s wer e
r ecor ded and t hat t hey wer e al so kept i n pol i ce
cust ody i n t he i nt er veni ng ni ght bet ween bei ng
pr oduced bef or e t he CJ M and bei ng sent t o J udi ci al
Cust ody. Ther ef or e, t hough t hey wer e subj ect ed t o
t or t ur e, t hey coul d not make a compl ai nt bef or e t he
CJ M due t o f ear and appr ehensi on, si nce t hey wer e
t aken back t o pol i ce cust ody af t er t hei r st at ement s
wer e r ecor ded. The l ear ned seni or counsel f or t he
accused per sons, ar gued t hat Sect i on 32( 5)
unambi guousl y decl ar es t hat t he accused shal l be sent
t o j udi ci al cust ody af t er t he r ecor di ng of t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -144-

conf essi onal st at ement s, wher eas t he l ear ned seni or
counsel f or t he pr osecut i on cont ended t hat t he accused
must be sent f or medi cal exami nat i on onl y i f t her e i s
a compl ai nt of t or t ur e and onl y i n t hat case, must he
be sent t o j udi ci al cust ody. We ar e unabl e t o agr ee
wi t h t he ar gument of t he l ear ned seni or counsel f or
t he pr osecut i on.
Fi r st l y, t he use of t he phr ase, shal l be sent t o
j udi ci al cust ody af t er conf essi on i s a mandat or y
r equi r ement i n compar i son t o t he use of an al t er nat i ve
t er m may whi ch gi ves di scr et i onar y power t o t he CJ M.
Fur t her , t hi s cour t i n t he case of State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
47
, has unambi guousl y obser ved
as under :
177. Now we l ook t o t he conf essi on f r om
ot her angl es, especi al l y f r om t he poi nt of
vi ew of i n- bui l t pr ocedur al saf eguar ds i n
Sect i on 32 and t he ot her saf eguar ds cont ai ned
i n Sect i on 52. I t i s cont ended by t he l ear ned

47
( 2005) 11 SCC 600
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -145-

seni or counsel Mr . Gopal Subr amani umt hat t he
DCP bef or e r ecor di ng t he conf essi on, gave t he
st at ut or y war ni ng and t hen r ecor ded t he
conf essi on at a pl ace away f r om t he pol i ce
st at i on, gave a f ew mi nut es t i me f or
r ef l ect i on and onl y on bei ng sat i sf i ed t hat
t he accused Af zal vol unt eer ed t o make
conf essi on i n an at mospher e f r ee f r om t hr eat
or i nducement t hat he pr oceeded t o r ecor d t he
conf essi on t o t he di ct at i on of Af zal .
Ther ef or e, i t i s submi t t ed t hat t her e was
per f ect compl i ance wi t h sub- Sect i ons ( 2) &( 3) .
The next i mpor t ant st ep r equi r ed by sub-
Sect i on ( 4) was al so compl i ed wi t h i nasmuch
as Af zal was pr oduced bef or e t he Addi t i onal
Chi ef Met r opol i t an Magi st r at e- PW63 on t he
ver y next day i . e. 22. 12. 2001 al ong wi t h t he
conf essi onal st at ement s kept i n a seal ed
cover . The l ear ned Magi st r at e opened t he
cover , per used t he conf essi onal st at ement s,
cal l ed t he maker of conf essi on i nt o hi s
chamber , on bei ng i dent i f i ed by PW80- ACP and
made i t known t o t he maker t hat he was not
l egal l y bound t o make t he conf essi on and on
get t i ng a posi t i ve r esponse f r om hi m t hat he
vol unt ar i l y made t he conf essi on wi t hout any
t hr eat or vi ol ence, t he ACMM r ecor ded t he
st at ement t o t hat ef f ect and dr ew up
necessar y pr oceedi ngs vi de Ext s. PW63/ 5 and
PW63/ 6. I t i s poi nt ed out t hat t he accused,
havi ng had t he oppor t uni t y t o pr ot est or
compl ai n agai nst t he behavi or of pol i ce i n
ext r act i ng t he conf essi on, di d not say a
si ngl e wor d denyi ng t he f act um of maki ng t he
conf essi on or any ot her r el evant
ci r cumst ances i mpi ngi ng on t he cor r ect ness of
t he conf essi on. I t i s f ur t her poi nt ed out
t hat Af zal and t he ot her accused wer e al so
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -146-

got medi cal l y exami ned by t he pol i ce and t he
Doct or f ound no t r aces of physi cal vi ol ence.
I t i s t her ef or e submi t t ed t hat t he st eps
r equi r ed t o be t aken under sub- Sect i ons
( 4) &( 5) wer e t aken. However , t he l ear ned
counsel f or t he St at e coul d not di sput e t he
f act t hat t he accused Af zal was not sent t o
j udi ci al cust ody t her eaf t er , but , on t he
r equest of t he I . O PW80, t he ACMM sent back
Af zal t o pol i ce cust ody. Such r emand was
or der ed by t he ACMM pur suant t o an
appl i cat i on made by PW80 t hat t he pr esence of
Af zal i n pol i ce cust ody was r equi r ed f or t he
pur pose of f ur t her i nvest i gat i on. Thus, t he
l ast and l at t er par t of sub- Sect i on ( 5) of
Sect i on 32 was undoubt edl y br eached. To get
over t hi s di f f i cul t y, t he l ear ned counsel f or
t he St at e made t wo al t er nat i ve submi ssi ons,
bot h of whi ch, i n our vi ew, cannot be
sust ai ned.

178. Fi r st l y, i t was cont ended t hat on a
pr oper const r uct i on of t he ent i r et y of sub-
Sect i on ( 5) of Sect i on 32, t he quest i on of
sendi ng t o j udi ci al cust ody woul d ar i se onl y
i f t her e was any compl ai nt of t or t ur e and t he
medi cal exami nat i on pr i ma f aci e suppor t i ng
such al l egat i on. I n ot her wor ds, accor di ng t o
t he l ear ned counsel , t he expr essi on
' t her eaf t er ' shal l be r ead onl y i n
conj unct i on wi t h t he l at t er par t of sub-
Sect i on ( 5) begi nni ng wi t h ' and i f t her e i s
any compl ai nt ' and not appl i cabl e t o t he
ear l i er par t . I n our vi ew, such a r est r i ct i ve
i nt er pr et at i on of sub- Sect i on ( 5) i s not at
al l war r ant ed ei t her on a pl ai n or l i t er al
r eadi ng or by any ot her canon of const r uct i on
i ncl udi ng pur posi ve const r uct i on. The ot her
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -147-

ar gument r ai sed by t he l ear ned counsel i s
t hat t he pr ovi si on r egar di ng j udi ci al
cust ody, cannot be r ead t o be a mandat or y
r equi r ement so as t o appl y t o al l si t uat i ons.
I f t he Magi st r at e i s sat i sf i ed t hat t he
conf essi on appear s t o have been made
vol unt ar i l y and t he per son concer ned was not
subj ect ed t o any t or t ur e or i nt i mi dat i on, he
need not di r ect j udi ci al cust ody. Havi ng
r egar d t o t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case,
t her e was not hi ng wr ong i n sendi ng back Af zal
t o pol i ce cust ody. Thi s cont ent i on cannot be
sust ai ned on deeper scr ut i ny.

179. The cl ear wor ds of t he pr ovi si on do not
admi t of an i nt er pr et at i on t hat t he j udi ci al
cust ody shoul d be or der ed by t he Chi ef
J udi ci al Magi st r at e onl y when t her e i s a
compl ai nt f r om t he ' conf essi on maker ' and
t her e appear s t o be unf ai r t r eat ment of such
per son i n cust ody. As al r eady st at ed, t he
obl i gat i on t o send t he per son whose al l eged
conf essi on was r ecor ded t o j udi ci al cust ody
i s a r ul e and t he devi at i on coul d at best be
i n except i onal ci r cumst ances. I n t he pr esent
case, i t does not appear t hat t he ACMM ( PW63)
had i n mi nd t he r equi r ement of Sect i on 32( 5)
as t o j udi ci al cust ody. At any r at e, t he
or der passed by hi m on 22. 12. 2001 on t he
appl i cat i on f i l ed by PW80 does not r ef l ect
hi s awar eness of such r equi r ement or
appl i cat i on of mi nd t o t he pr opr i et y of
pol i ce r emand i n t he f ace of Sect i on 32( 5) of
POTA. Compel l i ng ci r cumst ances t o bypass t he
r equi r ement of j udi ci al cust ody ar e not
appar ent f r omt he r ecor d.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -148-

89. Apar t f r om Sect i on 32 of POTA, Sect i on 52 al so
l ays down cer t ai n gui del i nes whi ch ar e t o be st r i ct l y
adher ed t o whi l e r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s
of an accused per son under Sect i on 32. On t hi s i ssue,
i t was hel d i n Navjot Sandhu case ( supr a) as under :

158. These pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 32, whi ch ar e
concei ved i n t he i nt er est of t he accused, wi l l
go a l ong way t o scr een and excl ude
conf essi ons, whi ch appear t o be i nvol unt ar y.
The r equi r ement s and saf eguar ds l ai d down i n
sub- sect i ons ( 2) t o ( 5) ar e an i nt egr al par t of
t he scheme pr ovi di ng f or admi ssi bi l i t y of
conf essi on made t o t he pol i ce of f i cer . The
br each of any one of t hese r equi r ement s woul d
have a vi t al bear i ng on t he admi ssi bi l i t y and
evi dent i ar y val ue of t he conf essi on r ecor ded
under Sect i on 32( 1) and may even i nf l i ct a
f at al bl ow on such conf essi on. We have anot her
set of pr ocedur al saf eguar ds l ai d down i n
Sect i on 52 of POTA whi ch ar e model l ed on t he
gui del i nes envi saged by D.K. Basu
8
Sect i on 52
r uns as under :
52. ( 1) Wher e a pol i ce of f i cer ar r est s
a per son, he shal l pr epar e a cust ody memo
of t he per son ar r est ed.
( 2) The per son ar r est ed shal l be
i nf or med of hi s r i ght t o consul t a l egal
pr act i t i oner as soon as he i s br ought t o
t he pol i ce st at i on.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -149-

( 3) Whenever any per son i s ar r est ed,
i nf or mat i on of hi s ar r est shal l be
i mmedi at el y communi cat ed by t he pol i ce
of f i cer t o a f ami l y member or i n hi s
absence t o a r el at i ve of such per son by
t el egr am, t el ephone or by any ot her means
and t hi s f act shal l be r ecor ded by t he
pol i ce of f i cer under t he si gnat ur e of t he
per son ar r est ed.
( 4) The per son ar r est ed shal l be
per mi t t ed t o meet t he l egal pr act i t i oner
r epr esent i ng hi m dur i ng t he cour se of
i nt er r ogat i on of t he accused per son:
Pr ovi ded t hat not hi ng i n t hi s sub-
sect i on shal l ent i t l e t he l egal
pr act i t i oner t o r emai n pr esent t hr oughout
t he per i od of i nt er r ogat i on.

Sub- sect i ons ( 2) and ( 4) as wel l as sub- sect i on
( 3) st em f r om t he guar ant ees enshr i ned i n
Ar t i cl es 21 and 22( 1) of t he Const i t ut i on.
Ar t i cl e 22( 1) enj oi ns t hat no per son who i s
ar r est ed shal l be det ai ned i n cust ody wi t hout
bei ng i nf or med, as soon as may be, of t he
gr ounds f or such ar r est nor shal l he be deni ed
t he r i ght t o consul t , and t o be def ended by, a
l egal pr act i t i oner of hi s choi ce. They ar e al so
meant t o ef f ect uat e t he commandment of Ar t i cl e
20( 3) t hat no per son accused of any of f ence
shal l be compel l ed t o be a wi t ness agai nst
hi msel f .
159. The br eadt h and dept h of t he pr i nci pl e
agai nst sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on embedded i n Ar t i cl e
20( 3) was unr avel l ed by a t hr ee- J udge Bench
speaki ng t hr ough Kr i shna I yer , J . i n Nandini
Satpathy v. P.L. Dani. I t was poi nt ed out by
t he l ear ned J udge t hat t he ar ea cover ed by
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -150-

Ar t i cl e 20( 3) and Sect i on 161( 2) Cr PC i s
subst ant i al l y t he same. Sect i on 161( 2) of t he
Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e Code i s a par l i ament ar y
gl oss on t he const i t ut i onal cl ause i t was
obser ved ( SCC p. 434, par a 21) . Thi s Cour t
r ej ect ed t he cont ent i on advanced on behal f of
t he St at e t hat t he t wo pr ovi si ons, namel y,
Ar t i cl e 20( 3) and Sect i on 161, di d not oper at e
at t he ant er i or st ages bef or e t he case came t o
Cour t and t he i ncr i mi nat i ng ut t er ance of t he
accused, pr evi ousl y r ecor ded, was at t empt ed t o
be i nt r oduced. Not i ng t hat t he l andmar k
deci si on i n Miranda v. Arizona di d ext end t he
embar go t o pol i ce i nvest i gat i on al so, t he Cour t
obser ved t hat t her e was no war r ant t o t r uncat e
t he const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on under l yi ng
Ar t i cl e 20( 3) . I t was hel d t hat even t he
i nvest i gat i on at t he pol i ce l evel i s embr aced
by Ar t i cl e 20( 3) and t hi s i s what pr eci sel y
Sect i on 161( 2) means. The i nt er pr et at i on so
pl aced on Ar t i cl e 20( 3) and Sect i on 161, i n t he
wor ds of t he l ear ned J udge,
br i ngs us near er t o t he Miranda

mant l e of
excl usi on whi ch ext ends t he r i ght agai nst
sel f - i ncr i mi nat i on, t o pol i ce exami nat i on
and cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on and t akes i n
suspect s as much as r egul ar accused
per sons ( SCC p. 435, par a 22) .
The obser vat i ons i n M.P. Sharma v. Satish
Chandra

( SCR p. 1088) t o t he ef f ect t hat :
t he pr ot ect i on af f or ded t o an accused
i nsof ar as i t i s r el at ed t o t he phr ase t o
be a wi t ness i s not mer el y i n r espect of
t est i moni al compul si on i n t he cour t r oom
but may wel l ext end t o compel l ed t est i mony
pr evi ousl y obt ai ned f r omhi m
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -151-

wer e ci t ed wi t h appr oval i n Nandini Satpathy
case ( SCC p. 448, par a 43) .

90. Ther ef or e, we ar e of t he opi ni on t hat nei t her t he
pol i ce of f i cer r ecor di ng t he conf essi onal st at ement s
nor t he CJ M f ol l owed t he st at ut or y mandat es l ai d down
i n POTA under Sect i ons 32 and 52 whi l e r ecor di ng t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons, and we
hol d t hat t he conf essi onal st at ement s made by A- 2, A-
3, A- 4 and A- 6 under Sect i on 32 of POTA ar e not
admi ssi bl e i n l aw i n t he pr esent case. Ther ef or e, we
answer t hi s poi nt i n f avour of t he appel l ant s. We have
t o obser ve next t her ef or e, whet her t he st at ement s of
t he accompl i ces can be r el i ed upon t o det er mi ne t he
i nvol vement of t he accused per sons i n t hi s case.
Answer to point no.3:
91. Sect i on 133 of t he I ndi an Evi dence Act 1872 st at es
t hat :
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -152-

an accompl i ce shal l be a compet ent wi t ness
agai nst an accused per son; and a convi ct i on i s
not i l l egal mer el y because i t pr oceeds upon
t he uncor r obor at ed t est i mony of an accompl i ce.

Bot h t he cour t s bel ow have pl aced ext ensi ve r el i ance
upon t he evi dence of accompl i ces, PW- 50, PW- 51 and PW-
52 t o est abl i sh t he cul pabi l i t y of t he accused.
However , one needs t o under st and t he ext ent of
admi ssi bi l i t y of such evi dence. But pr i or t o t hat , we
al so need t o emphasi ze upon t he r el i abi l i t y of t he
evi dence gi ven by an accompl i ce. I t has been hel d by
t hi s cour t i n t he case of Haroom Haji Abdulla v. State
of Maharashtra
48
as under :
8. . . . . . . The Evi dence Act i n Sect i on 133
pr ovi des t hat an accompl i ce i s a compet ent
wi t ness agai nst an accused per son and t hat a
convi ct i on i s not i l l egal mer el y because i t
pr oceeds upon t he uncor r obor at ed t est i mony of
an accompl i ce. The ef f ect of t hi s pr ovi si on i s
t hat t he cour t t r yi ng an accused may l egal l y
convi ct hi m on t he si ngl e evi dence, of an
accompl i ce. To t hi s t her e i s a r i der i n

48
AI R 1968 SC 832
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -153-

I l l ust r at i on ( b) t o Sect i on 114 of t he Act
whi ch pr ovi des t hat t he Cour t may pr esume t hat
an accompl i ce i s unwor t hy of cr edi t unl ess he
i s cor r obor at ed i n mat er i al par t i cul ar s. Thi s
caut i onar y pr ovi si on i ncor por at es a r ul e of
pr udence because an accompl i ce, who bet r ays hi s
associ at es, i s not a f ai r wi t ness and i t i s
possi bl e t hat he may, t o pl ease t he
pr osecut i on, weave f al se det ai l s i nt o t hose
whi ch ar e t r ue and hi s whol e st or y appear i ng
t r ue, t her e may be no means at hand t o sever
t he f al se f r om t hat whi ch i s t r ue. I t i s f or
t hi s r eason t hat cour t s, bef or e t hey act on
accompl i ce evi dence, i nsi st on cor r obor at i on i n
mat er i al r espect s as t o t he of f ence i t sel f and
al so i mpl i cat i ng i n some sat i sf act or y way,
however smal l , each accused named by t he
accompl i ce. I n t hi s way t he commi ssi on of t he
of f ence i s conf i r med by some compet ent evi dence
ot her t han t he si ngl e or unconf i r med t est i mony
of t he accompl i ce and t he i ncl usi on by t he
accompl i ce of an i nnocent per son i s def eat ed.
Thi s r ul e of caut i on or pr udence has become so
i ngr ai ned i n t he consi der at i on of accompl i ce
evi dence as t o have al most t he st andi ng of a
r ul e of l aw.
9. The ar gument her e i s t hat t he caut i onar y
r ul e appl i es, whet her t her e be one accompl i ce
or mor e and t hat t he conf essi ng co- accused
cannot be pl aced hi gher t han an accompl i ce.
Ther ef or e, unl ess t her e i s some evi dence
besi des t hese i mpl i cat i ng t he accused i n some
mat er i al r espect , convi ct i on cannot st and.
Rel i ance i s pl aced i n t hi s connect i on upon t he
obser vat i ons of t he J udi ci al Commi t t ee i n
Bhuboni Sahu v. Emperor a case i n whi ch a
convi ct i on was f ounded upon t he evi dence of an
accompl i ce suppor t ed onl y by t he conf essi on of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -154-

a co- accused. The J udi ci al Commi t t ee acqui t t i ng
t he accused obser ved:

" . . . . . . Thei r Lor dshi ps whi l st not
doubt i ng t hat such a convi ct i on i s
j ust i f i ed i n l aw under s. 133, Evi dence
Act , and whi l st appr eci at i ng t hat t he
coi nci dence of a number of conf essi ons of
co- accused al l i mpl i cat i ng t he par t i cul ar
accused gi ven i ndependent l y, and wi t hout
an oppor t uni t y of pr evi ous concer t , mi ght
be ent i t l ed t o gr eat wei ght , woul d
never t hel ess obser ve t hat Cour t s shoul d be
sl ow t o depar t f r om t he r ul e of pr udence,
based on l ong exper i ence, whi ch r equi r es
some i ndependent evi dence i mpl i cat i ng t he
par t i cul ar accused. The danger of act i ng
upon accompl i ce evi dence i s not mer el y
t hat t he accompl i ce i s on hi s own
admi ssi on a man of bad char act er who t ook
par t i n t he of f ence and af t er war ds t o save
hi msel f bet r ayed hi s f or mer associ at es,
and how has pl aced hi msel f i n a posi t i on
i n whi ch he can har dl y f ai l t o have a
st r ong bi as i n f avour of t he pr osecut i on;
t he r eal danger i s t hat he i s t el l i ng a
st or y whi ch i n i t s gener al out l i ne i s
t r ue, and i t i s easy f or hi m t o wor k i nt o
t he st or y mat t er whi ch i s unt r ue. . . . . "


However , i n t he pr esent case, t he Cour t s bel ow have
pl aced st r ong r el i ance upon t he st at ement s of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -155-

accompl i ces PW- 50 Ashf aq Bhavnagr i , PW- 51 Abdul Rehman
Gul amhussai n Panar a and PW- 52 Mohammad Munaf Shei kh t o
est abl i sh t he cul pabi l i t y of t he accused per sons.
Though t he conf essi onal st at ement of PW- 51 was
f ol l owed by a r et r act i on, t he same as per t he cour t s
bel ow, di d not vi t i at e t he admi ssi bi l i t y of t he
evi dence agai nst t he accused per sons.
92. We wi l l t her ef or e, exami ne t he r el evant excer pt s
f r om t he st at ement s of t he t hr ee accompl i ces namel y,
PW- 50, PW- 51 and PW- 52 t o ascer t ai n what each of t hem
had t o say about t he i nci dent of t he at t ack, on t he
pr emi se t hat Sect i on 133 of t he Evi dence Act st at es
t hat an accompl i ce i s a compet ent wi t ness. PW- 50 i n
hi s deposi t i on ( Ex. 312) bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) st at ed as under :
. . . . . We used t o ar r ange casset t e at
Sal i mbhai s pl ace on Thur sday ni ght , i t was
done by Sal i mbhai , and we had seen t he
casset t e over t her e, i n whi ch Musl i mchi l dr en
wer e bur nt al i ve. Ther e was mass ki l l i ng of
Musl i ms. Huge mobs of Hi ndus had come and
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -156-

t hey used t o at t ack on Musl i ms, and t her e
wer e mass bur i al cer emoni es. We had al so seen
i nt er vi ews of r el i ef camps. Ther eaf t er , t her e
wer e t wo maul anas ( pr i est s) at Sal i mbhai s
pl ace, among t hemone was named as Far adul l ah
Ghaur i al ai s Abu Suf i yan and Saukat ul l ah
Ghaur i who was br ot her of Abu Suf i yan. They
had sai d t hei r speech bef or e us t hat t hi s
much has happened i n your Guj ar at , despi t e
t hi s you do not awake f r omyour sl eep and you
ar e engaged i n pl ayi ng car om. We ar e f r om
Hyder abad and have come t o hel p you.
. . . . . . .
Ther e wer e al so t al ks over t her e t hat
Lashkar - e- Toi ba i s havi ng huge f und but i s
not havi ng net wor k and J ai sh- e- Mohammed does
not have f und but i s havi ng manpower as wel l
as i t i s havi ng net wor k, and hence, bot h
t hese gr oups wi l l wor k t oget her , t her ef or e
you j ust gi ve donat i on. On t hat ni ght many
per sons gave donat i on, donat i on of about 12
t o 13 t housand Ri yal s was gi ven. We wer e
t aken t o t he pr ogr amby Rashi dbhai Aj mer i and
Sal i mbhai because we di d not know t hose
peopl e. Those peopl e wer e new f or us. Si mi l ar
pr ogr am was al so or gani zed af t er r i ot s i n
Guj ar at . At t hat t i me at l east 400 peopl e had
gat her ed and al l wer e f r om Guj ar at . Good
amount of donat i on was gat her ed i n i t al so.
And t hus by doi ng such smal l meet i ngs, t hey
used t o gat her money. Af t er some t i me, peopl e
got f ed up and used t o say t hat you ar e not
doi ng anyt hi ng and ar e j ust ut i l i zi ng t he
money. We used t o gi ve money t o Sal i mbhai
Shei kh who was wi t h us, and he used t o gi ve
t hi s money t o Far adul l ah Ghaur i , and he used
t o send t hi s money t o I ndi a t hr ough char ge
r esponsi bi l i t y ( Hawal a) . He used t o send t hi s
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -157-

money t hr ough Maj i d Vor a Pat el and I qbal Vor a
Pat el who ar e basi cal l y f r om Bhar uch.
Ther eaf t er , dur i ng about t hr ee mont hs of
r i ot s post - Godhr a i n 2002, Far adul l ah Ghaur i
and Shaukat ul l ah Maul ana came t o I ndi a, t hese
peopl e had vi si t ed t he r el i ef camps i n
Ahmedabad, and t hey had met wi t h a per son
named J ahi d i n camp, and t hey had gat her ed
per sons whose f ami l y member s wer e ki l l ed or
who had suf f er ed gr eat l osses.
. . . . . . . .
When Abu Tal ah and Far i dul l ah Ghaur i had come
t o I ndi a, t hey had cal l ed AdamAj mer i br ot her
of Rashi d Aj mer i t o Hyder abad f or meet i ng.
Ther eaf t er we came t o know about Akshar dham
t r agedy on Saudi TV. I ni t i al l y nobody spoke
about i t , an t her eaf t er one meet i ng was
or gani zed af t er 8 days, and had sai d t hat
t hi s i s wor k of J ai sh- e- Mohammed. And Abu
Tal ah had sai d t o t hem, we came t o know about
t hi s f r om Sal i mbhai and Rashi dbhai . These
peopl e had al so sai d t hat t he per sons who had
gone t o Akshar dham, t hei r i nt ent i on was t o
spr ead t er r or and not t o ki l l , t hei r f i ght
was wi t h t he pol i ce, and had al so sai d t hat
t hey gave f i ght f or about 10 t o 12 hour s and
got mar t yr ed.

appel l ant s)

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -158-

He f ur t her st at ed dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on by l ear ned
counsel Mr . H. N. J hal a f or A- 1, A- 3 and A- 5:
Quest i on: Was Sal i mbhai your l eader ?
Answer : Sal i mbhai had mor e r esponsi bi l i t i es. He
had mor e wor r i es about I sl am. When I met wi t h
Sal i mbhai on f i r st Thur sday af t er Godhr a
car nage, he had no casset t e at t hat t i me. I had
not kept any not e f or Sal i mbhai comi ng and
goi ng t o I ndi a. At t he t i me of Godhr a car nage,
Sal i mbhai was pr esent at Saudi Ar abi a, and I
met hi mon Thur sday t her eaf t er .

Quest i on: I nci dence of Godhr a happened on dat e
27/ 02/ 2002, what do you want t o say about
Sal i mbhai was i n I ndi a f r om J anuar y- 2002, and
not i n Saudi Ar abi a?

Answer : I t i s t r ue t hat he was not pr esent i n
Saudi at t he t i me of Godhr a car nage. Wi t ness
vol unt ar i l y st at es t hat he was pr esent at Saudi
at t he t i me of Akshar dham.
We had wat ched t he casset t e i n t he f ol l owi ng
mont h of Godhr a car nage. I t i s t r ue t hat t he
casset t e i n t he f ol l owi ng mont h of Godhr a
car nage. I t i s t r ue t hat t he casset t e ( C. D. )
whi ch was wat ched r egar di ng t he i nci dences of
Post Godhr a car nage, t he sai d wer e wat ched at
t he house of Sal i mbhai . Ther e i s t el evi si on and
VCD pl ayer at t he house of Sal i mbhai .

. . . .

Quest i on: The money whi ch was col l ect ed i n
Saudi Ar abi a, t he sai d money was ut i l i zed f or
r unni ng r el i ef camps?
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -159-

Answer : We used t o gi ve money t o Sal i mbhai and
we had not asked hi m about what he di d wi t h
money nor di d he say t o us about what he di d
wi t h t he money.

I had gi ven maxi mum of 500 Ri yal t o Sal i mbhai ,
i t i s Rs. 5000/ - . Besi des me, t her e wer e my
ot her f r i ends who al so used t o meet at
Sal i mbhai s pl ace on ever y Thur sday. Except me,
al l ot her used t o ask Sal i mbhai about what he
di d wi t h t he money. Sal i mbhai used t o say t hat
t hi s money has been col l ect ed f or t aki ng
r evenge. Si nce he di dn t say anyt hi ng ever ybody
had st opped gi vi ng money. I don t know i f t hi s
money was ut i l i zed f or r unni ng r el i ef camps.
. . The meet i ngs whi ch hel d dur i ng ni ght s, t he
sai d meet i ngs hel d i n bi g hal l s and par t y pl ot s
of Ri yadh. Sal i mbhai used t o t ake us i n t hese
meet i ngs, and t her ef or e, we used t o go, he had
sai d you wi l l have t o come and t her ef or e we had
at t ended t wo or t hr ee meet i ngs. I t was not l i ke
t hat I have t o go wher ever Sal i mbhai asked t o,
because he was doi ng hi s busi ness and I was
doi ng j ob.

appel l ant s)

Fur t her , on cr oss exami nat i on by l ear ned counsel of
A- 2 and A- 4 bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) , PW- 50
deposed as under :
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -160-

I know Rashi d Aj mer i si nce t wo year s of
i nci dence. Rashi d Aj mer i was at Saudi Ar abi a i n
year 2002. Name of t he br ot her of Rashi d Aj mer i
i s Adam. I t i s Adam Aj mer i . The f act t hat Adam
Aj mer i was cal l ed at Hyder abad was st at ed t o me
by Sal i mbhai and Rashi dbhai . I don t know about
why he was cal l ed at Hyder abad. I t i s not t r ue
t hat I know t hat t he f act I have st at ed about
Adam Aj mer i havi ng gone t o Hyder abad i s f al se.
I t i s not t r ue t hat t he f act I amst at i ng about
I havi ng been cal l ed t o Hyder abad by Sal i mbhai
and Adambhai i s al so st at ed f al se by me.
appel l ant s)

PW- 51, i n hi s deposi t i on ( Ex. 314) , par t i cul ar l y
i ndi cat ed t he act i ve i nvol vement of A- 2 and al so about
t he i nvol vement of A- 4 and A- 5. The r el evant excer pt
f r omt he deposi t i on r eads as under :
Nashi r Doman, ( t he cabl e oper at or ) i n our ar ea
had br ought one per son t o me dur i ng af t er noon
t i me at Bawahi r Hal l . Nasi r had i nt r oduced hi m
t o me as hi s f r i end Adambhai f r om Shahpur .
Nashi r had sai d t hat Adambhai has come wi t h
r egar ds t o t aki ng r evenge about what has been
suf f er ed by Musl i ms dur i ng r i ot s. Dur i ng t al ks,
anot her of our f r i end named Munaf Radi at or had
al so ar r i ved. And I had asked Adam t o i nf or m
about t he mat t er .
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -161-

Adam had sai d t o us t hat hi s br ot her Rashi d
r esi des at Ri yadh Saudi Ar abi a. And Sal i m of
Dar i apur , Kankodi Pol i s wi t h hi m. And under
l eader shi p of Al t af Shei kh of Shahpur Adda,
t her e i s bi g gr oup of Musl i m yout hs f r om
Guj ar at especi al l y f r om Ahmedabad. And t hey
have suppor t of J ai sh- E- Mohammad or gani zat i on.
Those peopl e wi l l send weapons t o us, wi l l send
men, and ar e al so r eady t o send f unds. We wi l l
have t o r emai n hel pf ul i n doi ng sur vey wor k of
Hi ndu ar eas. On l i st eni ng t o such ser i ous t al k,
I had sai d t hat I wi l l have t o t al k t o my
l eader s. .
At t hat t i me, I had met wi t h Muf t i Qai yum and
Maul vi Abdul l ah near t he hal l . I had sai d t o
t hem about what Adam had sai d, and i n a way as
i f t hey al r eady knew about i t . Ther eby, t hey
r epl i ed t hat we know i t and had assi gned me t he
r esponsi bi l i t y of ar r angi ng house f or t he
guest s who woul d come f or t he wor k of t hi s
car nage, and I had agr eed. .
As Adam i nf or med about t he t al k havi ng t aken
pl ace at Saudi Ar abi a, and he havi ng i nf or med
t hat phone cal l wi l l come at Doman Nasi r s
pl ace, Muf t i Ayub and Maul vi had asked t o f our
of us t o go and di scuss at Nasi r s home. But
phone di d not come. Ther eaf t er , we and Adambhai
had depar t ed af t er deci di ng t o t al k t o Saudi
f r omopposi t e of Kal upur Rai l way. .
Af t er t wo t o t hr ee days, I and Adam had gone
t o Kal upur Dar waj a on my scoot er , and Nasi r
Doman had al so come al ong on hi s scoot er . Fr om
STD/ I SD boot h named Kohi noor Tel ecom, Adamhad
di al ed number at Saudi Ar abi a and f i r st l y he
had done al l t he t al k i n Ar abi c l anguage, and
t her eaf t er t o gi ve us assur ance, he had t al ked
i n Hi ndi l anguage and asked t o exchange
gr eet i ngs wi t h t he peopl e i nvol ved wi t h me i n
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -162-

wor k. By sayi ng t hi s, Adam handed over t he
r ecei ver t o me. I was asked f r om t he ot her
si de i n Guj ar at i , br ot her , what you need, .
Pr i or t o t hi s, Adam had asked me t o demand f or
Rs. 20 Lac f or t he wor k. Ther ef or e, on my say
t hat i t woul d t ake Rs. 20 l ac f or t he wor k, I
was asked f r omt he ot her si de t o gi ve t he phone
t o Adambhai . And Adam had done some t al k i n
Ar abi c l anguage. We coul d not under st and t he
sai d l anguage.
I n t he l ast week of May 2002, Nashi r had cal l ed
me t o hi s house by sendi ng message t hr ough
someone. And when I went , Nashi r , Adam and
Adam s br ot her Ahmed was pr esent . Adam had
gi ven me Rs. 5000/ - and had sai d t o me t hat
guest s ar e goi ng t o come and you have t o
ar r ange f or t hei r l odgi ng. And he had al so
gi ven Rs. 5000/ - t o Nashi r and he sai d t o buy
t wo mobi l e phones f r om i t and gi ve i t t o
Rehman, and had sai d t hat t he number s f or t he
same wi l l be gi ven t o t he guest s and had sai d
t hat t her eby t hey wi l l r emai n i n cont act . At
t hat t i me, I had sai d t o Adam t hat anot her Rs.
15, 000/ - wi l l be r equi r ed f or deposi t of house
and f or mat t r esses. So Adam sai d t hat i t wi l l
al so be ar r anged, and when i t was i nf or med t o
Muf t i Qai yum and Maul vi Abdul l ah at Bawahi r
Hal l about al l t hi s, at t hat t i me Muf t i Qai yum
had sai d t o me t hat ar r angement f or l odgi ng of
guest s shoul d be done, money i s ar r anged or
not . At t hat t i me, Maul vi Abdul l ah had sai d
t hat i f t her e i s much pr obl emt hen he shoul d be
i nf or med. Af t er , one week, Nashi r had gi ven t wo
mobi l e phones t o me. . Af t er t aki ng t he sai d
phone, I had gi ven i t t o Mehmood Wadhwani , and
I had sai d t o hi m t hat you shoul d onl y swi t ch
i t on when you want t o use i t , or keep i t
cont i nuousl y swi t ched of f . Thi s Mehmood
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -163-

Wadhwani i s f r om Madhno Mohal l o, Char wat ,
Dar i apur , and i s my f r i end. . .
One day at 9 or 10 o cl ock i n t he ni ght , Adam
had cal l ed me on my mobi l e phone We had col d
dr i nks over t her e and he had gi ven me Rs.
5000/ - . At t hat t i me, I had asked f or anot her
Rs. 10, 000/ - f or house and ar r angement as t he
ear l i er Rs. 5000/ - had got spent i n r i ckshaw
f ar e and SI M car d. Ther ef or e, Adam had agr eed
f or ar r angi ng anot her Rs. 10, 000/ - and t her eby
we had depar t ed. Ther eaf t er , Nashi r Doman had
come t o cal l me at Hal l and had sai d t o me t hat
Adam i s pr esent l y si t t i ng at hi s br ot her ,
Ahmed s house and i s cal l i ng you. Ther eaf t er , I
and Nashi r bot h went t o Ahmed s house by
wal ki ng and Adam had gi ven me Rs. 10, 000/ - and
had i nf or med me t hat guest s wi l l come f r om
Hyder abad t o do car nage i n Guj ar at , and had
asked me t o do ar r angement f or house and ot her
ar r angement s speedi l y, and t her ef or e, I had
agr eed and t her eby we had depar t ed.
. . And Adam had i nf or med t hat t he guest s wi l l
ar r i ve f r om Hyder abad i n one or t wo weeks. But
nobody had ar r i ved. Dur i ng J une 2002, Adam had
sai d t o me t hat your mobi l e phone f or cont act
i s swi t ched of f . Ther ef or e, t he guest s ar r i vi ng
f r om Hyder abad whi l e ar r i vi ng at Ahmedabad had
cont act ed f r om Kheda, but si nce mobi l e phone
was swi t ched of f , cont act coul d not be made and
t hus, i t seems t hat t hey have r et ur ned. . I
had i nf or med hi m t hat i f t he phone i s swi t ched
of f , I wi l l get i t swi t ched on. . .
I f el t t hat Adam must have assur ed about t he
ot her phone gi ven t o me i f i t i s swi t ched of f
or swi t ched on. And si nce t he phone was
cont i nuousl y swi t ched of f , he has made st or y
about t he guest s havi ng r et ur ned f r om Kheda,
j ust t o r epr i mand me. But I di d not come t o
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -164-

know i f t he guest s may have come up t o Kheda or
not . Af t er about a week or 10 days, Adammet me
at Dar i apur and had sai d t o me t hat t he car nage
per sons have r et ur ned back af t er comi ng t o
Bar ej a- Nar ol e as cont act coul d not be made.
Ther ef or e, t her e i s no meani ng keepi ng t he
mobi l e phone wi t h you. By havi ng sai d t hi s, he
has asked us t o r et ur n bot h t he mobi l e phones,
and t her ef or e I had r epl i ed t hat t her e i s my
car d i nser t ed i n t he mobi l e phone wi t h me and I
wi l l r et ur n i t t o you af t er I get anot her
i nst r ument f or me, and I wi l l r et ur n t he ot her
one by get t i ng i t back f r om my f r i end, so Adam
had sai d t o gi ve bot h t he mobi l e phones t o
Nashi r and t her eby he had l ef t . .
Dur i ng t hi s t i me, Li yakat of J uhapur a who had
gone out st at i on f or mar r i age cer emony had
r et ur ned, and he met me at t he cor ner of Madhno
Mohal l o at Dar i apur . He had sai d t o me t hat now
t he guest s ar e not goi ng t o come. Possessi on of
t he sai d house i s t o be handed back t o
Sohr abkhan af t er r et ur ni ng mat t r esses, bar r el s
and t abl e f ans. The r ent f or i t i s t o be pai d
by me. Af t er i nf or mi ng t hi s, t hr ee or f our days
l at er , Li yakat had sai d t o me at Madhno Mohal l o
t hat ever yt hi ng has been r et ur ned and Sohr ab
had sai d about Rs. 500/ - wi t h r egar d t o t he
r ent . Ther ef or e, I had gi ven Rs. 500/ - t o
Li yakat .
Adamused t o come ever y week f or col l ect i ng t he
money because he had gi ven me Rs. 20, 000/ - and
t wo mobi l e phones f or maki ng ar r angement s f or
t he per son t o comi ng f r om Hyder abad t o do
car nage, and f r om among t hem, one mobi l e phone
was t aken back t hr ough Nashi r and one was wi t h
me and t her ef or e, he used t o ask f or i t . I used
t o gi ve hi m Rs. 300/ - t o Rs. 500/ - . At l ast ,
dur i ng end of Sept ember , once Adam had come t o
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -165-

my shop dur i ng noon t i me and had sai d t hat t he
guest who wer e t o come f r om Hyder abad f or
doi ng car nage have ar r i ved. He sai d, I have t o
t ake t hem ar ound t he ci t y and t her ef or e, I am
i n need of mor e money. At t hat t i me, Adam had
asked f or Rs. 2000/ - f r om me, but si nce t he
sai d was not wi t h me, I was asked t o meet at
ni ght , because I had t o pay t he due amount .
Adam had come i n t he ni ght and si nce I had
ar r angement f or Rs. 900/ - , I had gi ven Rs.
900/ - t o hi m. At t hat t i me Adam had al so sai d
t o me t hat I had r ecei ved t he guest s comi ng
f r om Hyder abad at Rai l way st at i on, who have
come t o do car nage and have t aken t hem ar ound
t he ci t y and t her eaf t er have dr opped t hem at
t he r ai l way st at i on. Dur i ng t hose days, whi l e I
was passi ng f r om opposi t e of Dar i apur Bawahi r
Hal l , at t hat t i me Muf t i Abdul Qai yum and
Maul vi Abdul l ah had met and exchanged
gr eet i ngs. He had asked f or wel l bei ng and at
t hat t i me Muf t i Abdul Qai yum had i nf or med me
t hat t he per sons who wer e t o come f or car nage,
t hose guest s have ar r i ved, and God wi l l i ng,
vi ct or y wi l l be our s i n shor t t i me. Some days
ear l i er I had di sput e wi t h Maul vi Abdul l ah and
Muf t i r egar di ng di ssi mi l ar i t y of dowr y i n t he
mar r i age of r ef ugee gi r l s i n camp and si nce
t her e was no ar r angement f or di st r i but i on of
sewi ng machi nes. Ther ef or e, I had not gi ven
i nt er est i n t hei r say. Ther eaf t er , some days
l at er , whi l e I was si t t i ng at my t r ader s pl ace
at Gomaj i compl ex, Pankor naka, Tr an Dar waj a, I
got t he news t hat t er r or i st s have at t acked
Akshar dham Templ e. Ther ef or e, I got t he doubt
t hat t hi s wor k may have been done by t he
per sons who have come f r om Hyder abad t o do
car nage. Because, t hese peopl e have sai d t o me
t he per sons f or car nage have ar r i ved.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -166-

appel l ant s)

Fi nal l y, we ar e ext r act i ng t he r el evant excer pt f r om
t he st at ement made by PW- 52 ( Ex. 315) . The excer pt f r om
hi s st at ement r eads as under :
When t he r el i ef camp f or Musl i ms had st ar t ed
at Dar i apur Bawahi r Hal l , at t hat t i me Musl i m
yout hs of our ar ea used t o gat her over t her e.
Al l used t o si t and t al k. Abdul Rehman Panar a
was t he or gani zer of t he camp. Si nce he had
busi ness by name of Panar a Gar ment s, I knew
hi m. The mai n admi ni st r at or s of t he camp wer e
Muf t i Abdul Qai yum and Maul vi Abdul l ah.
Nasi r bhai Doman who used t o vi si t camp i s cabl e
oper at or of our ar ea, and I know hi m. I know
Adambhai si nce l ast el ect i on of Muni ci pal i t y
because he used t o t ake i nt er est i n pol i t i cs by
Congr ess Par t y. I knew br ot her of Adambhai
named Ahmedbhai of Dar i apur , and t her ef or e, I
st ar t ed knowi ng Adambhai .
I n t he begi nni ng of Apr i l 2002, once Adam had
cal l ed me on my mobi l e phone dur i ng noon t i me.
I had gone t o Chaar wad Bawahi r Hal l and Nasi r ,
Adam and Abdul Rehman wer e pr esent over t her e.
At t hat t i me, Adam Bhai had sai d t hat Musl i ms
have been oppr essed her e. And t her ef or e,
car nage f or t aki ng i t s r evenge i s t o be done.
He sai d t hat my br ot her Rashi d i s i n Saudi .
And Sal i m i s wi t h hi m. They have suppor t of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -167-

J ai sh- e- mohammad or gani zat i on. We wi l l seek
money f r om t her e. Those peopl e wi l l send men
and pr ovi de weapon. Sal i m has cont act wi t h
J ai sh- e- Mohammad and Tanzeem. He had sai d t hat
t hese peopl e ar e bei ng sent f or commi t t i ng
car nage ( kand) . On l i st eni ng t o t hi s, I got up
and f el t af r ai d. When I got up, Adambhai had
made me t o si t by hol di ng my hand and had
st at ed t hat we wi l l al so have t o t ake advi ce
f r ombi g per sons i n t hi s r egar d. Ther eaf t er , we
had met wi t h Muf t i Ai yub Qai yum and Maul vi
Abdul l ah at t he of f i ce out si de hal l .
Bot h of t hem had i nf or med t hat guest s wi l l
ar r i ve f or car nage. The wor k of ar r angi ng f or
t hei r house has been assi gned t o Abdul Rehman.
Adam had asked f or a l ocal phone number .
Ther ef or e, Doman Bhai had gi ven hi s house
t el ephone number .
On second t i me, I , Abdul Rehman, Nasi r Doman,
Adam had met i n pr esence of Muf t i Qai yum and
Abdul l ah at Bawahi r Hal l . At t hat t i me, Adam
had i nf or med t hat t al k has been done at Saudi ,
and number of Doman s house has been gi ven.
Ther ef or e, phone wi l l come over t her e.
Ther eaf t er , Muf t i Qai yum and Maul vi Abdul l ah
had asked t o f our of us t o go and di scuss at
Nasi r s house, so t hat t he phone cal l at
Nasi r s can be at t ended t o . But si nce no cal l
came, we had depar t ed. Ther ef or e, Rehman and
Adam had gone on Rehman s scoot er t o t al k f r om
PCO/ STD at r ai l way st at i on. And af t er
r et ur ni ng f r om Bawahi r Hal l , t hey had st at ed
t hat af t er t r yi ng t o Saudi , nobody was f ound
pr esent .
Af t er some days of i t , when I had gone t o
Dar i apur f r om Kal upur , Abdul l ahmi ya and Muf t i
Qayui m was st opped me and sai d t hat t he guest s
who wer e goi ng t o ar r i ve have ar r i ved , and you
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -168-

wi l l hear i n somet i me about t he wor k whi ch i s
t o be done. And t her ef or e, I had got af r ai d and
had l ef t , and had sai d don t say i t t o me.
Guest means t er r or i st . Af t er somet i me, I got t o
hear t he news of Akshar dham i nci dence. Pol i ce
had t aken my st at ement wi t h r egar ds t o t he
f act s ment i oned by me t oday. I was t aken t o
Gandhi nagar cour t f or st at ement . Si nce I had
not seen t he cour t , I asked t he pol i ce t o t ake
me al ong.
.
I mmedi at el y af t er Apr i l 2002 t hat i s af t er
about one mont h, I di d not r eveal t o anybody
t hat such car nage i s goi ng t o happen. I don t
have r el at i ons wi t h any pol i ce per sonnel . I
know Cr i me Br anch Of f i cer Mr . Si nghal . I came
t o know hi m when he cal l ed me f or t he f i r st
t i me f or st at ement . My f r i ends ar e i n gar age
pr of essi on. Af t er I came t o know r egar di ng
t hi s car nage, I was not af r ai d at any t i me t hat
I may be i mpl i cat ed i n t hi s car nage. Wi t ness
hi msel f st at es t hat I don t know anyt hi ng about
i t so why shoul d I be af r ai d? I was suddenl y
cal l ed at Cr i me Br anch on 6. 9. 2003. I t i s t r ue
t hat next day, on 7
t h
, my st at ement was
r ecor ded. I t i s not t r ue t hat I was kept f or
one mont h at Cr i me Br anch. I have never met any
body af t er t hi s. I had not t al ked wi t h any one
of t hem.
. .
I t i s t r ue t hat t her e was no act i vi t y i n t he
r el i ef camp at Bawahi r Hal l . I t i s t r ue t hat I
don t know anyt hi ng about i f t her e was any
dai l y not e i n r egi st er f or ent r y/ exi t i n
Bawahi r Hal l . I t i s t r ue t hat I have st at ed i n
exami nat i on i n chi ef t hat no wor k was assi gned
t o me. I t i s t r ue t hat when I was i nf or med
dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on about my st at ement
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -169-

havi ng been r ecor ded on 7. 9. 2003, at t hat t i me
I got i dea about t he dat e, mont h and year .
.
Quest i on: Had you under st ood at t he r espect i ve
t i me t hat conf essi on of t he of f ences i s bei ng
wr i t t en?
Answer : No, I have not commi t t ed any of f ence at
any t i me, t hen how such conf essi on can be
wr i t t en.
I don t r emember i f Magi st r at e Si r had asked
me t hat t he st at ement t hat wi l l be gi ven by
you, can be used agai nst you.
Quest i on: I f t he Magi st r at e si r had asked you
t hat i f pol i ce has done any mi sbehavi or wi t h
you?
Answer : No mi sbehavi or was done. Al t hough I was
asked as such.
I t i s not t r ue whol e of my r epl y ( st at ement )
was got wr i t t en bef or e Magi st r at e f r om my
st at ement and I di dn t say anyt hi ng. I had
pl aced onl y one si gnat ur e i n my st at ement ,
whi ch was r ecor ded bef or e t he Magi st r at e. I t i s
t r ue t hat I had pl aced t he si gnat ur e on t he
l ast page. I t i s not t r ue t hat I am gi vi ng
f al se deposi t i on on oat h. I t i s not t r ue t hat
t he pol i ce had wr i t t en my st at ement by
t hr eat eni ng me t o make me accused. I t i s not
t r ue t hat I am gi vi ng f al se deposi t i on even
t oday under t he t hr eat of pol i ce.
document s submi t t ed t he appel l ant s)

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -170-

93. Bef or e exami ni ng t he evi dence of t he accompl i ces
on mer i t , we need t o sat i sf y our sel ves t hat t he
evi dence of t he accompl i ces i s accept abl e. The t wi n
t est on t hi s poi nt has been l ai d down by t hi s Cour t i n
t he t hr ee j udge bench deci si on of t hi s Cour t i n
Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana
49
whi ch was
r ei t er at ed i n t he case of Mrinal Das & Ors. v. State
of Tripura
50
, wher ei n t hi s Cour t i n t he Ravinder Singh
case ( supr a) hel d as under :
12. An appr over i s a most unwor t hy f r i end, i f
at al l , and he, havi ng bar gai ned f or hi s
i mmuni t y, must pr ove hi s wor t hi ness f or
cr edi bi l i t y i n cour t . Thi s t est i s f ul f i l l ed,
f i r st l y, i f t he st or y he r el at es i nvol ves hi m
i n t he cr i me and appear s i nt r i nsi cal l y t o be a
nat ur al and pr obabl e cat al ogue of event s t hat
had t aken pl ace. The st or y i f gi ven, of mi nut e
det ai l s accor di ng wi t h r eal i t y i s l i kel y t o
save i t f r om bei ng r ej ect ed br evi manu.
Secondl y, once t hat hur dl e i s cr ossed, t he
st or y gi ven by an appr over so f ar as t he
accused on t r i al i s concer ned, must i mpl i cat e
hi m i n such a manner as t o gi ve r i se t o a
concl usi on of gui l t beyond r easonabl e doubt . I n

49
( 1975) 3 SCC 742
50
( 2011) 9 SCC 479
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -171-

a r ar e case t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on al l t he
f act or s, ci r cumst ances and si t uat i ons gover ni ng
a par t i cul ar case, convi ct i on based on t he
uncor r obor at ed evi dence of an appr over
conf i dent l y hel d t o be t r ue and r el i abl e by t he
cour t may be per mi ssi bl e. Or di nar i l y, however ,
an appr over ' s st at ement has t o be cor r obor at ed
i n mat er i al par t i cul ar s br i dgi ng cl osel y t he
di st ance bet ween t he cr i me and t he cr i mi nal .
Cer t ai n cl i nchi ng f eat ur es of i nvol vement
di scl osed by an appr over apper t ai ni ng di r ect l y
t o an accused, i f r el i abl e, by t he t ouchst one
of ot her i ndependent cr edi bl e evi dence, woul d
gi ve t he needed assur ance f or accept ance of hi s
t est i mony on whi ch a convi ct i on may be based.

A per usal of t he evi dence of al l t he t hr ee accompl i ces
i n t he pr esent case shows t hat al l of t hemi nt ended t o
absol ve t hemsel ves of t he l i abi l i t y f or t he conspi r acy
wi t h r espect t o t he at t ack on Akshar dham, goi ng as f ar
t o ment i on t hat t hey wer e not i nvol ved i n t he i nci dent
and onl y t he accused per sons knew about t he i nt r i cat e
det ai l s of t he chai n of event s t hat ul t i mat el y l ed t o
t he execut i on of t hei r pl an of car nage . Even t hen,
i f , we wer e t o pr esume t hat t he accompl i ces have
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -172-

i mpl i cat ed t hemsel ves by ment i oni ng t hat t hey wer e
awar e about some i nci dent whi ch was about t o happen
and t hus, wer e par t of t he cr i mi nal conspi r acy, t he
evi dence of t he accompl i ces f ai l t he second t est , i n
t hat i t f ai l s t o pr ove t he gui l t of t he accused
per sons beyond r easonabl e doubt . Al l t he t hr ee
accompl i ces ment i oned about t he pl an of car nage
whi ch t he accused per sons had pl anned t oget her .
However , no l i nk can be est abl i shed bet ween t he
accused per sons and t he at t ack on Akshar dhamsi nce t he
evi dence of t he accompl i ces i s f ar t oo vague and t hey
f ai l t o pr ovi de any f or m of subst ant i ve evi dence
agai nst t he accused per sons. Ther ef or e, we need t o
exami ne t he st at ement s of t he accompl i ces i n t he l i ght
of t he l egal pr i nci pl e l ai d down by t hi s Cour t i n t he
case of Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra Etc. v. K.S.
Dalipsinghji & Anr. Etc.
51
whi ch hel d as under :

51
( 1969) 3 SCC 429
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -173-

21. On t he mer i t s, we f i nd t hat t he t wo cour t s
have r ecor ded concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act .
Nor mal l y t hi s Cour t does not r e- appr ai se t he
evi dence unl ess t he f i ndi ngs ar e per ver se or
ar e vi t i at ed by any er r or of l aw or t her e i s a
gr ave mi scar r i age of j ust i ce. The cour t s bel ow
accept ed t he t est i mony of t he accompl i ce Yusuf
Mer chant . Sect i on 133 of t he Evi dence Act says:
An accompl i ce shal l be a compet ent
wi t ness agai nst an accused per son; and a
convi ct i on i s not i l l egal mer el y because
i t pr oceeds upon t he uncor r obor at ed
t est i mony of an accompl i ce.
I l l ust r at i on ( b) t o Sect i on 114 says t hat t he
Cour t may pr esume t hat an accompl i ce i s
unwor t hy of cr edi t unl ess he i s cor r obor at ed i n
mat er i al par t i cul ar s. The combi ned ef f ect of
Sect i ons 133 and 114, I l l ust r at i on ( b) i s t hat
t hough a convi ct i on based upon accompl i ce
evi dence i s l egal t he Cour t wi l l not accept
such evi dence unl ess i t i s cor r obor at ed i n
mat er i al par t i cul ar s. The cor r obor at i on must
connect t he accused wi t h t he cr i me. I t may be
di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al . I t i s not necessar y
t hat t he cor r obor at i on shoul d conf i r m al l t he
ci r cumst ances of t he cr i me. I t i s suf f i ci ent i f
t he cor r obor at i on i s i n mat er i al par t i cul ar s.
The cor r obor at i on must be f r om an i ndependent
sour ce. One accompl i ce cannot cor r obor at e
anot her , see Bhiva Doulu Patil v. State of
Maharashtra and R. v. Baskerville. I n t hi s
l i ght we shal l exami ne t he case of each
appel l ant separ at el y.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -174-

Ther ef or e, i n t he l i ght of t he case ment i oned above,
we begi n wi t h exami ni ng i n det ai l t he evi dence of PW-
50. He has st at ed i n hi s deposi t i on about wat chi ng
vi deos of r i ot s and ki l l i ng of Musl i ms i n Guj ar at i n
t he house of A- 3 at Ri yadh, whi ch act , by i t sel f does
not const i t ut e a cr i mi nal of f ence. On bei ng asked
dur i ng t he cr oss exami nat i on bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) i f t he money donat ed by t he gat her i ng i n Saudi
Ar abi a t o A- 3, was used f or r unni ng t he r el i ef camps
i n Guj ar at , he was not abl e t o answer f or what pur pose
exact l y t he money was col l ect ed. Ther ef or e, at t he
most , even i f hi s evi dence i s t aken t o be t r ue f or t he
sake of ar gument , some suspi ci on, i f at al l , can be
cast on t he i nvol vement of A- 3 i n some sor t of i l l egal
act i vi t y at t he most . But cul pabi l i t y of a per son i n
as gr i evous an of f ence as t hi s, cannot be pr emi sed on
mer e suspi ci on wi t hout knowl edge of t he nat ur e of t he
i l l egal act i vi t y.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -175-

94. Next , wi t h r espect t o PW- 51, t he evi dence i s not
r el i abl e because of t wo r easons. Fi r st l y, accor di ng t o
hi s evi dence, i t was r epor t ed t o hi m by A- 2 t hat t he
fidayeens had ar r i ved f r omHyder abad whi ch cont r adi ct s
t he cl ai m of t he pr osecut i on. Secondl y, A- 2 di d not
st at e anyt hi ng beyond t he al l eged ar r i val of t he
fidayeens whi ch cannot be connect ed t o t he event of
at t ack on Akshar dham beyond r easonabl e doubt . I t
agai n, mer el y ar ouses suspi ci on about t he i nvol vement
of A- 2 and t he passi ve appr oval of A- 4 and A- 5 i n t he
i nci dent .
Even wi t h r espect t o PW- 52, ot her t han t he f act t hat
he ment i oned about A- 2 t el l i ng hi m t hat t hey ar e
pl anni ng a car nage and t hat some guest s have
ar r i ved, no ot her det ai l was pr ovi ded by PW- 52 i n hi s
evi dence. I t i s al so per t i nent t o ment i on her e t hat
A- 6 had not been ment i oned at al l i n t he evi dence of
any of t he accompl i ces. Ther ef or e, t he t wi n t est t o
est abl i sh t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he gui l t of t he accused
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -176-

per sons based on t he evi dence of t he accompl i ces,
f ai l s mi ser abl y i n t he pr esent case.
Fur t her , on t he aspect of gui l t t o be pr oved
beyond r easonabl e doubt , i t i s per t i nent t o ment i on
t he case of Vijay Kumar Arora v. State(Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)
52
, wher ei n t he Cour t hel d as under :
16. Essent i al i ngr edi ent s t o pr ove t he gui l t of
an accused by ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ar e:
16. 1. The l aw r el at i ng t o ci r cumst ant i al
evi dence i s wel l set t l ed. I n deal i ng wi t h
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, t her e i s al ways a
danger t hat conj ect ur e or suspi ci on l i nger i ng
on mi nd may t ake pl ace of pr oof . Suspi ci on,
however , st r ong cannot be al l owed t o t ake pl ace
of pr oof and, t her ef or e, t he Cour t has t o be
wat chf ul and ensur e t hat conj ect ur es and
suspi ci on do not t ake pl ace of l egal pr oof .
However , i t i s no der ogat i on of evi dence t o say
t hat i t i s ci r cumst ant i al . Human agency may be
f aul t y i n expr essi ng pi ct ur i sat i on of act ual
i nci dent , but t he ci r cumst ances cannot f ai l .
Ther ef or e, many a t i mes i t i s apt l y sai d t hat
" men may t el l l i es, but ci r cumst ances do not " .
16. 2. I n cases wher e evi dence i s of a
ci r cumst ant i al nat ur e, t he ci r cumst ances f r om
whi ch t he concl usi on of gui l t i s t o be dr awn
shoul d, i n t he f i r st i nst ance, be f ul l y

52
( 2010) 2 SCC 353
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -177-

est abl i shed. Each f act sought t o be r el i ed upon
must be pr oved i ndi vi dual l y. However , i n
appl yi ng t hi s pr i nci pl e, a di st i nct i on must be
made bet ween f act s cal l ed pr i mar y or basi c on
t he one hand and i nf er ence of f act s t o be dr awn
f r om t hem, on t he ot her . I n r egar d t o pr oof of
pr i mar y f act s, t he cour t has t o j udge t he
evi dence and deci de whet her t hat evi dence
pr oves a par t i cul ar f act and i f t hat f act i s
pr oved, t he quest i on whet her t hat f act l eads t o
an i nf er ence of gui l t of t he accused per son
shoul d be consi der ed. I n deal i ng wi t h t hi s
aspect of t he pr obl em, t he doct r i ne of benef i t
of doubt appl i es.

95. Thus, as can be seen f r om t he above ment i oned
case, t he evi dence of t he accompl i ces at t he most ,
r ai ses suspi ci on and conj ect ur es but t he same cannot
be const r ued as l egal evi dence agai nst t he accused
per sons, r el yi ng sol el y on whi ch t hey can be
convi ct ed, as has been done by t he cour t s bel ow.
Mor eover , i t i s a set t l ed pr i nci pl e of l aw t hat t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of accompl i ces f or m a ver y
weak f or mof evi dence, t o pr ove t he cul pabi l i t y of t he
accused per sons i f t he gui l t of t he accused cannot be
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -178-

pr oved, i ndependent of t he st at ement s of t he
accompl i ces. Ther ef or e, t he same cannot be used t o
cor r obor at e t he conf essi onal st at ement s of an accused.
I nst ead, t her e shoul d be i ndependent evi dence t o
cor r obor at e t he evi dence of t he accompl i ce t o
est abl i sh t he cul pabi l i t y of t he accused. I n t hi s
r egar d, we i nt end t o r el y upon t he t hr ee J udge bench
deci si on of t hi s cour t as ear l y as 1952 whi ch st i l l
hol ds i t s f i el d. I n t he case of Kashmira Singh v.
State of Madhya Pradesh
53
, t hi s cour t hel d as under :
8. Gur ubachan' s conf essi on has pl ayed an
i mpor t ant par t i n i mpl i cat i ng t he appel l ant ,
and t he quest i on at once ar i ses, how f ar and i n
what way t he conf essi on of an accused per son
can be used agai nst a co- accused? I t i s evi dent
t hat i t i s not evi dence i n t he or di nar y sense
of t he t er m because, as t he Pr i vy Counci l say
i n Bhuboni Sahu v. The Ki ng, 76 I nd App 147 at
p. 155 : -
" I t does not i ndeed come wi t hi n t he
def i ni t i on of ' evi dence' cont ai ned i n S. 3,
t he Evi dence Act . I t i s not r equi r ed t o be
gi ven on oat h, nor i n t he pr esence of t he

53
AI R 1952 SC 159
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -179-

accused and i t cannot be t est ed by cr oss
exami nat i on. "
Thei r Lor dshi ps al so poi nt out t hat i t i s
" obvi ousl y evi dence of a ver y weak
t ype. . . . . . I t i s a much weaker t ype of
evi dence t han t he evi dence of an appr over ,
whi ch i s not subj ect t o any of t hose
i nf i r mi t i es. "
. . . .
10. Tr ansl at i ng t hese obser vat i ons i nt o
concr et e t er ms t hey come t o t hi s. The pr oper
way t o appr oach a case of t hi s ki nd i s, f i r st ,
t o mar shal t he evi dence agai nst t he accused
excl udi ng t he conf essi on al t oget her f r om
consi der at i on and see whet her , if it is
believed, a convi ct i on coul d saf el y be based on
i t . I f i t i s capabl e of bel i ef i ndependent l y of
t he conf essi on, t hen of cour se i t i s not
necessar y t o cal l t he conf essi on i n ai d. But
cases may ar i se wher e t he j udge i s not pr epar ed
t o act on t he ot her evi dence as i t st ands even
t hough, if believed, i t woul d be suf f i ci ent t o
sust ai n a convi ct i on. I n such an event t he
j udge may cal l i n ai d t he conf essi on and use i t
t o l end assur ance t o t he ot her evi dence and
t hus f or t i f y hi msel f i n bel i evi ng what wi t hout
t he ai d of t he conf essi on he woul d not be
pr epar ed t o accept .
11. Then, as r egar ds i t s use i n t he
cor r obor at i on of accompl i ces and appr over s. A
co- accused who conf esses i s nat ur al l y an
accompl i ce and t he danger of usi ng t he
t est i mony of one accompl i ce t o cor r obor at e
anot her has r epeat edl y been poi nt ed out . The
danger i s i n no way l essened when t he
" evi dence" i s not on oat h and cannot be t est ed
by cr oss- exami nat i on. Pr udence wi l l di ct at e t he
same r ul e of caut i on i n t he case of a wi t ness
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -180-

who t hough not an accompl i ce i s r egar ded by t he
j udge as havi ng no gr eat er pr obat i ve val ue. But
al l t hese ar e onl y r ul es of pr udence. So f ar as
t he l aw i s concer ned, a convi ct i on can be based
on t he uncor r obor at ed t est i mony of an
accompl i ce pr ovi ded t he j udge has t he r ul e of
caut i on, whi ch exper i ence di ct at es, i n mi nd and
gi ves r easons why he t hi nks i t woul d be saf e i n
a gi ven case t o di sr egar d i t . Two of us had
occasi on t o exami ne t hi s r ecent l y i n Rameshwar
v. The St at e of Raj ast han, Cr i . App. No. 2 of
1951 : ( AI R 1952 SC 54) . I t f ol l ows t hat t he
t est i mony of an accompl i ce can i n l aw be used
t o cor r obor at e anot her t hough i t ought not t o
be so used save i n except i onal ci r cumst ances
and f or r easons di scl osed. As t he Pr i vy Counci l
obser ve i n Bhuboni Sahu v. The Ki ng, 76 I nd.
App. 147 at p. 157 :
" The t endency i s i ncl ude t he i nnocent wi t h
t he gui l t y i s pecul i ar l y pr eval ent i n
I ndi a, as j udge have not ed on i nnumer abl e
occasi ons, and i t i s ver y di f f i cul t f or
t he cour t t o guar d agai nst t he danger . . . .
The onl y r eal saf eguar d agai nst t he r i sk
of condemni ng t he i nnocent wi t h t he gui l t y
l i es i n i nsi st i ng on i ndependent evi dence
whi ch i n some measur e i mpl i cat es such
accused. "
12. We do not doubt t hat a r i ckshaw was used
because r i ckshaw t r acks wer e di scover ed by t he
wel l l ong bef or e anybody had suggest ed t hat a
r i ckshaw had been used. But we f i nd i t
di f f i cul t t o r esi st t he i nf er ence t hat t hi s
wi t ness was an accompl i ce so f ar as t he
di sposal of t he body was concer ned.
Consequent l y, he i s i n much t he same cat egor y
so f ar as cr edi bi l i t y i s concer ned. That br i ngs
us at once t o t he r ul e t hat save in exceptional
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -181-

circumstances one accompl i ce cannot be used t o
cor r obor at e anot her ; nor can he be used t o
cor r obor at e a per son who t hough not an
accompl i ce i s no mor e r el i abl e t han one. We
have t her ef or e ei t her t o seek cor r obor at i on of
a ki nd whi ch wi l l i mpl i cat e t he appel l ant apar t
f r om t he conf essi on or f i nd st r ong r easons f or
usi ng Gur ubachan' s conf essi on f or t hat pur pose.
Of cour se agai nst Gur ubachan t her e i s no
di f f i cul t y, but agai nst t he appel l ant t he
posi t i on i s not as easy.
We wi l l t her ef or e exami ne t he r el i abi l i t y of
Gur ubachan' s conf essi on agai nst t he appel l ant .
Now t her e ar e some gl ar i ng i r r egul ar i t i es
r egar di ng t hi s conf essi on and t hough i t was
saf e f or t he Sessi ons J udge and t he Hi gh Cour t
t o act on i t as agai nst Gur ubachan because he
adher ed t o i t t hr oughout t he sessi ons t r i al
despi t e hi s pl eader ' s ef f or t s t o show t he
cont r ar y, a ver y di f f er ent posi t i on emer ges
when we come t o t he appel l ant .
The f i r st poi nt whi ch emer ges r egar di ng t hi s i s
t hat t he conf essi on was not made t i l l t he 25- 2-
1950, t hat i s t o say, not unt i l t wo mont hs
af t er t he mur der

I n t he pr esent case, t he pr osecut i on di d not make any
ef f or t t o subst ant i at e t he evi dence of t he accompl i ces
wi t h i ndependent mat er i al evi dence. Rat her , t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accompl i ces have been
used t o cor r obor at e t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -182-

accused per sons, i n t he absence of any i ndependent
evi dence.
96. But , apar t f r om al l t hese aspect s on t he
st at ement s of t he accompl i ces, we f ear t hat t he st or y
agai nst t he accused per sons and i t s cor r obor at i on
t hr ough t he st at ement s of accompl i ces i s an act of
concoct i on t o make up a case agai nst t hem. I t was
r ecor ded i n t he st at ement of PW- 126 t hat t he
i nf or mat i on r egar di ng PW- 50 was gi ven t o hi m by D. G.
Vanzar a. However , D. G. Vanzar a had not even been
exami ned i n t hi s case and t her e i s no i nf or mat i on as
t o how he came t o know about PW- 50 af t er al most a year
of t he at t ack on Akshar dham. Thi s ver y i mpor t ant
aspect of t he l apse i n i nvest i gat i on had been i gnor ed
by t he cour t s bel ow. The l ear ned seni or counsel f or
t he accused per sons have cont ended t hat t her e has been
a del ay of ar ound a year f r om t he t i me of t he at t ack
on Akshar dham i n r ecor di ng t he st at ement s of t he
accompl i ces whi ch shr ouds t he case of t he pr osecut i on.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -183-

We have t o accept t he cont ent i on of t he l ear ned seni or
counsel f or t he accused per sons i n t hi s r egar d as
t her e i s an i nor di nat e del ay i n r ecor di ng of t he
st at ement s of t he accompl i ces and t hi s cast s a gr ave
suspi ci on on t he r el i abi l i t y of t he t est i mony of t he
accompl i ces.
I t has been hel d by t hi s Cour t i n t he case of
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Swarnalatha & Ors.
54
as
under :
21. I t st ands accept ed t hat t he st at ement s of
PW3 and PW6 wer e r ecor ded onl y on 31- 1- 1998.
The i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer di d not assi gn any
r eason as t o why so much del ay was caused i n
r ecor di ng t hei r st at ement s. A panchnama i n
r egar d t o t he scene of of f ence was conduct ed.
PW 6 was admi t t edl y not pr esent at t hat t i me.
The st at ement s of PW 3 and PW 6 wer e r ecor ded
under Sect i on 164 of t he Code of Cr i mi nal
Pr ocedur e much bef or e t hei r r ecor di ng of t hei r
st at ement s under Sect i on 161 t her eof .
22. I n Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of
Maharashtra t hi s Cour t hel d:
47. Al l t he i nf i r mi t i es and f l aws poi nt ed
out by t he t r i al cour t assumed i mpor t ance, when

54
( 2009) 8 SCC 383

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -184-

consi der ed i n t he l i ght of t he al l - per vadi ng
ci r cumst ance t hat t her e was i nor di nat e del ay i n
r ecor di ng Ravj i s st at ement ( on t he basi s of
whi ch t he FI R was r egi st er ed) and f ur t her
del ay i n r ecor di ng t he st at ement s of Wel j i ,
Pr ami l a and Kuvar bai . Thi s ci r cumst ance,
l oomi ng l ar ge i n t he backgr ound, i nevi t abl y
l eads t o t he concl usi on, t hat t he pr osecut i on
st or y was concei ved and const r uct ed af t er a
good deal of del i ber at i on and del ay i n a shady
set t i ng, hi ghl y r edol ent of doubt and
suspi ci on.


Fur t her , PW- 51 on bei ng cr oss exami ned by t he counsel
f or A- 1, A- 3 and A- 5, Shr i H. N. J hal a bef or e t he
Speci al Cour t ( POTA) , st at ed t hat :
I t i s t r ue t hat I was t aken t o t he Cr i me
Br anch 60 days ear l i er when my st at ement was
t aken. I was sever el y beat en up and t her ef or e
even my t humb had got br oken. I was t ol d t hat I
as wel l as my f ami l y wi l l be t aken as accused.
I have not done anyt hi ng wr ong i n my l i f e. I
was beat en up at t he Cr i me Br anch f or 15 t o 20
days. I am comi ng j ust now f r om t he Cr i me
Br anch. I was cal l ed t oday at 9: 30 i n t he
mor ni ng and was al so cal l ed yest er day at 6: 00
p. m. I t i s t r ue t hat I was t ol d at Cr i me Br anch
t hat you have t o depose as we say or el se you
wi l l get i n t r oubl e. I t i s t r ue t hat what ever I
have st at ed i n t he exami nat i on i n chi ef , t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -185-

sai d has been st at ed by me at t he i nst ance of
t he Cr i me Br anch. The f act as st at ed by me i n
exami nat i on i n chi ef t hat Muf t i Abdul l ah and
Maul vi Abdul l ahmi ya met me af t er Godhr a
car nage, t he sai d has been f al se st at ed by me.
Pr i or t o t he t i me when I was deposi ng, I was
sai d t hat I have t o st at e bef or e t he Cour t t hat
guest s ar e goi ng t o come and t hey ar e
t er r or i st s ans t hey wer e st i l l r eadi ng over t he
sai d f act s t o me. I t i s t r ue t hat Maul ana
Abdul l ahmi ya l eads i n pr ayer i n Haj i Saki
Mosque. I t i s t r ue t hat t he f act s st at ed by me
t o have sought Rs. 20 l akhs f r om Saudi Ar abi a
on phone, t he sai d f act s ar e f al se. I t i s t r ue
t hat I have st at ed i n t he chi ef - exami nat i on
t hat when I was asked who ar e guest s, at t hat
t i me I have sai d t hat t he guest s wi l l sur vey
t he Hi ndu ar eas and wi l l do t he ki l l i ngs whi ch
ar e t o be done, t he sai d f act s have been st at ed
f al sel y. I t i s t r ue t hat I st at ed i n
exami nat i on i n chi ef t hat whi l e I was passi ng
f r om t he near t he Bawahi r Hal l , at t hat t i me
Maul ana Abdul l ahmi ya and Muf t i Abdul Qai yummet
me, had exchanged gr eet i ngs and t hey al so sai d
t hat t he guest s have ar r i ved and God wi l l i ng i n
some days vi ct or y wi l l be our s, t he sai d f act s
have been st at ed by me f al sel y

document s submi t t ed on behal f of t he appel l ant s)

Al so on cr oss exami nat i on by Adv. Shr i R. K. Shah f or
A- 2 and A- 4, PW- 51 sai d:
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -186-

. I t i s t r ue t hat ar ound 700 peopl e l i ved
i n t he sai d camp. I don t know i f except f or
me, many ot her wor ker s wer e t aken by t he
Cr i me Br anch per sonnel and t her e wer e pr ot est
i n t hi s r egar d. The wi t ness st at es t hat
Khal i d Shei kh was t aken f r om our pl ace. The
wi t ness hi msel f st at es t hat I was kept bl i nd
f ol ded ( by t yi ng st r i p on eyes) and
t her ef or e, I don t know. I was quest i oned
about i dent i f i cat i on of accused no. 2 and 5.
I do not know af t er how many days t hese
accused per sons wer e br ought when I was t aken
by t he Cr i me Br anch per sonnel because I coul d
not make out about dat es and days. I t i s t r ue
t hat I was r el eased af t er t wo mont hs by t he
cr i me br anch and r emand of t he accused had
compl et ed pr i or t o t he t i me when I was
r el eased. I t i s t r ue t hat when I was t aken t o
t he magi st r at e, I was t ol d t hat t hi s
conf essi on coul d be used agai nst me i n t he
Cour t . . I t i s t r ue t hat t he st at ement wr i t t en
by t he Magi st r at e Si r was wr i t t en f r om t he
st at ement at Cr i me Br anch.

appel l ant s)

Dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on by t he Speci al Publ i c
Pr osecut or , Shr i H. M. Dhr uva, he st at ed t hus:
I was t aken t o Cr i me Br anch i n sevent h or
Ei ght h mont h of t he year 2003. I was conf i ned
cont i nuousl y f or t wo mont hs and was not
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -187-

al l owed t o go anywher e. Appl i cat i on was not
submi t t ed by any of my r el at i ve i n t hi s
r egar ds. My r el at i ve had not f i l ed any case
wi t h r egar ds t o my wr ongf ul conf i nement nor
was any appl i cat i on f i l ed. Af t er I got
r el eased 2 mont hs l at er , I have not submi t t ed
any appl i cat i on anywher e. I was quest i oned
wi t h r egar d t o t he case. The wi t ness hi msel f
st at es t hat quest i oni ng was done j ust wi t h
r egar ds t o t he camp. Wi t h r egar ds t o al l t he
ot her f act s, onl y wr i t t en st at ement s wer e
gi ven. I t i s t r ue t hat I was t aken t o t he
Magi st r at e Si r r egar di ng what I know about
t hi s st at ement . I t i s not t r ue t hat t he
Magi st r at e had asked any quest i on t o me and I
had r epl i ed t o t he Si r . I t i s t r ue t hat I di d
st at e t he f act t o t he magi st r at e t hat I was
conf i ned f or t wo mont hs and was beat en up.
The wi t ness hi msel f st at es t hat I was t ol d
not t o say i t . I t i s t r ue t hat f r om t he t i me
I was r el eased f r omCr i me Br anch and t i l l t he
t i me when I came t o gi ve t hi s deposi t i on, I
have not submi t t ed any appl i cat i on i n t hi s
r egar ds, nor have I made any compl ai nt .
. I t i s t r ue t hat I di d not gi ve any wr i t t en
or or al compl ai nt on t he l ast cour t dat e wi t h
r egar ds t o havi ng been conf i ned f or 60 days
and havi ng been t hr eat ened by t he Cr i me
Br anch. I t i s t r ue t hat I am st at i ng t hese
f act s f or t he f i r st t i me af t er my deposi t i on
on t he l ast dat e 15. 7. 2005. I t i s t r ue t hat I
went t o Cr i me Br anch af t er I had deposed on
t he l ast occasi on, and t her eaf t er I had gone
t o my house. . . The wi t ness hi msel f st at es
t hat I made dai l y phone cal l s t o Cr i me
Br anch. . Cr i me Br anch of f i cer used t o
i nvest i gat e i f I amt hr eat ened by anybody. I t
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -188-

i s not t r ue t hat when I went even t oday, I
was quest i oned i f anybody has t hr eat ened me.

I t i s not t r ue t hat I am gi vi ng such
deposi t i on si nce I have r ecei ved t hr eat s f r om
t he accused per sons. I t i s not t r ue t hat I
r ecei ved such t hr eat s af t er I deposed on t he
l ast cour t dat e.


appel l ant s)

The st at ement made by PW- 51 dur i ng t he cr oss
exami nat i on al ong wi t h t he l egal pr i nci pl e l ai d down
by t hi s Cour t l eads us t o t he concl usi on t hat t her e
was a ser i ous at t empt on t he par t of t he i nvest i gat i ng
agency t o f abr i cat e a case agai nst t he accused per sons
and f r ame t hemwi t h t he hel p of t he st at ement s of t he
accompl i ces, si nce t hey had not been abl e t o sol ve t he
case even af t er al most a year of t he i nci dence.
97. Ther ef or e, we hol d t hat t he evi dence of t he
accompl i ces cannot be used t o cor r obor at e t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons i n t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -189-

absence of i ndependent evi dence and t he del ay of mor e
t han one year i n r ecor di ng t hei r st at ement s causes us
t o di sr egar d t hei r evi dence. Ther ef or e, we answer t hi s
poi nt i n f avour of t he appel l ant s.

Answer to point no. 4
98. The t wo Ur du l et t er s wer e ment i oned f or t he f i r st
t i me i n t he l i st of Muddammal ar t i cl es ( Ex. 524)
col l ect ed f r om t he fidayeens by Maj or Lamba ( PW- 91)
and handed over t o PW- 126 by Panchnama dr awn up f or
t he same( Ex. 440) . I n t he same, t he ment i on of t he t wo
Ur du l et t er s comes as under :
( 7) . Two whi t e paper s upon t he same some
wr i t i ng have been made i n Ur du l anguage
est i mat ed pr i ce of t he same can be assumed at
Rs. 0. 00

Fur t her , t he r ecei pt voucher of ar t i cl es r ecover ed
f r om t he body of t he fidayeens and handed over t o t he
I . O. by PW- 91 ( Ex. 524) mer el y makes a ment i on of
handwr i t t en l et t er s i n Ur du .
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -190-

PW- 91, i n hi s deposi t i on bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) ( Ex. 522) , had made t he f ol l owi ng st at ement :
Ther eaf t er , we had car r i ed out sear ch of
ent i r e ar ea of Akshar dham and al l expl osi ves
t hose wer e not expl oded, we had dest r oyed al l
of t hemat t he same pl ace. Ther eaf t er , I handed
over t wo dead bodi es, t wo AK 47/ 56 Ri f l es,
chocol at es, one l i ve hand gr enade, t wo chi t s
f ound f r om dead body, and ot her ar t i cl es by
pr epar i ng i t s separ at e l i st t o D. S. P. Shr i G. L.
Si nghal .
I amshown t he ar t i cl es of l i st Exhi bi t 524.
I am shown bot h t he l et t er s wr i t t en i n Ur du
l anguage Mar k- P. Af t er seei ng t hat I say t hat
t he same wer e f ound f r om pocket of cl ot h on
body of t hose per sons. One l et t er was f ound
f r omeach bot h of t hem, and at backsi de par t of
t he l et t er si gnat ur e has been made by For ce
Command Br i gadi er Raj si t apat i , and I i dent i f y
hi s si gnat ur e. I was knowi ng hi m f or one year
of i nci dent and I was ser vi ng wi t h hi m,
t her ef or e I i dent i f y hi s si gnat ur e. I was
commander of t ask f or ce and Br i gadi er Si t apat i
was as For ce Commander . One maul vi was cal l ed
i n pr esence of us bot h and ot her per sons, who
was conver sant wi t h t he Ur du l anguage. The
l et t er s whi ch wer e obt ai ned by me f r om pocket
of cl ot h put on by t er r or i st s, he had done
t r ansl at i on of i t s wr i t i ng, wher ei n as per my
memor y such f act was wr i t t en t hat , t hi s at t ack
was by way of r epl y t o t he communal r i ot s t ook
pl ace i n Guj ar at st at e, wher ei n bot h t er r or i st s
wer e of At ok r egi on of Paki st an. I am shown
muddamal . Af t er seei ng t hat , I say t hat , t hi s
i s t he same muddamal , as had been handed over
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -191-

t o Guj ar at pol i ce by me af t er pr epar i ng l i st
t her eof .
appel l ant s)

Fur t her , dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on by t he counsel on
behal f of t he accused per sons, PW- 91 deposed t hat :
At t he t i me of sei zi ng t he ar t i cl es whi chever
wer e f ound as ar t i cl es whi ch ever f ound f r om
t he bodi es of bot h t he t er r or i st s, f r om t hei r
pocket s and Rucksack I was cont i nuousl y
pr esent t her e. I don t r emember t hat by whi ch
of my ar my man t hese ar t i cl es had been
obt ai ned. I t i s not t r ue t hat I cannot say as
t o whi ch of t he ar my man had t aken out whi ch
of t he ar t i cl es and f r om wher e t aken out . I
don t r emember name of J awan who had pr epar ed
l i st of Exhi bi t 524, but l i st was pr epar ed i n
my pr esence. I t i s t r ue t hat no si gnat ur e of
concer ned J awan has been obt ai ned on Exhi bi t
524.
. . Bot h t he t wo chi t s, whi ch I st at e t o have
been f ound, wer e f ound f r om pocket of pant of
t er r or i st s. The sear ch of bot h of t hem was
car r i ed out by one J uni or Commi ssi oned Of f i cer
and t wo J awans, wher ei n J uni or Commi ssi oned
Of f i cer was car r yi ng out sear ch and bot h t he
j awans wer e col l ect i ng t he ar t i cl es f ound.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -192-

On suggest i ng me t o gi ve name of any j uni or
Commi ssi oned Of f i cer , I st at e he was Subedar
Sur esh Yadav. He was expi r ed at t hat t i me. I
handed over al l t hose ar t i cl es and dead bodi es
t o t he pol i ce. I handed over t he same i n
Akshar dham t empl e i t sel f . They wer e checki ng
as per l i st of Exhi bi t 524 and t hey had
pr epar ed voucher t her eof and i n t hat manner
t hey had sei zed t he ar t i cl es. The Maul vi was
cal l ed i n Akshar dham t empl e i t sel f . He came
dur i ng per i od of 8: 00 AM t o 9: 00 AM. I don t
r emember cer t ai n t i me. I cannot gi ve hi s name.
Hi s si gnat ur e i s not obt ai ned at any pl ace.
When we had sei zed t he ar t i cl es of Exhi bi t 524
f r om t he t er r or i st s, at t hat t i me no pol i ce
of f i cer s wer e pr esent , because, t hat pr emi ses
was i n our possessi on. I don t know as t o
wher e Shr i Si nghal kept al l t hose i t ems af t er
I handed over t o hi m. I don t know t he Ur du
l anguage. I t i s t r ue t hat f or showi ng t hat
bot h t hese chi t s wer e sei zed by us, t her e i s
no ot her evi dence wi t h me t o show except t he
si gnat ur e of Br i gadi er Si t apat i . I t i s t r ue
t hat t her e i s no dat e t her ei n. I t i s not t he
same as wer e sei zed at t he r el evant t i me.
Wi t ness wi l l i ngl y st at es t hat , t hese ar e t hese
chi t s, whi ch had been sei zed f r om t he dead
body by me. I t i s not t r ue t hat , Br i gadi er
Si t apat i has not made any si gnat ur e i n my
pr esence.
appel l ant s)

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -193-

The l ear ned seni or counsel on behal f of t he accused
per sons had expr essed st r ong suspi ci on as t o whet her
t he l et t er s pr oduced bef or e t he cour t as Ex. 658 wer e
t he same l et t er s whi ch wer e f ound f r om t he pocket of
t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens. Whi l e maki ng t he above
cont ent i on, t he l ear ned seni or counsel on behal f of
t he accused per sons pl aced r el i ance upon t he FI R
r egi st er ed under Sect i on 154 Cr PC by PW- 126 on
25. 09. 2002 ( Ex. 680) . The FI R ment i oned about t he
sei zur e of some ar t i cl es f r om t he body of t he
fidayeens whi ch wer e ment i oned i n t he l i st handed over
by PW- 91 t o PW- 126. I t was i mper at i ve t her ef or e, on
t he par t of t he pr osecut i on t o ensur e t hat Br i gadi er
Si t apat i was r equi r ed t o be exami ned bef or e t he Cour t
so as t o pr ove t hat he si gned on t he l et t er s mar ked as
Ex. 658 and t hey wer e t he same l et t er s r ecover ed by
Maj . J aydeep Lamba ( PW- 91) f r om t he bodi es of t he
fidayeens. Ot her wi se, t he absence of such evi dence
adver sel y af f ect s t he case of t he pr osecut i on.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -194-

However , t he st at ement of PW- 91 under Sect i on 161 Cr PC
was not r ecor ded. The necessar y i mpl i cat i on of t hi s i s
t hat he coul d not have been pr esent ed as a char gesheet
wi t ness, as hi s evi dence i s r ecor ded f or t he f i r st
t i me bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) . and hi s
st at ement under Sect i on 161 Cr PC was not t aken by t he
I . O. However , Br i gadi er Si t apat i , who i s t he most
i mpor t ant wi t ness f or pr ovi ng t he r ecover y of t he
al l eged l et t er s f r om t he pocket s of t he t r ouser s of
t he fidayeens, was not exami ned ei t her under Sect i on
161 or bef or e t he Cour t .
99. I t i s a set t l ed posi t i on of l aw i n t he cr i mi nal
j ur i spr udence t hat a wi t ness, whose evi dence i s pl aced
r el i ance upon by t he Cour t , has t o be exami ned and
quest i oned dur i ng t he cour se of i nvest i gat i on by t he
pol i ce and hi s name has t o appear i n t he char gesheet
so t hat t he accused get s a f ai r chance t o cr oss
exami ne such wi t ness. I t was hel d i n t he case of Ram
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -195-

Lakhan Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
55
as
under :

37. I t i s t r ue t hat no enmi t y or gr udge i s
suggest ed agai nst t hi s wi t ness, but we f i nd
t hat t hi s wi t ness was not even exami ned by t he
pol i ce nor was he ci t ed i n t he char gesheet . I n
a gr ave char ge l i ke t he pr esent , i t wi l l not be
pr oper t o pl ace r el i ance on a wi t ness who never
f i gur ed dur i ng t he i nvest i gat i on and was not
named i n t he char gesheet . The accused who ar e
ent i t l ed t o know hi s ear l i er ver si on t o t he
pol i ce ar e nat ur al l y depr i ved of an oppor t uni t y
of ef f ect i ve cr oss- exami nat i on and i t wi l l be
di f f i cul t t o gi ve any cr edence t o a st at ement
whi ch was gi ven f or t he f i r st t i me i n cour t
af t er about a year of t he occur r ence. We
cannot , t her ef or e, agr ee t hat t he Hi gh Cour t
was r i ght i n accept i ng t he evi dence of t hi s
wi t ness as l endi ng assur ance t o t he t est i mony
of ot her wi t nesses on t he basi s of whi ch al one
per haps t he Hi gh Cour t f el t unsaf e t o convi ct
t he accused.

The l egal pr i nci pl e l ai d down by t hi s Cour t i n t he
af or ement i oned case r ender s t he case of t he
pr osecut i on wi t h r espect t o t he r ecover y of t he
al l eged l et t er s f r omt he dead bodi es of t he fidayeens,

55
( 1977) 3 SCC 268
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -196-

f at al . We however , i nt end t o f ur t her exami ne t he
cont ent s of t he l et t er s ( Ex. 658) t o det er mi ne i f t hey
ar e t he same l et t er s whi ch wer e al l eged t o be
r ecover ed f r om t he pocket s of t he t r ouser s of t he
fidayeens. I t i s per t i nent her e t o exami ne t he
deposi t i on of PW- 121( Ex. 657) , t he t r ansl at or of t he
Ur du l et t er s bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) . The
t r ansl at i on of hi s st at ement f r omGuj ar at i t o Engl i sh,
as per t he document s submi t t ed on behal f of t he
accused per sons, r eads as under :
I know Ur du, Ar abi c and Per si an l anguages. I
have st udi ed al l t hese l anguages by l i vi ng at
Bi har , U. P and Ahmedabad. The sai d degr ee i s
cal l ed Aal i m.
Af t er t hr ee days of Akshar dham i nci dence, DSP
Shr i B. D Waghel a had gi ven news t o me at
Pet l ad, and I had r ecei ved news at my vi l l age
Bi snol i f r om Pet l ad, I had come t o t he of f i ce
of L. C. B at Gandhi nagar as I had r ecei ved t he
news. I was sai d t hat , si r ( bapu) , t r ansl at e
t he t wo paper s whi ch we t ake out f r om t he
cover . I had r ead bot h t he paper s whi ch wer e
wr i t t en i n Ar abi c l anguage, and t her eaf t er had
t r ansl at ed t he same t o Guj r at i f r om Ur du. That
was wr i t t en by wr i t er of Tol i a Si r . I was
speaki ng and he was wr i t i ng. Pol i ce had t aken
my st at ement on t he same day on whi ch I had
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -197-

t r ansl at ed. On showi ng me l et t er s of Mar k- P and
Mar k- F/ 1 wr i t t en i n Guj ar at i scr i pt , I st at e
t hat t he sai d i s not same whi ch was r ead by me
on t he r el evant day and i t i s not t he same
whi ch was gi ven t o me t o r ead. He was wr i t i ng
what ever was spoken by me, and at pr esent on
r eadi ng t he same, I st at e t hat t hi s wr i t i ng i s
same whi ch has been wr i t t en as spoken by me.
appel l ant s)

Dur i ng t he cr oss exami nat i on bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) by t he l ear ned counsel f or A- 2 and A- 4, i t was
st at ed by hi mas under :
No cer t i f i cat e was t aken f r om me f or t he
t r ansl at i on done by me, so t hat t her e i s
wr i t i ng t hat t he sai d t r ansl at i on was done by
me.
Ther e i s no ot her wr i t t en base t hat t he sai d
t r ansl at i on was done by me. I don t know t he
name of t he per son who had wr i t t en t he
t r ansl at i on. Tr ansl at i on was not wr i t t en by
Tol i a si r . I t i s not t r ue t hat Tol i a si r had
wr i t t en t he t r ansl at i on of bot h t he l et t er s. I t
i s t r ue t hat t he l et t er s whi ch wer e t r ansl at ed
by me on t hat day wer e not seen by me
t her eaf t er t i l l t oday. I t i s not t r ue t hat t he
sai d l et t er s wer e not t her e at t he r espect i ve
t i me.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -198-

I t i s not t r ue t hat I have not done any
t r ansl at i on. I t i s not t r ue t hat I don t know
di f f er ence bet ween Ar abi c and Ur du l anguage.
Ther e ar e si mi l ar wr i t i ngs i n bot h t he paper s,
but as per my opi ni on t he wr i t er i s not t he
same, wr i t er has changed.

appel l ant s)

The st at ement of PW- 121 as per t he document s submi t t ed
on behal f of t he pr osecut i on, t o t he ext ent of
cont r adi ct i on, r eads as under :
I was t ol d t o r ead t wo l et t er s f r om an
envel ope and t o t r ansl at e t hem. I r ead bot h t he
l et t er s whi ch wer e i n Ar abi c l anguage, t hen
ent i r e mat t er was i n Ur du l anguage. I
t r ansl at ed Ar abi c l anguage t o Ur du l anguage
i nt o Guj ar at i l anguage. Ther e was a wr i t er
appoi nt ed by Shr i Tol i a. I st at ed and he t yped
t hem. My st at ement was t aken by t he pol i ce on
t he day I di d t he t r ansl at i on.

Guj ar at )

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -199-

100. We ar e t her ef or e, not i ncl i ned t o accept any of
t he cont r adi ct or y ver si ons of ei t her of t he par t i es.
I t i s per t i nent t o ment i on her e t hat t he poor
t r ansl at i on of t he document s f r omGuj ar at i l anguage t o
Engl i sh submi t t ed by bot h t he par t i es have maj or l y
i nconveni enced us. Ther ef or e, i nst ead of r el yi ng on
ei t her of t he ver si ons, par t i cul ar l y t he aspect of t he
st at ement of t he t r ansl at or , si nce t he same has been
maj or l y cont est ed bef or e us, we i nt end t o cl osel y
consi der t he ot her r el evant evi dence on t hi s aspect
whi ch i s br ought t o our not i ce. The excer pt s of t he
t r ansl at i on of l et t er mar ked as Ex. 775 r ead as under :
Tehr i k- e- Kassas, Guj ar at Hi nd.
. .
Now each young boy of Tehr eek- e- kassas wi l l
t ake r evenge of t he Musl i ms.
Musl i ms of Guj ar at come and by j oi ni ng st eps

wi t h young boys of Tehr i k- e- Kassas, we shoul d
r ebui l d our mosques and t ake r evenge of
ki l l i ngs of Musl i ms.
.
Al l ah may gi ve us gui dance t o poi nt t r ue pat h
f or Musl i ms and may keep al i ve Tehr i k- e- Kassas
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -200-

t i l l t he t i me r evenge of each one ki l l ed i s not
t aken.
Fr om: Real Repr esent at i ves of Gr oup of Musl i ms

of Guj ar at
Tehr i k- e- Kassas, Guj ar at .
Sd/ - V. S. M.
PMG Raj Seet hapat hi

appel l ant s)

The cont ent s of t he l et t er nowher e ment i on t he name of
t he pl ace At ok i n Paki st an f r om wher e t he fidayeens
had al l egedl y come, as had been ment i oned by PW- 91 i n
hi s deposi t i on bef or e t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) .
101. Fur t her , t he st at ement of PW- 105, Pr akash
Chandr a Mehr a ( Ex. 592) , Pol i ce I nspect or of Gandhi
Nagar onl y r ai ses our doubt s f ur t her . PW- 105 st at ed as
under :
. Dur i ng t hi s t i me, NSG Maj or J oydeep Lamba
had pr oduced a l i st bef or e me and bef or e
di vi si onal of f i cer Shr i Si nghal , by whi ch he
had handed over t he ar t i cl es r ecover ed f r omt he
dead bodi es, l i ke weapons, ammuni t i ons, cash as
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -201-

wel l as paper s wr i t t en i n Ur du and edi bl e i t ems
et c, and t he sai d wer e sei zed by me by cal l i ng
panchas and i n pr esence of panchas as per
i nst r uct i on of Mr . Si nghal . Dur i ng quest i oni ng,
Maj or Lamba Si r had st at ed t hat t he Ur du paper s
wer e r ecover ed f r omt he r i ght pocket of pant of
deceased per sons. The sai d panchnama i s by
exhi bi t - 440, and i t bei ng shown t o me, and on
seei ng t he same, I st at e t hat t he panchas have
si gned t her ei n bef or e me, and i t has my
si gnat ur e as bef or e me, and f act s wr i t t en
t her ei n ar e t r ue. I ambei ng shown l i st of Exh-
524, t he sai d i s t he l i st gi ven by Maj or Lamba
and i t has my si gnat ur e.

appel l ant s)

Dur i ng t he cr oss exami nat i on, he f ur t her st at ed t hat :
I was t he ver y f i r st of f i cer t o r each
Akshar dham. At pr esent I cannot say whet her S. P
Br ahmbhat t and Dy Shr i Si nghal wer e pr esent
t her e bef or e I had r eached over t her e or not ,
but I had seen t hem at t hat pl ace. Af t er I had
r eached at t he si t e, I i mmedi at el y came t o know
t hat cogni zabl e of f ence has been commi t t ed. I t
i s t r ue t hat t he t wo dead bodi es whi ch I had
seen, al l of t hei r cl ot hs wer e st ai ned wi t h
bl ood, I had quest i oned Maj or Lamba, but I had
not r ecor ded hi s st at ement .
I t i s t r ue t hat i t has happened t hat t he sei zed
paper s wer e not kept i n seal ed cover s. I t i s
t r ue t hat t her e i s no descr i pt i on of t he sai d
paper s i n panchnama except f or t he descr i pt i on
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -202-

t hat t he sai d paper s wer e wr i t t en i n Ur du
l anguage. I t has not happened t hat t he sai d
paper s wer e sei zed by any ot her of f i cer bef or e
me.
I t i s t r ue t hat panchnama of dead bodi es of t wo
t er r or i st s whi ch I st at ed t o have been done,
i t s vi deogr aphy was done. I pr esent l y don t
r emember as t o who had done t he sai d
vi deogr aphy. Af t er get t i ng t he vi deogr aphy
done, I have not r ecei ved i t casset t es or CD,
because i mmedi at el y t her eaf t er i nvest i gat i on
was handed over t o anot her of f i cer . I t i s t r ue
t hat my st at ement whi ch i s r ecor ded by P. S. I
Shr i Padher i ya has no cl ear ment i on about Ur du
paper s.
The or der t o hand over t he i nvest i gat i on t o
Shr i Tol i a was not of Shr i Si nghal , but of Shr i
Br ahmbhat t .

appel l ant s)

He f ur t her st at ed dur i ng t he exami nat i on by t he J udge
of t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) :
I am bei ng shown si gnat ur e of Br i g. Raj
Si t apat i f r om t he t i me when bot h t he paper s
of Mar k- P wer e pr oduced bef or e me, I don t
r emember about t he same pr esent l y and I
cannot i dent i f y t he sai d si gnat ur e. I t has
not happened t hat any Maul vi ( Musl i m pr i est )
was cal l ed bef or e me, and t he sai d paper s
wer e got t r ansl at ed.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -203-

document s submi t t ed on behal f of t he appel l ant s)

He al so st at ed dur i ng t he cr oss exami nat i on by t he
l ear ned counsel f or A- 2 and A- 4:
I have not r ecor ded any st at ement of Br i g. Raj
Si t apat i dur i ng my i nvest i gat i on, nor have I
met wi t h hi m.

appel l ant s)

I f t he st at ement of PW- 105 i s t aken i nt o
consi der at i on, i t woul d mean t hat no si gnat ur e was
made on t he back of t he l et t er s, and t hat t he l et t er s
sei zed wer e not kept i n seal ed cover s whi ch i ncr eased
t he chance of l et t er s bei ng r epl aced subsequent l y. I t
i s al so on r ecor d t hat t he phot ogr apher and t he
vi deogr apher who had r ecor ded t he scene of of f ence as
per t he i nst r uct i on of PW- 126 had not been exami ned.
102. Fur t her , t he post mor t em r epor t of t he fidayeens
( Ex. 492) st at ed t hat al l t hei r cl ot hes wer e st ai ned
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -204-

wi t h bl ood and mud and al l cl ot hes bor e mul t i pl e
t ear s and hol es due t o per f or at i on by bul l et s. I n
such a case, t he f act t hat t he l et t er s r emai ned cl ean,
wi t hout any t ear , soi l i ng or st ai ns of bl ood and soi l
i s hi ghl y unnat ur al and i mpr obabl e.
103. Ther ef or e, we cannot accept t he r ecor di ng of t he
Hi gh Cour t t hat t he secr et behi nd t he cr ease- f r ee
unsoi l ed and unst ai ned l et t er l i es i n t he di vi ne
phi l osophy of Tr ut h i s st r anger t han f i ct i on f or
t hi s r enowned epi t het by t he aut hor Mar k Twai n comes
wi t h a caveat t hat says, Tr ut h i s st r anger t han
f i ct i on. Fi ct i on must make sense. We accor di ngl y
accept t he cont ent i ons of t he l ear ned seni or counsel
on behal f of t he accused per sons and hol d t hat t he t wo
l et t er s mar ked as Ex. 658 cannot be t aken as evi dence
i n or der t o i mpl i cat e t he accused per sons i n t hi s
cr i me. Hence, we answer t hi s poi nt i n f avour of t he
appel l ant s.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -205-

104. The l ear ned seni or counsel on behal f of t he
pr osecut i on, Mr . Ranj i t Kumar cont ended t hat t he t wo
Ur du l et t er s al l egedl y r ecover ed f r om t he pocket s of
t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens had been wr i t t en by A- 4,
as he had admi t t ed t he same i n hi s conf essi onal
st at ement as under :
. . On t he next day ni ght Ai yub came at my
of f i ce and he st at ed t hat per sons come by
t aki ng goods ( ar ms) . Tomor r ow t hey t hr ee wi l l
come her e at t he t i me of noon s pr ayer her e, at
t hat t i me I and bot h f i dayi ns wi l l have t o go
t o Akshar dham separ at el y, t her f or e Adam be
cal l ed at noon t i me bef or e J ohar s pr ayer wi t h
r i ckshaw t o t ake me, and keep r eady by wr i t i ng
t wo chi t s i n Ur du t o t he ef f ect t hat t hi s
massacr e i s commi t t ed as a r evenge of t or t ur e
beyond l i mi t commi t t ed on Musl i ms, and as
wr i t er of t hat chi t name of gr oup t aki ng
r evenge on Guj ar at i . e. t ehr i k- e- qi sas
Guj ar at be wr i t t en
On t hat ni ght at l at e hour s, i n my of f i ce of
Zankar sound by cl osi ng shut t er , I and Maul vi
Abdul l a made di scussi on and I wr ot e t wo chi t s
i n Ur du i n my handwr i t i ng wher ei n we wr ot e t hat
vi ol ence on Musl i ms i n Guj ar at due t o whi ch
f eel i ng of r evenge i s spr ead i n Musl i ms, now
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -206-

bl ood of Hi ndus, pol i ce wi l l come out and now
Shi v Sena, VHP and t empl e wi l l be bur nt and due
t o t hat Musl i ms wi l l get r el i ef and cal l ed upon
al l Musl i ms t o t ake r evenge by shaki ng
shoul der s, and i f you want t o l i ve, l i ve wi t h
pr i de and i f you want t o di e, t hen di e wi t h
pr i de. Thi s gi f t of massacr e i s f or Advani and
Modi . by sayi ng t o gi ve bot h t hese chi t s and
pen t o f i dayi ns on next day, I had gi ven i t t o
Maul vi Abdul l ah
we per f or med t wo r akat f azal namaz, and as I
cal l ed upon bot h f i dayi ns t o st at e t hei r r eal
names t o make pr ayer f or success of massacr e,
t hei r saf et y and i f t hey ar e di ed t hen t hey ar e
goi ng t o heaven, doct or - 2 st at ed hi s r eal name
as Haf i z Yasi r r es. Lahor e, Paki st an and
Doct or - 3 ( Ashr af ) st at ed hi s r eal name as
Mohammed Far uk r esi dence Raval pi ndi , Paki st an
and f or t hei r pr ayer we al l f i ve per sons
per f or med t wo r akat naf al namaz and gave hug t o
each ot her . At t hat t i me Maul vi Abdul l ah had
gi ven one chi t each t o t he f i dayi n wr i t t en by
me i n Ur du yest er day as per my i nst r uct i on and
i f i n f ut ur e chi t s ar e caught t o show t hat
chi t s ar e wr i t t en by f i dayi ns he had al so gi ven
t hempen.
Dur i ng t hi s i n t he encount er wi t h ar med f or ces,
t hey bot h t er r or i st s ar e al so ki l l ed and one
chi t each havi ng one ki nd of ur du wr i t i ng have
been f ound f r om pocket s of bot h. I had seen
phot ogr aphs of t hose chi t s and phot ogr aphs of
bot h t he t er r or i st s ki l l ed af t er war ds i n T. V
and newspaper s. I i dent i f i ed t hat t hose chi t s
ar e same whi ch I and Maul vi Abdul l ah made
di scussi on and bot h t er r or i st s who di ed wer e
doct or - 1 and doct or - 2.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -207-

Guj ar at )

Ther ef or e, by pl aci ng r el i ance upon t he conf essi onal
st at ement of A- 4, r ead wi t h t he cont ent s of t he
l et t er s ment i oned above and t he opi ni on of t he hand
wr i t i ng exper t , J agdi sh Bhai ( PW- 89) t he l ear ned counsel
on behal f of t he pr osecut i on cont ended t hat t he
al l eged l et t er s had been wr i t t en by A- 4.
105. The l ear ned counsel f or t he accused per sons have
cont ended t hat t he st at ement under Sect i on 161 of t he
Cr PC, of t he key wi t ness PW- 91, Maj . J aydeep Lamba was
not r ecor ded. We have t o accept t hi s cont ent i on as t he
i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer s have conveni ent l y omi t t ed t o
r ecor d t he st at ement s of wi t nesses whi ch coul d have
est abl i shed beyond r easonabl e doubt t hat t he l et t er s
wer e t he same ones as di scover ed f r om t he si t e of
of f ence. They t i ed A- 4 t o t he l et t er s mer el y based on
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -208-

hi s conf essi onal st at ement wher eas t he opi ni ons of t he
hand wr i t i ng exper t s ar e mer el y i ndi cat i ve and not
concl usi ve beyond r easonabl e doubt . We begi n wi t h t he
comment made by t he t r ansl at or of t he Ur du l et t er s
( PW- 121: Ex. 657) who had cat egor i cal l y st at ed t hat :
The mat t er i n bot h t he l et t er s was same but
t he per sons who wr ot e i t ar e not t he same as
per my opi ni on.

appel l ant s)

But consi der i ng t he f act t hat he was not a hand
wr i t i ng exper t , we shal l r ef er t o t he st at ement of t he
evi dence of t he hand wr i t i ng exper t , J agdi sh Bhai ( PW-
89: Ex. 507) who had assi gned t he f ol l owi ng r easons f or
r ecor di ng hi s f i ndi ng i n hi s r epor t t hat t he hand
wr i t i ng of A- 4 mat ches wi t h t he l et t er s al l egedl y
f ound f r om t he pocket s of t he t r ouser s of t he
fidayeens:

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -209-

Pi ct or i al appear ance of al l t he di sput ed
speci men and nat ur al wr i t i ngs ar e si mi l ar .
Al l t hese wr i t i ngs ar e wr i t t en f r eel y wi t h
speed showi ng nat ur al var i at i on among
t hemsel ves.
They agr ee i n t he wr i t i ng habi t s such as
movement s, sl ant s, spaci ng, r el at i ve si ze and
pr opor t i on of char act er s, l i ne qual i t y,
al i gnment of char act er s; manner of
accommodat i on et c.
They al so show si mi l ar i t i es i n t he execut i on
of var i ous commenci ng, t er mi nal and connect i ng
st r okes.

However , dur i ng cr oss exami nat i on by t he l ear ned
counsel on behal f of A- 2 and A- 4 whi l e deposi ng bef or e
t he cour t , he has st at ed as under :

Quest i on: Hand wr i t i ng sci ence i s not a
per f ect sci ence.
Answer : I t i s al so not i mper f ect sci ence. I t
can be cal l ed devel opi ng sci ence.
. . . . .
Quest i on: What basi c knowl edge of Ur du you
have? Answer : The Ur du l anguage i s wr i t t en f r om
r i ght t o l ef t , t he sai d f act as wel l as t he
f act t hat t he compl et e wor d i s wr i t t en i n
combi nat i on t hat i ni t i al , medi al and f i nal .
Al so, wher ever t her e i s doubl e pr onunci at i on
l i ke i n bachcha, kachcha t hen l et t er l i ke
l i t t l e W l i ke Engl i sh i s made. I have st udi ed
Kaaf , Gaaf , Nukt a , Hamj a , Tasdi d ,
f ul l - st op, comma , smal l S, bi g SW, vowel s
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -210-

and Sh t her eby al l wor ds. . . . I cannot wr i t e
Ur du. I cannot r ead Ur du l anguage, But by
t aki ng r el i ance of book, I can r ead i t .
. . . .
I t i s t r ue r eason t hat t her e i s no ment i on
about t he di scussi on of t he r easons gi ven by me
wi t h t he Exper t of Hyder abad. I t i s t r ue t hat
i n t he r easons gi ven by me, t her e i s no
si gnat ur e of any exami ner except f or me. I t i s
t r ue t hat i n my r easons, gener al
char act er i st i cs, whi ch ar e gi ven, i n t he sai d,
det ai l s l i ke measur ement s have not been
ment i oned. I t i s t r ue t hat t he sampl e document s
wer e compar ed mut ual l y has not been ment i oned
i n my r easons. I t i s t r ue t hat t he speci men and
nat ur al hand wr i t i ngs wer e compar ed wi t h each
ot her , but i t i s not wr i t t en i n my r easons. I t
i s t r ue t hat I have wr i t t en nat ur al var i at i ons
i n my r easons, but I have not ment i oned det ai l s
about what t hese var i at i ons ar e.

appel l ant s)

On cr oss exami nat i on by t he J udge of t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) however , he was asked whet her t he hand wr i t i ng
exper t can al so gi ve opi ni on on t he l anguage whi ch i s
not known t o hi m. To t hi s, he answer ed t hat :
I t i s necessar y t o have basi c knowl edge of t he
concer ned l anguage. Even many si gnat ur es ar e
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -211-

wr i t t en i l l egi bl y i n monogr amat i c f or mat i on,
even t hen al so by exami ni ng di f f er ent
char act er i st i cs of hand wr i t i ng, one can come
t o t he concl usi on f r omt he same.

appel l ant s)

Fur t her , he was asked, i f t he per son who anal yses such
a document can r ead or wr i t e t he l anguage of t he
document and whet her t he opi ni on gi ven by such a
per son can be cal l ed mor e r el i abl e t han t he opi ni on
gi ven by t he per son who does not know t o r ead or wr i t e
t he l anguage, he answer ed:
I don t agr ee t hat t he opi ni on can be cal l ed
mor e r el i abl e, but I can j ust say t hat t he
knower of t he l anguage can gi ve r easons i n mor e
det ai l s. The wi t ness st at es on hi s own t hat
apar t f r om me, t wo ot her exper t s of Hyder abad
wer e t aken, and t hey knew Ur du l anguage bet t er
t han me.

appel l ant s)

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -212-

The hand wr i t i ng exper t had st at ed t hat he cannot r ead
or wr i t e t he Ur du l anguage. He can r ead Ur du l anguage
onl y wi t h t he ai d of a book.
106. We st at e t hat consi der i ng t he ser i ousness of t hi s
case and t he gr avi t y of t he of f ences, i t was t he dut y
of t he handwr i t i ng exper t t o seek opi ni on of ot her
exper t s whi ch he cl ai med t o have done. PW- 89 st at ed
t hat he r equest ed t he Di r ect or of FSL t o seek t he
ser vi ce of t he Cent r al Gover nment Labor at or y, and t he
phot ocopi es of t he document s wer e sent t o t he
Gover nment Exami ner of Quest i oned Document s( i n shor t
GEQD ) , Mi ni st r y of Home Af f ai r s, Hyder abad f or t he
pr el i mi nar y exami nat i on. Accor di ngl y, Assi st ant
Gover nment Exami ner , Shr i A. K Si ngh and Shr i R. K J ai n,
t he seni or most GEQD of t he Cent r al gover nment had
ar r i ved at t he FSL of Guj ar at . I t was f ur t her st at ed
by PW- 89 t hat t he of f i cer s f r om Hyder abad had wor ked
i ndependent l y and pr epar ed t hei r opi ni on. Accor di ngl y,
PW- 89 f or med a f i nal opi ni on based upon t he opi ni on of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -213-

t he af or esai d of f i cer s ( Ex. 511) . The seni or most
of f i cer , Mr . R. K J ai n, sent cer t i f i cat e vi a f ax on
14. 09. 2003 i n whi ch he had st at ed t hat he was i n
consent wi t h t he opi ni on of PW- 89. However , obj ect i on
was r ai sed by t he counsel f or t he accused per sons at
t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) f or t aki ng t hi s cer t i f i cat e
on r ecor d, si nce t hi s document of cer t i f i cat e was
never gi ven t o t he def ence i n t he char gesheet paper s,
or at any t i me t her eaf t er . Mor eover , t he pr osecut i on
had al so submi t t ed t hat even t hey wer e unawar e of t he
exi st ence of t hi s document , and t hi s knowl edge had
come bef or e t hem onl y dur i ng t he cour se of r ecor di ng
of t he deposi t i on of PW- 89 bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) . Ther ef or e, t he cer t i f i cat e was t aken on r ecor d
wi t h t he obj ect i on of t he def ence.
107. Af t er per usi ng t he above ment i oned evi dence on
r ecor d, we deci pher t hat t he pr osecut i on had cont ended
t hat t he Ur du l et t er s ( Ex. 658) wer e wr i t t en by A- 4 by
onl y pl aci ng r el i ance upon t he opi ni on of t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -214-

handwr i t i ng exper t , PW- 89. However , t he cer t i f i cat e of
t he seni or most of f i ci al of FSL, Hyder abad was not
admi t t ed on r ecor d t i l l a much l at er st age, af t er t he
char ge sheet was pr epar ed and PW- 89 gave hi s st at ement
bef or e t he cour t . I t was at t hi s st age t hat hi s
evi dence was admi t t ed wi t h pr ot est f r om t he def ence.
PW- 89 i n hi s evi dence had st at ed t hat he has basi c
knowl edge of Ur du and cannot di f f er ent i at e bet ween
Ur du, Ar abi c and Per si an. He f ur t her st at ed t hat t he
opi ni on of handwr i t i ng exper t s i s not concl usi ve.
Ther ef or e, we hol d t hat t he pr osecut i on had f ai l ed t o
est abl i sh beyond r easonabl e doubt t hat t he Ur du
l et t er s ( Ex. 658) wer e wr i t t en by A- 4. Accor di ngl y, we
answer t hi s poi nt i n f avour of t he appel l ant s.
108. As per t he Or der of t he CJ M of Budgam, J ammu and
Kashmi r ( Ex. 674) dat ed 11. 10. 2003, A- 6 was ar r est ed
f r omBar ei l l y dur i ng i nvest i gat i on i n t he case FI R no.
130 of 2003 f or of f ences under Sect i ons 120- B, 153- A
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -215-

RPC, Sect i on 10 of one C. B. A. Act and Sect i ons 7 and
27 of Ar ms Act r egi st er ed at t he pol i ce st at i on at
Nowgam, J ammu and Kashmi r . A car bear i ng Regi st r at i on
no. CHOI X- 3486 was sei zed as t he vehi cl e was
subj ect ed t o checki ng, and ar ms and ammuni t i ons wer e
r ecover ed f r om t he vehi cl e. The dr i ver di scl osed hi s
name as Chand Khan, r esi dent of Bar si a Tehsi l
Nawabgunj , Di st . Bar ei l l y, U. P. The sei zur e memo was
dr awn up i mmedi at el y and A- 6 was t aken i nt o cust ody.
He t her eaf t er , al l egedl y conf essed t hat he was
af f i l i at ed t o mi l i t ant out f i t s i n t he st yl e of
Lashkar - e- Toi ba and was i nvol ved i n subver si ve
act i vi t i es out si de J ammu and Kashmi r as wel l . A- 6 had
f ur t her al l egedl y conf essed t hat he was usi ng one
ambassador car bear i ng Regi st r at i on no. KMT 413 f or
subver si ve act i vi t i es out si de J ammu and Kashmi r , whi ch
was r ecover ed by t he J ammu & Kashmi r pol i ce f r om t he
wor kshop under t he name of Chand Mot or Khanabai
Anant nag as st ol en pr oper t y, under Sect i on 550 of t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -216-

J ammu and Kashmi r Cr PC. Ther eaf t er , t he car was
subsequent l y handed over t o Guj ar at Pol i ce, on t hei r
r equi si t i on, f or i nvest i gat i on i n t he pr esent case
whi ch was r egi st er ed vi de FI R 314 of 2002. I n t hi s
r egar d, we shal l exami ne t he st at ement s of Pol i ce
I nspect or Shabbi r Ahmed ( PW- 123) , Sub- I nspect or , Gul am
Mahammed ( PW- 124) who ar e f r om t he J ammu & Kashmi r
Pol i ce and I br ahi m Chauhan, Pol i ce I nspect or of Cr i me
Br anch, Ahmedabad ( PW- 125) .

109. The st at ement of PW- 123 i s ext r act ed as under :
t he car was sei zed i n our pol i ce st at i on
l i mi t . The car was sei zed i n Sept ember 2003. I
do not r emember exact dat e. Ther e may be
l et t er s of sei zi ng car i n our pol i ce st at i on. I
di d not sei ze t he car , but i nvest i gat i ng
of f i cer of t he case di d i t . The car was sei zed
by Gul am Mohammad Dar . I do not know i f t her e
wer e document s of t he car . I t i s t r ue t hat t hi s
car was sei zed by our pol i ce st at i on and t hen
by t he Guj ar at Pol i ce by Exhi bi t 671. Dur i ng
t hi s cour se, I saw paper s of sei zur e. The
wi t ness hi msel f st at es t hat t he paper s woul d
have been gi ven t o Guj ar at Pol i ce, but I amnot
sur e i n t hi s r egar d, but our case paper s ar e
t hose paper s. I t i s t r ue t hat we sei zed t he car
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -217-

on t he basi s of suspect f or i nvest i gat i on. I do
not know t he condi t i on of t he car when we
sei zed i t f or our pol i ce st at i on case. Whet her
i t was as wr i t t en i n exi st i ng panchnama. My
I nvest i gat i on Of f i cer must be knowi ng i t . I t i s
t r ue t hat I saw sei zur e paper s i ncl udi ng
panchnama bef or e Guj ar at pol i ce sei zed i t . .
When t he car was sei zed, i t was i n our cust ody,
but kept i n S. O. G. camp. Then t he car was
handed over t o Ahmedabad pol i ce. Ther eaf t er , I
had an occasi on t o see t he car . I t was t r ue
t hat when t he car was gi ven t o Guj ar at pol i ce,
i t was not i n wor ki ng condi t i on.
Quest i on: Ar e you pr epar ed t o pr oduce panchnama

and ot her paper s i n cour t when you sei zed t he
car i n suspect ed condi t i on?
Repl y: Our f i l e has been submi t t ed t o t he
gover nment f or sanct i on. I am pr epar ed t o
pr oduce when i t comes. I ampr epar ed t o pr oduce
when cour t or der s af t er get t i ng sanct i on.
Af t er get t i ng r epl y f r om R. T. O. , we came t o
know t hat i t s owner s name i s Abdul Maj i d
Rat hor . We enqui r ed i n t hi s r egar d but no such
per son exi st s. The car was r egi st er ed i n
pseudonym. I t i s t r ue t hat panchnama was made
t o handover t he car t o t he pol i ce. Ther e i s
r ecor d i n my pol i ce r ecor d i n t hi s r egar d.
Ther e wer e engi ne number and chasi s number i n
t he i nner par t of t he car . No phot ogr aphs wer e
t aken of t he car i n my pr esence t hen. I t was
sei zed i n our pol i ce st at i on. Then al so no
phot ogr aphs wer e t aken. I t i s t r ue t hat t her e
ar e no phot ogr aphs of t he car i n our r ecor d.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -218-

( basi cal l y t hey t al k about t he sei zur e of t he
car by Guj ar at Pol i ce and not t he pol i ce of
J &K) .
Guj ar at )

110. Ther ef or e, i t i s cl ear f r omt he deposi t i on of PW-
123 t hat f i r st l y, A- 6 i s not t he owner of t he car
si nce i t was r egi st er ed i n t he name of some ot her
per son as per t he r epor t of R. T. O ( Ex. 672) . Secondl y,
as per t he Or der of t he CJ M of Budgam, J ammu and
Kashmi r ( Ex. 674) dat ed 11. 10. 2003, A- 6 was not i n
physi cal possessi on of t he car whi ch was al l egedl y
used f or car r yi ng weapons f or t he at t ack on Akshar dham
wher eas he was act ual l y f ound i n possessi on of anot her
car bear i ng Regi st r at i on no. CHOI X- 3486. Fi nal l y,
t hough a panchnama was dr awn up of t he al l eged car , by
t he pol i ce of J ammu and Kashmi r , i t was f or t hem t o
hand over t he car f r om t hei r cust ody t o t he Guj ar at
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -219-

pol i ce. No panchnama or document of sei zur e of t he car
had been pr oduced bef or e us t o show t hat t he car was
r ecover ed f r om t he wor kshop/ gar age of A- 6 or even
t hat t he gar age/ wor kshop f r om whi ch t he car was
al l egedl y r ecover ed bel ongs t o A- 6. Ther ef or e, we
cannot see how t he car can be l i nked t o A- 6 i n t he
absence of any i ndependent evi dence ot her t han hi s
conf essi onal st at ement whi ch had been subsequent l y
r et r act ed.
111. I t i s al so of t he ut most i mpor t ance f or us t o
ment i on t he st at ement of PW- 125, I br ahi m Chauhan,
Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad r egar di ng t he sei zur e of t he
car si nce i t i s r ef l ect i ve of how casual l y and wi t h
what i mpuni t y t he i nvest i gat i on has been conduct ed i n
t he i nst ant case by t he i nvest i gat i ng of f i cer . PW- 125,
who was a par t of t he i nvest i gat i on of t hi s case i n
Kashmi r , and who was al so r esponsi bl e f or escor t i ng A-
2, A- 4 and A- 5 t o Sr i nagar , Kashmi r , st at es as under :
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -220-

Af t er knowi ng t he f act s of sei zi ng car i n t he
case 130/ 2003, I had no occasi on t o ask f or
paper s r egar di ng vehi cl e sei zed, because I was
engaged i n ot her wor ks. I t i s i n my vi ew t hat
panchnama r egar di ng sei zur e of car no. KMT- 413
exi st ed ear l i er t o panchnama of Exhi bi t 671. I
have not seen panchnama.


Guj ar at )

He agai n went on r ecor d t o st at e t hat :
I do not bel i eve t hat i f any car i s sei zed i n
one cr i me, sei zur e, panchnama and ot her paper s
shoul d be possessed bef or e sei zi ng car i n
anot her cr i me. I t i s t r ue t hat when t he car i s
conf i scat ed, i t s panchnama i s made, t hat
panchnama shoul d be obt ai ned whi l e sei zi ng car
i n anot her cr i me. As I was engaged i n ot her
wor k, I di d not get panchnama. I t i s not t r ue
t hat panchnama of Cr . No. 130/ 2003 was not
pr oduced because i t s det ai l s wer e not i n
consonance wi t h Panchnama Exhi bi t 671.

Guj ar at )

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -221-

I t i s cl ear f r om t he st at ement of PW- 125 t hat nei t her
t he panchnama nor sei zur e memo of t he car no. KMT 413,
made dur i ng i t s al l eged sei zur e i n case no. 130 of
2003 was seen by PW- 125 si nce, he was engaged in
other work. However , wi t hout ver i f yi ng t he cont ent s
of t he panchnama and t he sei zur e memo of t he car i n
Case No. 130 of 2003, t he i nvol vement of t he car had
been admi t t ed i n evi dence on r ecor d by t he cour t s
bel ow, mer el y on t he basi s of t he subsequent panchnama
dr awn by t he Guj ar at pol i ce, whi ch was onl y f or t he
t r ansf er of possessi on of t he car f r om t he pol i ce of
J ammu and Kashmi r t o t he Guj ar at pol i ce.
I n l i ght of t he evi dence ment i oned above, we ar e
not i ncl i ned t o gi ve any wei ght age t o t he panchnama
dr awn by t he Guj ar at pol i ce at J ammu and Kashmi r f or
t he sei zur e of car al r eady i n t he possessi on of t he
J ammu and Kashmi r pol i ce at SOG Camp, i n t he absence
of t he or i gi nal panchnama and sei zur e memo dr awn by
t he pol i ce of J ammu and Kashmi r . I n vi ew of t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -222-

evi dence on r ecor d, and t he r easons r ecor ded by us, we
answer t hi s poi nt i n f avour of t he appel l ant s and hol d
t hat t he pr osecut i on had f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t he car
was used by A- 6 t o car r y weapons f r om J ammu and
Kashmi r t o Bar ei l l y f or car r yi ng out t he at t ack on
Akshar dham.
112. The i ndependent document ar y evi dence pr oduced
bef or e us agai nst t he accused per sons ar e t he t wo
l et t er s i n Ur du al l egedl y r ecover ed f r om t he pocket s
of t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens, upon whi ch t he
pr osecut i on had pl aced st r ong r el i ance t o est abl i sh
t he i nvol vement of A- 4 i n t he of f ence. The ot her
i ndependent evi dence i s t he bl ue ambassador car i n
whi ch A- 6 was al l eged t o have br ought t he fidayeens
and t he weapons t o Ahmedabad t hr ough Bar ei l l y f r om
J ammu and Kashmi r . We have al r eady ascer t ai ned whi l e
answer i ng t he poi nt about t he above l et t er s t hat
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -223-

nei t her t he t wo l et t er s pr oduced bef or e t he Speci al
Cour t ( POTA) nor t he pr ocedur e by whi ch t he ambassador
car was sei zed by t he Guj ar at pol i ce, i nspi r es
conf i dence i n our mi nds t o show t hat t hese ar e genui ne
evi dence t o i mpl i cat e t he accused per sons i n t he
of f ence. The onl y ot her mat er i al evi dence on r ecor d on
t he basi s of whi ch t he pr osecut i on had ar gued t he
i nvol vement of t he accused per sons, ar e t he
conf essi onal st at ement s gi ven by A- 1, A- 2, A- 3, A- 4
and A- 6 bef or e t he Guj ar at pol i ce under Sect i on 32 of
POTA. We have al r eady ment i oned t hat t he conf essi onal
st at ement s had not been r ecor ded as per t he st r i ct
st at ut or y mandat e pr ovi ded f or under Sect i on 32 of
POTA, whi ch made t hei r conf essi onal st at ement s
i nadmi ssi bl e as evi dence. However , we al so i nt end t o
r ecor d cer t ai n ot her r easons as t o why t he convi ct i on
and sent enci ng of t he accused per sons by t he Speci al
Cour t ( POTA) , whi ch was uphel d by t he Hi gh Cour t i n
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -224-

t he appeal s and r ef er ence or der , i s l i abl e t o be set
asi de.
113. We cannot l ose si ght of t he f act t hat t he
r ecor ded by t he DCP, PW- 78 i n ext r emel y suspi ci ous
ci r cumst ances. We have al r eady hel d t hat t he pr ocedur e
of pr esent i ng t hem bef or e t he CJ M and subsequent l y
sendi ng t hem t o j udi ci al cust ody mandat or i l y had been
r educed t o a mer e, empt y f or mal i t y. Thi s above sai d
pr ocedur al l apse coupl ed wi t h t he f act t hat t he
l et t er s of caut i on t o be gi ven t o t hem, bef or e t he
maki ng of such st at ement s, mandat ed under Sect i on
32( 2) of POTA, and t he pr ocess of r ecor di ng t hei r
conf essi onal st at ement s wer e done i n an ext r emel y
casual manner whi ch i s not t he conduct expect ed f r om
such hi gh r anki ng pol i ce of f i cer s of t he st at e
gover nment . Si nce we have al r eady r ecor ded our
f i ndi ngs and r easons i n t hi s r egar d, whi l e answer i ng
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -225-

t he poi nt no. 2 on conf essi onal st at ement s, we
t her ef or e do not i nt end t o r ei t er at e t he same her e.
114. Even i f t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he
accused per sons ar e made admi ssi bl e, t hat al one coul d
not have been made t he onl y gr ound f or convi ct i ng
t hem, as i t woul d amount t o a vi ol at i on of t he l egal
pr i nci pl e l ai d down i n t he f i ve j udge bench deci si on
of t hi s cour t i n t he case of Hari Charan Kurmi and
Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar
56
, wher ei n t hi s Cour t
hel d as under :
12. As we have al r eady i ndi cat ed, t hi s
quest i on has been consi der ed on sever al
occasi ons by j udi ci al deci si ons and i t has been
consi st ent l y hel d t hat a conf essi on cannot be
t r eat ed as evi dence whi ch i s subst ant i ve
evi dence agai nst a co- accused per son. I n
deal i ng wi t h a cr i mi nal case wher e t he
pr osecut i on r el i es upon t he conf essi on of one
accused per son agai nst anot her accused per son,
t he pr oper appr oach t o adopt i s t o consi der t he
ot her evi dence agai nst such an accused per son,
and i f t he sai d evi dence appear s t o be
sat i sf act or y and t he cour t i s i ncl i ned t o hol d
t hat t he sai d evi dence may sust ai n t he char ge

56
AI R 1964 SC 1184
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -226-

f r amed agai nst t he sai d accused per son, t he
cour t t ur ns t o t he conf essi on wi t h a vi ew t o
assur e i t sel f t hat t he concl usi on whi ch i t i s
i ncl i ned t o dr aw f r om t he ot her evi dence i s
r i ght . As was obser ved by Si r Lawr ence J enki ns
i n Emper or v. Lal i t Mohan Chucker bur t y, I . L. R.
38 Cal . 559 at p. 588 a conf essi on can onl y be
used t o " l end assur ance t o ot her evi dence
agai nst a co- accused" . I n Per yaswami Moopan
v. Emper or , I . L. R. 54 Mad. 75 at p. 77: ( AI R 1931
Mad. 177 at p. 178) Rei l l y, J . , obser ved t hat
t he pr ovi si on of S. 30 goes not f ur t her t han
t hi s, " wher e t her e i s evi dence agai nst t he co-
accused suf f i ci ent , i f bel i eved, t o suppor t hi s
convi ct i on, t hen t he ki nd of conf essi on
descr i bed i n S. 30 may be t hr own i nt o t he scal e
as an addi t i onal r eason f or bel i evi ng t hat
evi dence. " I n Bhuboni Sahu v. The Ki ng, 76 I nd
App 147 at p. 155: ( AI R 1949 PC 257 at p. 260)
t he Pr i vy Counci l has expr essed t he same vi ew.
Si r J ohn Beaumont who spoke f or t he Boar d,
obser ved t hat ,
a conf essi on of a co- accused i s
obvi ousl y evi dence of a ver y weak t ype. I t does
not i ndeed come wi t hi n t he def i ni t i on of
" evi dence" cont ai ned i n S. 3 of t he Evi dence
Act . I t i s not r equi r ed t o be gi ven on oat h,
nor i n t he pr esence of t he accused, and i t
cannot be t est ed by cr oss- exami nat i on. I t i s a
much weaker t ype of evi dence t han t he evi dence
of an appr over , whi ch i s not subj ect t o any of
t hose i nf i r mi t i es. S. 30, however , pr ovi des
t hat t he Cour t may t ake t he conf essi on i nt o
consi der at i on and t her eby, no doubt , makes i t
evi dence on whi ch t he cour t may act ; but t he
sect i on does not say t hat t he conf essi on i s t o
amount t o pr oof . Cl ear l y t her e must be ot her
evi dence. The conf essi on i s onl y one el ement i n
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -227-

t he consi der at i on of al l t he f act s pr oved i n
t he case; i t can be put i nt o t he scal e and
wei ghed wi t h t he ot her evi dence. "
I t woul d be not i ced t hat as a r esul t of t he
pr ovi si ons cont ai ned i n S. 30, t he conf essi on
has no doubt t o be r egar ded as amount i ng t o
evi dence i n a gener al way. because what ever i s
consi der ed by t he cour t i s evi dence;
ci r cumst ances whi ch ar e consi der ed by t he cour t
as wel l as pr obabi l i t i es do amount t o evi dence
i n t hat gener i c sense. Thus, t hough conf essi on
may be r egar ded as evi dence i n t hat gener i c
sense because of t he pr ovi si ons of S. 30, t he
f act r emai ns t hat i t i s not evi dence as def i ned
by S. 3 of t he Act . The r esul t , t her ef or e, i s
t hat i n deal i ng wi t h a case agai nst an accused
per son, t he cour t cannot st ar t wi t h t he
conf essi on of a co- accused per son; i t must
begi n wi t h ot her evi dence adduced by t he
pr osecut i on and af t er i t has f or med i t s opi ni on
wi t h r egar d t o t he qual i t y and ef f ect of t he
sai d evi dence, t hen i t i s per mi ssi bl e t o t ur n
t o t he conf essi on i n or der t o r ecei ve assur ance
t o t he concl usi on of gui l t whi ch t he j udi ci al
mi nd i s about t o r each on t he sai d ot her
evi dence. That , br i ef l y st at ed, i s t he ef f ect
of t he pr ovi si ons cont ai ned i n S. 30. The same
vi ew has been expr essed by t hi s Cour t i n
Kashmi r a Si ngh v. St at e of Madhya Pr adesh 1952
SCR 526 : ( AI R 1952 SC 159) wher e t he deci si on
of t he Pr i vy Counci l i n Bhuboni Sahu' s case, 76
I nd App 147 ( AI R 1949 PC 257) has been ci t ed
wi t h appr oval .
. .
14. The st at ement s cont ai ned i n t he conf essi ons
of t he co- accused per sons st and on a di f f er ent
f oot i ng. I n cases wher e such conf essi ons ar e
r el i ed upon by t he pr osecut i on agai nst an
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -228-

accused per son, t he Cour t cannot begi n wi t h t he
exami nat i on of t he sai d st at ement s. The st age
t o consi der t he sai d conf essi onal st at ement s
ar r i ves onl y af t er t he ot her evi dence i s
consi der ed and f ound t o be sat i sf act or y. The
di f f er ence i n t he appr oach whi ch t he Cour t has
t o adopt i n deal i ng wi t h t hese t wo t ypes of
evi dence i s t hus cl ear , wel l - under st ood and
wel l - est abl i shed. I t , however , appear s t hat i n
RamPr akash' s case, 1959 SCR 1219: ( AI R 1959 SC
1) , some obser vat i ons have been made whi ch do
not seem t o r ecogni ze t he di st i nct i on bet ween
t he evi dence of an accompl i ce and t he
st at ement s cont ai ned i n t he conf essi on made by
an accused per son.

115. Agai n, i n t he pr esent case, t her e i s not hi ng on
r ecor d ot her t han t he st at ement s of t he accompl i ces
( of whi ch PW- 51 r et r act ed f r om hi s conf essi on) and
t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons
whi ch wer e r et r act ed and t hi s aspect of t he mat t er was
r equi r ed t o be consi der ed by t he cour t s bel ow whi l e
r ecor di ng t he f i ndi ngs on t he char ges f r amed agai nst
t he accused per sons. The r et r act i on of t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of t he accused per sons A- 2, A-
3, A- 4 and A- 6 and t hat of PW- 51 r eveal ed t hat t hey
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -229-

wer e t or t ur ed by t he pol i ce t o ext r act t hei r
conf essi onal st at ement s. Ther ef or e, t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of A- 2, A- 3, A- 4 and A- 6 cannot be r el i ed
upon f or t hi s r eason al so i . e t hey have been r et r act ed
vi de Exs. 779 ( A- 2) , 780 ( A- 4) , 33 ( A- 3) and 32 ( A- 6) .
A- 2 had r et r act ed hi s conf essi onal st at ement vi de
Ex. 779, wher ei n he had det ai l ed t he account of how he
was det ai ned on t he char ge of aut or i ckshaw t hef t and
was br ought t o t he Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad and f or ced
t o conf ess r egar di ng t he cr i me of at t ack on t he
Akshar dham t empl e. He had st at ed t hat he was put t o
i nt ense physi cal and psychol ogi cal t or t ur e and t he
pol i ce t hr eat ened hi m and hi s f ami l y member s wi t h t he
mot i ve of el i ci t i ng a conf essi on out of hi m whi ch he
st at ed t o be f al se as he i s not gui l t y of t he same
and had been f al sel y char ged. Rel evant por t i ons of t he
r et r act i on st at ement ( Ex. 779) ar e ext r act ed her eunder
i n or der t o exami ne t he i mpor t of hi s st at ement of
r et r act i on:
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -230-

I , Aj mer i Sul eman Adam, st at e i n wr i t i ng t hat
f i ve t o si x of f i cer s of Ahmedabad Ci t y Cr i me
Br anch f r om Gaekwad havel i came i n mar ut i car
at t he cor ner of my mohal l a at about 1. 30- 2. 00
i n t he ni ght and t hey cal l ed me. They asked my
name and occupat i on. I t ol d t he of f i cer s t hat I
am r i ckshaw dr i ver . They t ol d me t o si t i n our
mar ut i car . We have t o t ake you f or enqui r y.
They t ol d me t hat t he r i ckshaw whi ch t hem t hat
t he r i ckshaw t hat I dr i ve i s not be t hef t . He
has owner . Then t he of f i cer abused me, beat me
and seat ed me i n t he car by coer ci on. I was
t aken i nt o t he cr i me br anch of f i ce at ni ght
t hey t i ed a st r i p on eyes and pl aced me at such
a pl ace t hat I do not know. Then I coul d not
sl eep f or whol e ni ght . I was t hi nki ng t hat I
have not done any wr ong. Then why I was br ought
her e, t hen on 10- 8- 2003, on next day at 1. 00
noon a const abl e came and t ol d me t o come wi t h
hi m as hi gher of f i cer cal l you. At t hat t i me a
st r i p t i ed on my eyes. The const abl e caught me
and put i n an of f i ce and opened t he st r i p f r om
my eyes. I saw f our of f i cer si t t i ng t her e. Shr i
Vanzar a, DCP Shr i Si nghal , ACP Shr i Vanar PI
and Shr i pat el PI , I came t o know af t er war ds
t hat t hese of f i cer s ar e f r omcr i me br anch. Shr i
DCP Vanzar a asked me whet her I know af t er wor ks
t hat t hese of f i cer s ar e f r omcr i me br anch. Shr i
DCP Vanzar a asked me whet her I know why I was
br ought her e. I r epl i ed t hat you ot her of f i cer s
t ol d me t hat t he r i ckshaw t hat I dr i ve i s by
t hef t s and I amt o be asked about i t . He t ol d
me t hat I was not br ought her e f or t hat cr i me
but f or ot her cr i me. I t ol d t hat I not have
made such cr i me t hat I shoul d be br ought her e.
Then Si nghal Sahi b abused me and t ol d t hat
shoul d agr ee t o what t hey say. I shoul d agr ee
t hat I amt he cr i mi nal of Akshar dhamcar nage. I
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -231-

t ol d t hem t hat I have never gone t o Akshar dgam
nor have I seen i t . Ki ndl y do not i nvol ve me.
He i mmedi at el y cal l ed f i ve or si x per sons and
t ol d me t o have handcuf f s and f et t er s. Vanar
Saheb beat me on sol es. Shr i Si nghal Saheb t ol d
me t hat I agr ee wi t h t he cr i me of Askhar dham ,
t hey shal l not beat me and have some benef i t s.
Then t hey beat me i n such a way t hat I became
unconsci ous and f el l down. . .
. . When I became consci ous I was near Vanar
Saheb of f i ce. I suf f er ed much di f f i cul t y. I was
weepi ng. I t was ni ght . At t hat t i me one
const abl e came and t ol d me t hat super i or sahi b
was cal l i ng. I had no st r engt h t o wal k or
st and. I was caught and t aken t o Vanzar a Saheb
of f i ce. Al l f our of f i cer s wer e pr esent t her e.
They t ol d me t o agr ee t he cr i me, ot her wi se I
shal l be encount er ed. But I di d not bel i eve.
Then t hey br ut al l y beat me. Ther e was bl eedi ng
i n back por t i on. . . . They gave me cur r ent s. Then
I t ol d t hem, si r , have mer cy on me. I am not
cul pr i t . Par don me. Pl ease don t make me
cr i mi nal wr ongl y. I do not know anyt hi ng i n
t hi s r egar d. They t hr eat ened me t o har ass me
and my f ami l y member s. Even t hough I have not
commi t t ed any cr i me, t hey want ed t o agr ee
Akshar dhamcr i me.


Guj ar at )

A- 2 f ur t her st at ed:
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -232-

One day Si nghal Saheb cal l ed me t o of f i ce and
asked me t o do as we say. I know t hat you ar e a
good congr ess wor ker . The r el i ef mat er i al s
r ecei ved f r om congr ess at t he t i me of godhr a
epi sode wer e di st r i but ed among Musl i ms and poor
per sons as sai d by congr ess l eader you
cont est ed as an i ndependent candi dat e i n 1998.
We know t hat congr ess candi dat e was def eat ed
and BJ P candi dat e won t he el ect i on. You made a
case agai nst BJ P i n t he Hi gh Cour t . The case
was ext ended t o Supr eme Cour t but you coul d not
do anyt hi ng. What shal l you abl e t o do now.
. . .
. . . I was har shl y beat en f r om 9- 8- 2003 t o 28- 8-
2003 wi t hout my f aul t and behaved r udel y.
. . . Si nghal Saheb came t o my of f i ce at ni ght
( 29- 8- 2003) and t ol d me, We have decl ar ed you
as cr i mi nal . We shal l t ake you t o cour t and
pr esent bef or e J udge. You shoul d not speak
anyt hi ng agai nst us, ot her wi se we shal l get you
down on t he way and encount er you. You shal l
not come al i ve. Then I r equest ed Vanzar a Saheb,
Si nghal Saheb, Vanar Saheb and Pat el Saheb t hat
you have beat en t he t r ut h and pl aced l yi ng i n a
hi gher posi t i on. . . . . . They t ol d me t o si gn wher e
t hey say. . .
. . . They t hr eat ened me and pr esent ed t o t he
cour t . Hon. Cour t gave r emand. Dur i ng cour t , I
was i n cr i me br anch. Shr i Vanzar a Saheb,
Si nghal Saheb, Vanar Saheb and Pat el Saheb
behaved wi t h me as i f I am an ani mal . Dur i ng
t hat t i me, I was t aken t o VS Hospi t al . They
t ol d me one t hi ng t hat I shoul d not nar r at e my
di f f i cul t i es t o t he Doct or , ot her wi se I shal l
be har assed l i ke anyt hi ng. I shoul d say t o t he
doct or I am heal t hy and I shal l get t r eat ment
f r om t he pr i vat e doct or who comes i n cr i me
br anch f or any t r oubl e. . . .
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -233-

. . . . Si nghal Saheb seat ed me i n hi s of f i ce on 4-
9- 03 at ni ght and t ol d me t o wr i t e i n my
handwr i t i ngs as he says, ot her wi se I shal l be
f i ni shed. I went t o wr i t i ng as he st at ed. I
have not wr i t t en t hi s wi l l i ngl y but as per wi sh
of Si nghal Saheb. I f I woul d not have wr i t t en
so, I woul d have been encount er ed on t hat ver y
day or ni ght . I was f r i ght ened and I wr ot e on
account of f ear . I was t aken t o Ahmedabad
ai r por t on 5- 9- 03. Vanzar a Saheb, Pat el Saheb,
AA Chauhan Saheb and ot her t hr ee PSI s wer e
wi t h me. . . . I G Shr i nagar cal l ed me on 7- 9- 03. At
t hat t i me t hr ee of f i cer s of Shr i nagar wer e
pr esent . He t ol d me t o t el l t he t r ut h. Then I
t ol d on oat h of kur an- shar i f t r ue f act s. I was
ar r est ed on 9- 8- 03. Ti l l t hemI ambeat en. I do
not know anyt hi ng about Akshar dham. They have
t hr eat ened my f ami l y member s and t hr eat ened me
t o encount er . I have been f or ced t o agr ee t o
t he cr i me. I t ol d of f i cer s of Shr i nagar t o hel p
me, ot her wi se t hese of f i cer s shal l ki l l me.
Then t hey t ol d me t hat we al so know t hat you
ar e i nnocent . . . . .
. . . I r eached t o Ahmedabad on 9- 9- 03. . . . Then I
was t aken t o POTA Cour t . Pr i or t o i t Si nghal
and Vanar Saheb t ol d me t hat I was t o be t aken
t o t he Cour t . I f you compl ai n, you shal l not
be kept al i ve. You mi ght not be knowi ng what we
can do. We can t ake out pr i soner f r om t he
Cent r al J ai l and encount er hi m, whi l e you ar e
wi t h us. Lat i f was i n j ai l . We br ought hi m out
and ki l l ed. What can you do agai nst us. I was
not al l owed t o speak anyt hi ng i n t he Cour t . . .
I was t aken on 23- 9- 2003 wi t h st r i ps on my
eyes. I was t ol d t hat Doct or had come f or my
t r eat ment . . . I was gi ven t wo i nj ect i ons on my
r i ght hand. . . . On t he next day I t ol d t hem t hat
I have many di f f i cul t i es on account of your
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -234-

i nj ect i ons. Then Vanar Saheb and Pat el Saheb
t ol d me t hat our wor k i s over and I am not
r equi r ed now. On 25- 9- 03, Vanar Saheb, Si nghal
Saheb and ot her of f i cer s seat ed me i n a j eep
and t ook me t o ol d hi gh cour t . Si nghal Saheb
and vanar Saheb i nf or med me t hat her e i n bi g
j udge. You shoul d si gn wher e he says, ot her wi se
you know what we can do. Her e cour t i s our s,
Govt . i s our s, pol i cs i s our s and j udge sahi b
i s al so our s. I was t aken t o j udge sahi b r oom.
Ther e wer e some wr i t t en paper s. I do not know
what was wr i t t en i n i t . Wi t hout al l owi ng me t o
r ead anyt hi ng j udge sahi b and cr i me br anch
of f i cer s t ook my si gnat ur es
t her eon. . . . . Si nghal , Vanar and ot her of f i cer s at
i n j udge hamber . They t ook snacks and t ea.
Af t er one hour al l of f i cer s came out smi l i ng
sayi ng our wor k i s over . We shal l pr esent hi m
i n Pot a cour t and send t hemt o Cent r al J ai l . . . .
. . . I r equest you t hat si nce l ast t wo mont hs I
r emai ned i n cr i me br anch as hel pl ess and
humbl e. . . .
. . . I f you want t he t r ut h i n t hi s case t o be
r eveal ed, hand over t he case t o CBI of f i cer s.
I t i s my humbl e r equest t o you t o hand over t he
i nvest i gat i on t o t he CBI and t r ut h shal l be
r eveal ed t o you. Si r , when I was sent t o
cent r al j ai l I t ol d t he j ai l aut hor i t i es t hat I
r equi r ed t r eat ment . . .
. . . I am hopef ul t hat you shal l pr event me and
my f ami l y f r om r ui n and do j ust i ce. I am
hopef ul t hat you shal l do j ust i ce t o me and my
f ami l y af t er consi der i ng my r equest .


Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -235-

Guj ar at )

116. Excer pt s f r om t he st at ement of r et r act i on of A- 4
( Ex. 780) , r eads as under :
I st at e wi t h r equest t hat I am ( Muf t i ) Abdul
KayyamAhmedhussai n Mansur i . . . I t aught namaz at
Haj i Sakhi Masj i d char vat and t each Kor an t o
chi l dr en. . . .
. . . On 17/ 8/ 2003, Sunday, i n t he eveni ng, I was
at Haj i Sakhi Masj i d, Dar i yapur when f our
peopl e came i n t he Masj i d i n ci vi l dr ess and
asked me i f I was Muf t i A. Kayyam. I r epl i ed
t hat I am and t hey t ol d me t hat I had t o come
t o cr i me br anch of f i ce as seni or of f i cer was
cal l i ng me. . . .
One of t hemt ol d me t hat some enqui r y has t o be
made and I woul d be l ef t af t er enqui r y i n 3- 4
days. . . t hey t ook me t o Havel i cr i me Br anch
of f i ce. They bl i ndf ol ded me and made me si t
down l at er . At about 10. 00 t o 11. 00 pm i n t he
ni ght t hey t ook me t o some of f i cer . They
r emoved t he bl i ndf ol d and r el eased my hands.
Lat er I l ear nt t hat t he name of t he Saheb was
ACP GL Si nghal . Shr i Si nghal asked me as t o why
I was br ought her e. I t ol d hi m t hat I di d not
know. . . . Then Si nghal asked me quest i ons about
my f ami l y, f r i ends et c. . . and I sat i sf act or i l y
answer ed t hem. Suddenl y, Si nghal st ar t ed
beat i ng me on my backsi de and t ol d me t o go and
you woul d know as t o why I was br ought t her e on
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -236-

next day. Then I was bl i ndf ol ded agai n and my
hands wer e t i ed up and t aken back agai n. . .
. . . Then ever yday f r om 18/ 8/ 03 t o 29/ 8/ 03, at
noon and at ni ght , t hat i s t wo t o t hr ee t i mes a
day I was t aken t o t he of f i ce of Si nghal
Vanzar a si r . Vanar si r al so r emai ned pr esent
t her e. They pr esent ed a st or y of Akshsar dham
bef or e me and asked me t o r epeat t hat st or y
bef or e seni or of f i cer and conf ess i t . I r ef used
and so ment al and physi cal t or t ur e was ef f ect ed
on me. I was beat en wi t h a st i ck ever yday on my
backsi de, f eet and pal ms. They used t o beat me
so badl y t hat I f el l down on t he f l oor .
Somet i mes, l i ps wer e at t ached on my hand
f i nger s and cur r ent was gi ven t o me. Pi ns wer e
pi er ced bel ow t he nai l s of my f i nger t i ps. Such
i nhuman t or t ur e wad done on me f or about t en
days f r om 17/ 8/ 03 t o 29/ 8/ 03. I was i l l egal l y
kept i n t he Cr i me Br anch of f i ce and t or t ur ed
and t hr eat ened. . .
. . Lat er on 29- 8- 03, Fr i day at 3. 00 pm noon, on
of f i cer ( whose name I l ear nt l at er ) PI RI Pat el
cal l ed my f at her and me t oo. My and f at her s
si gnat ur es wer e t aken on some paper s. Nei t her
do I or my f at her know what was wr i t t en on
t hose paper s. But we wer e hel pl ess and had t o
si gn t hem. At about 3- 4 o cl ock many
phot ogr apher s came and made me cover my f ace
wi t h a bukha ( cl ot h) and cl i cked phot ogr aphs.
That day at about 10. 00 pm ni ght Si nghal Saheb
cal l ed me and t ol d me t hat I was ar r est ed i n
Akshar dham case. He t ol d me t hat I woul d be
pr esent ed i n t he cour t t he next day. . . . I was
pr esent ed i n cour t t he next day. J udge asked me
whet her I had any compl ai n but due t o f ear I
coul d not say anyt hi ng. . .
. . . Lat er on t he day I got r emand on 30- 8- 03 at
ni ght I was cal l ed t o Si nghal s of f i ce by Shr i
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -237-

Si nghal and VD Vanar . They t ol d me t hat l et t er s
wer e f ound f r om bot h t he dead t er r or i st s at
Akshar dham compl ex. They asked me i f I had
wr i t t en t hose l et t er s. I r epl i ed t hat I had not
wr i t t en t hem and I do not know anyt hi ng about
i t . On t hi s t hey st ar t ed t or t ur i ng me ment al l y
and physi cal l y. Then Si nghal sai d i t was ok,
t hey knew I had not wr i t t en t hose l et t er s. He
asked me r ead and r ewr i t e t he copy of t he t wo
l et t er s. Sayi ng so he gave me a copy of t hose
t wo l et t er s. I t r ust ed t hem and copi ed t hose
t wo l et t er s. Due t o i nnocence I coul d not
under st and t hei r conspi r acy and I was
r epeat edl y asked t o copy t hose l et t er s by Vanar
and RI Pat el f or t hr ee f our days ever y ni ght
Pat el and t hose ur du l et t er s and asked me t o
copy t hem t i l l t hr ee f our o cl ock l at e ni ght .
They used bad wor ds and sai d t hose l et t er s wer e
f ound f r om t er r or i st s. They asked me t o mat ch
t he handwr i t i ngs of t hese l et t er s and exact l y
wr i t e i n t hose many l i nes and par agr aphs al so
must be at t he same pl ace. . . . They t hr eat ened
and f or ced me t o wr i t e 40- 50 copi es of t hose
l et t er s.
Lat er on 5. 9. 03 t hey t ook me t o Sr i nagar
( Kashmi r ) . Out of t he of f i cer s pr esent wi t h me
RI Pat el r epeat edl y t ol d me t hat t her e I woul d
be pr esent ed bef or e of f i cer . He woul d ask me
about Akshar dham and I must r epeat t he f al se
st or y whi ch t hey had t ol d me ear l i er . They
t hr eat ened me i f I r eveal ed t he t r ut h, t hey
woul d ki l l me and t hr ow my body somewher e. They
woul d i nf or m my f ami l y t hat i woul d be ki l l ed
i n an encount er wi t h t he t er r or i st s. They t ol d
me t hat I woul d be shown a per son, t hey t ol d me
t o i dent i f y hi m and t hen t hey pr esent ed me
bef or e t hose of f i cer s. I l ear nt t he names of
of f i cer s l at er as DI G K Raj endr a, ACP Sandi p
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -238-

vazi r and ACP Saheb of t hese of f i cer s showed me
a per son and asked me i f I knew hi m. I di d not
know t hat per son at al l . So I dar ed t o say t hat
I di d not know hi m. . . .
. . . So t hose of f i cer s made t he of f i cer s of
Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad si t i n anot her r oom.
They asked me t o speak t he t r ut h. I r epl i ed
t hat i f I di d so t hese of f i cer s woul d ki l l me
and t r oubl e my f ami l y t oo. At t hi s DI G K
Raj endr a answer ed me t hat t hey woul d not l et
any t r oubl e f al l upon my f ami l y, i f I t ol d t he
t r ut h. I was i mpr essed wi t h hi s wor ds and
st ar t ed owni ng l oudl y. Due t o hi s humani t ar i an
appr oach, I gai ned conf i dence and t ol d hi mt hat
I was i nnocent and knew not hi ng about
Akshar dham. They answer ed me t hat t hey woul d
not l et i nj ust i ce happen t o i nnocent as t hey
had ar r est ed t he per son i nvol ved i n t hi s
scandal . . . .
. . . . Lat er on 9- 9- 03 I was br ought agai n t o
Ahmedabad. . . I was br ought t o Cr i me Br anch on
14- 9- 03, Vanar Saheb cal l ed me. . . he was wr i t i ng
somet hi ng on some paper s. . . Then he gave t hose
paper s t o me( whi ch he was wr i t i ng) . He asked me
t o r ead t hose paper s. I n t hem, I was accused
of cr i me and f al sel y t r apped i n Akshar dhamcase
by t hese of f i cer s. Af t er r eadi ng, I pl eaded and
r equest ed Vanar sayi ng t hat I was i nnocent and
such al l egat i ons must not be char ged on
me. . . . He asked me t o r ead t hose paper s i n same
way and conf ess i n f r ont of l i ve camer a, as
t hey had wr i t t en my r ol e i n t hose paper s. . . . At
about 10. 00 pm t hey compel l ed me t o t el l t he
f al se st or y i n f r ont of vi deo camer a. . . . I used
t o f or got and make mi st akes i n t el l i ng t he
wr i t t en st or y. At t hi s PI Vanar used t o si gn me
and r emi nd me. . . . He al so made t he camer a cl ose
and abused me and r emi nded me t he unt r ue st or y
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -239-

i n t hi s way by beat i ng and t hr eat eni ng me t hey
made me r eveal an absol ut el y unt r ue st or y. . .
. . . I swear I have been wr ongl y t r apped by Cr i me
br anch Of f i cer s i n Akshar dham case. I am
absol ut el y i nnocent and do not know anyt hi ng
about Akshar dhamcase. . .

Guj ar at )

Thi s Cour t i n t he case of Navjot Sandhu ( supr a) whi l e
deci di ng whet her t he same r ul e of pr udence f or
conf essi ons under t he gener al l aw woul d appl y f or
conf essi ons under t he POTA as wel l , hel d as under :
46. . The bet t er vi ew woul d be t o f ol l ow t he
same r ul e of pr udence as i s bei ng f ol l owed i n
t he case of conf essi ons under t he gener al l aw.
The conf essi onal st at ement r ecor ded by t he
pol i ce of f i cer can be t he basi s of convi ct i on
of t he maker , but i t i s desi r abl e t o l ook t o
cor r obor at i on i n a br oad sense, when i t i s
r et r act ed. The non obst ant e pr ovi si on adver t ed
t o by t he l ear ned J udges shoul d not , i n our
consi der ed vi ew, af f ect t he oper at i on of t he
gener al r ul e of cor r obor at i on br oadl y.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -240-

Fur t her , i n t he case of Parmanada Pegu v. State of
Assam
57
, t hi s Cour t r el i ed upon many j udgment s, most
i mpor t ant of whi ch i s Subramania Goundan v. State of
Madras
58
whi ch was r el i ed upon i n t he case of Navjot
Sandhu (supra), i n or der t o hol d t hat t he conf essi onal
st at ement of t he accused whi ch i s r et r act ed, cannot be
r el i ed upon t o convi ct hi m i n t he absence of
cor r obor at i ng evi dence. I n t he Subramania Goundan case
(supra), t hi s Cour t hel d t hus:
14. The next quest i on i s whet her t her e i s
cor r obor at i on of t he conf essi on si nce i t has
been r et r act ed. A conf essi on of a cr i me by a
per son, who has per pet r at ed i t , i s usual l y t he
out come of peni t ence and r emor se and i n nor mal
ci r cumst ances i s t he best evi dence agai nst t he
maker . The quest i on has ver y of t en ar i sen
whet her a r et r act ed conf essi on may f or m t he
basi s of convi ct i on i f bel i eved t o be t r ue and
vol unt ar i l y made. For t he pur pose of ar r i vi ng
at t hi s concl usi on t he cour t has t o t ake i nt o
consi der at i on not onl y t he r easons gi ven f or
maki ng t he conf essi on or r et r act i ng i t but t he
at t endi ng f act s and ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng

57
( 2004) 7 SCC 779
58
AI R 1958 SC 66
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -241-

t he same. I t may be r emar ked t hat t her e can be
no absol ut e r ul e t hat a r et r act ed conf essi on
cannot be act ed upon unl ess t he same i s
cor r obor at ed mat er i al l y. I t was l ai d down i n
cer t ai n cases one such bei ng I n r e. Kesava
Pi l l ai I LR 53 Mad 160: ( AI R 1929 Mad 837) ( B)
t hat i f t he r easons gi ven by an accused per son
f or r et r act i ng a conf essi on ar e on t he f ace of
t hemf al se, t he conf essi on may be act ed upon as
i t st ands and wi t hout any cor r obor at i on. But
t he vi ew t aken by t hi s cour t on mor e occasi ons
t han one i s t hat as a mat t er of pr udence and
caut i on whi ch has sanct i f i ed i t sel f i nt o a r ul e
of l aw, a r et r act ed conf essi on cannot be made
sol el y t he basi s of convi ct i on unl ess t he same
i s cor r obor at ed one of t he l at est cases bei ng
' Bal bi r Si ngh v. St at e of Punj ab ( S) AI R 1957
SC 216 ( C) , but i t does not necessar i l y mean
t hat each and ever y ci r cumst ance ment i oned i n
t he conf essi on r egar di ng t he compl i ci t y of t he
accused must be separ at el y and i ndependent l y
cor r obor at ed nor i s i t essent i al t hat t he
cor r obor at i on must come f r om f act s and
ci r cumst ances di scover ed af t er t he conf essi on
was made. I t woul d be suf f i ci ent , i n our
opi ni on, t hat t he gener al t r end of t he
conf essi on i s subst ant i at ed by some evi dence
whi ch woul d t al l y wi t h what i s cont ai ned i n t he
conf essi on. I n t hi s connect i on i t woul d be
pr of i t abl e t o cont r ast a r et r act ed conf essi on
wi t h t he evi dence of an appr over or an
accompl i ce. Though under S. 133 of t he Evi dence
Act a convi ct i on i s not i l l egal mer el y because
i t pr oceeds on t he uncor r obor at ed t est i mony of
wi t nesses, i l l ust r at i on ( b) t o S. 114 l ays down
t hat a cour t may pr esume t hat an accompl i ce i s
unwor t hy of cr edi t unl ess he i s cor r obor at ed i n
mat er i al par t i cul ar s. I n t he case of such a
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -242-

per son on hi s own showi ng he i s a depr aved and
debased i ndi vi dual who havi ng t aken par t i n t he
cr i me t r i es t o excul pat e hi msel f and want s t o
f ast en t he l i abi l i t y on anot her . I n such
ci r cumst ances i t i s absol ut el y necessar y t hat
what he has deposed must be cor r obor at ed i n
mat er i al par t i cul ar s. I n cont r ast i ng t hi s wi t h
t he st at ement of a per son maki ng a conf essi on
who st ands on a bet t er f oot i ng, one need onl y
f i nd out when t her e i s a r et r act i on whet her t he
ear l i er st at ement , whi ch was t he r esul t of
r emor se, r epent ance and cont r i t i on, was
vol unt ar y and t r ue or not and i t i s wi t h t hat
obj ect t hat cor r obor at i on i s sought f or . Not
i nf r equent l y one i s apt t o f al l i n er r or i n
equat i ng a r et r act ed conf essi on wi t h t he
evi dence of an accompl i ce and t her ef or e, i t i s
advi sabl e t o cl ear l y under st and t he di st i nct i on
bet ween t he t wo. The st andar ds of cor r obor at i on
i n t he t wo ar e qui t e di f f er ent . I n t he case of
t he per son conf essi ng who has r esi l ed f r om hi s
st at ement , gener al cor r obor at i on i s suf f i ci ent
whi l e an accompl i ce' s evi dence shoul d be
cor r obor at ed i n mat er i al par t i cul ar s. I n
addi t i on t he cour t must f eel t hat t he r easons
gi ven f or t he r et r act i on i n t he case of a
conf essi on ar e unt r ue.

Thi s above sai d vi ew of t hi s Cour t has been endor sed
i n var i ous j udgment s subsequent l y and we f i nd i t
necessar y t o r ei t er at e t he same her ei n. The r ul e of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -243-

pr udence as appl yi ng t o conf essi ons of t he accused
under t he gener al l aw, bei ng t hat t he conf essi onal
st at ement s whi ch wer e r et r act ed must be cor r obor at ed
by i ndependent evi dence, must be f ol l owed t o convi ct
t he accused f or t he char ges f r amed agai nst t hem. The
f i ndi ngs and r easons f or convi ct i on and sent enci ng of
t he accused per sons i n t hi s case wer e t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of A- 2, A- 3, A- 4 and A- 6 and t he t wo Ur du
l et t er s whi ch ar e pur por t edl y wr i t t en by A- 4. A- 2, A-
3, A- 4 and A- 6 had r et r act ed t hei r conf essi onal
st at ement s as per t he exhi bi t s af or ement i oned and al l
of t hem had al l eged t hat t hey wer e t or t ur ed and
t hr eat ened wi t h di r e consequences of deat h t hr ough
encount er and deat h of t hei r l oved ones. Al l t he
accused per sons speak of t or t ur e by beat i ng,
especi al l y on t he l egs and t hi s cor r esponds t o t hei r
compl ai nt s of pai n under t he f eet .
117. Fur t her , A- 5 al so made a st at ement as per Ex. 778
t hat he was t or t ur ed i n pol i ce cust ody and t hat he had
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -244-

no r ol e i n t he conspi r acy t o at t ack t he Akshar dham
t empl e and he was bei ng f r amed i n t he case. The
st at ement s of r et r act i on al so r ef er r ed t o t he r epeat ed
ent r eat i es by accused per sons bef or e t he Speci al Cour t
( POTA) as wel l as by A- 2, A- 4 and A- 5, bef or e t he DI G
of Pol i ce at J ammu and Kashmi r , Mr . K Raj endr a Kumar
t o t r ansf er t he case t o t he CBI f or an i ndependent
i nvest i gat i on and enqui r y.
118. Fur t her , A- 6 had al so r et r act ed hi s conf essi onal
st at ement ( Ex. 32) , wher ei n he had al so al l eged sever e
t or t ur e and beat i ng by t he Sr i nagar pol i ce as wel l as
t he Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad and he al l eged t hat he was
ar r est ed at Nagpur and sent t o Sr i nagar and a
compul sor y conf essi on had been ext r act ed f r om hi m i n
or der t o i mpl i cat e hi mi n t he cr i me.
119. Fur t her , wi t h r espect t o t he t wo Ur du l et t er s,
whi ch wer e pur por t edl y wr i t t en by A- 4, upon whi ch t he
pr osecut i on pl aced such an unf l i nchi ng r el i ance i n
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -245-

or der t o est abl i sh a l i nk bet ween t he fidayeens and
t he accused per sons, has al r eady been answer ed by us
i n poi nt nos. 4 and 5 t o be compl et el y unr el i abl e f or
t he r easons st at ed by us i n t hi s j udgment .
120. The st or y of t he pr osecut i on cr umbl es down at
ever y j unct ur e. Most i mpor t ant l y, t he case l aws r el i ed
upon above show t hat t he st at ement s of conf essi on of
t he accused per sons cannot be r el i ed upon i f t hey ar e
r et r act ed, unl ess cor r obor at ed by i ndependent
evi dence. I n t hi s case, as al r eady el uci dat ed, t he
case of t he pr osecut i on r est s on t he conf essi onal
st at ement s on t he accused per sons, t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of t he accompl i ces and t hei r evi dence and
t he t wo Ur du l et t er s pur por t edl y f ound i n t he pocket s
of t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens and wr i t t en by A- 4,
and apar t f r om t hi s, i t i s ver y cl ear t hat t her e i s
absol ut el y no i ndependent evi dence t o i mpl i cat e t he
accused per sons f or t he cr i me. The evi dence of t he
accompl i ces, PW- 50, PW- 51 and PW- 52 ar e al so r ej ect ed
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -246-

f or t he r easons gi ven i n t he answer t o poi nt no. 3.
Ther ef or e, t her e i s no i ndependent evi dence on r ecor d
whi ch cor r obor at es t he conf essi ons of t he accused
per sons whi ch wer e subsequent l y r et r act ed.
Fur t her , a r et r act ed conf essi onal st at ement of an
accused per son cannot be used t o cor r obor at e t he
r et r act ed conf essi onal st at ement of a co- accused. I n
t he case of Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors. V. State of West
Bengal
59
, t hi s Cour t hel d as under :
110. A r et r act ed conf essi on of a co- accused
cannot be r el i ed upon f or t he pur pose of
f i ndi ng cor r obor at i on f or t he r et r act ed
conf essi on of an accused. . . .
116. What ever be t he t er mi nol ogy used, one r ul e
i s al most cer t ai n t hat no j udgment of
convi ct i on shal l be passed on an uncor r obor at ed
r et r act ed conf essi on. The cour t shal l consi der
t he mat er i al s on r ecor d obj ect i vel y i n r egar d
t o t he r easons f or r et r act i on. I t must ar r i ve
at a f i ndi ng t hat t he conf essi on was t r ut hf ul
and vol unt ar y. Mer i t of t he conf essi on bei ng
t he vol unt ar i ness and t r ut hf ul ness, t he same,
i n no ci r cumst ances, shoul d be compr omi sed. We
ar e not obl i vi ous of some of t he deci si ons of

59
( 2007) 12 SCC 230
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -247-

t hi s Cour t whi ch pr oceeded on t he basi s t hat
convi ct i on of an accused on t he basi s of a
r et r act ed conf essi on i s per mi ssi bl e but onl y i f
i t i s f ound t hat r et r act i on made by t he accused
was whol l y on a f al se pr emi se. . . . . . .
117. Ther e cannot , however , be any doubt or
di sput e t hat al t hough r et r act ed conf essi on i s
admi ssi bl e, t he same shoul d be l ooked wi t h some
amount of suspi ci on - a st r onger suspi ci on t han
t hat whi ch i s at t ached t o t he conf essi on of an
appr over who l eads evi dence t o t he cour t .

121. Thus, f or t he above r eason al so, t he conf essi onal
st at ement s of t he accused per sons cannot be r el i ed
upon and t he case of t he pr osecut i on f ai l s.
Accor di ngl y, we hol d t hat t her e i s no i ndependent
evi dence on r ecor d t o pr ove t he gui l t of t he accused
per sons beyond r easonabl e doubt i n t he f ace of t he
r et r act i ons and gr ave al l egat i ons of t or t ur e and
vi ol at i on of human r i ght s of t he accused per sons
agai nst t he pol i ce. We accor di ngl y answer t hi s poi nt
i n f avour of t he appel l ant s.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -248-

122. The accused per sons have been f ound gui l t y of t he
of f ence of cr i mi nal conspi r acy by bot h t he cour t s
bel ow. I t was cont ended bef or e us by t he l ear ned
seni or counsel f or t he pr osecut i on t hat t he accused
per sons i n t he i nst ant case ar e gui l t y of cr i mi nal
conspi r acy and t hough t he accused per sons di d not know
each ot her , i t i s not a pr er equi si t e f or est abl i shi ng
t he of f ence of cr i mi nal conspi r acy pr ovi ded under
Sect i on 120- A of I PC. On t he ot her hand, i t was
cont ended by t he l ear ned seni or counsel f or t he
accused per sons t hat nei t her t he common i nt ent i on nor
t he common obj ect of t he accused, i . e at t ack on
Akshar dham t empl e i n t he i nt er veni ng ni ght bet ween
24. 09. 2002 and 25. 09. 2002, has been est abl i shed by t he
pr osecut i on.
To begi n wi t h, we i nt end t o r ei t er at e t he pr ovi si ons
of t he r el evant sect i on of t he I PC.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -249-

" 120- A- When t wo or mor e per sons agr ee t o do,
or cause t o be done-
( 1) an i l l egal act , or
( 2) an act whi ch i s not i l l egal by i l l egal
means, such an agr eement i s desi gnat ed a
cr i mi nal conspi r acy:
Pr ovi ded t hat no agr eement except an agr eement
t o commi t an of f ence shal l amount t o a cr i mi nal
conspi r acy unl ess some act besi des t he
agr eement i s done by one or mor e par t i es t o
such agr eement i n pur suance t her eof . "

Expl ai ni ng what const i t ut es t he of f ence of cr i mi nal
conspi r acy, i t was hel d by t hi s Cour t i n t he case of
K.R Purushothaman v. State of Kerala
60
as under :
13. To const i t ut e a conspi r acy, meet i ng of
mi nds of t wo or mor e per sons f or doi ng an
i l l egal act or an act by i l l egal means i s t he
f i r st and pr i mar y condi t i on and i t i s not
necessar y t hat al l t he conspi r at or s must know
each and ever y det ai l of t he conspi r acy.
Nei t her i s i t necessar y t hat ever y one of t he
conspi r at or s t akes act i ve par t i n t he
commi ssi on of each and ever y conspi r at or i al
act s. The agr eement amongst t he conspi r at or s
can be i nf er r ed by necessar y i mpl i cat i on. I n
most of t he cases, t he conspi r aci es ar e pr oved
by t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, as t he
conspi r acy i s sel dom an open af f ai r . The

60
( 2005) 12 SCC 631
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -250-

exi st ence of conspi r acy and i t s obj ect s ar e
usual l y deduced f r om t he ci r cumst ances of t he
case and t he conduct of t he accused i nvol ved i n
t he conspi r acy. Whi l e appr eci at i ng t he evi dence
of t he conspi r acy, i t i s i ncumbent on t he cour t
t o keep i n mi nd t he wel l - known r ul e gover ni ng
ci r cumst ant i al evi dence vi z. each and ever y
i ncr i mi nat i ng ci r cumst ance must be cl ear l y
est abl i shed by r el i abl e evi dence and t he
ci r cumst ances pr oved must f or m a chai n of
event s f r om whi ch t he onl y i r r esi st i bl e
concl usi on about t he gui l t of t he accused can
be saf el y dr awn, and no ot her hypot hesi s
agai nst t he gui l t i s possi bl e. Cr i mi nal
conspi r acy i s an i ndependent of f ence i n t he
Penal Code. The unl awf ul agr eement i s sine qua
non f or const i t ut i ng of f ence under t he Penal
Code and not an accompl i shment . Conspi r acy
consi st s of t he scheme or adj ust ment bet ween
t wo or mor e per sons whi ch may be expr ess or
i mpl i ed or par t l y expr ess and par t l y i mpl i ed.
Mer e knowl edge, even di scussi on, of t he pl an
woul d not per se const i t ut e conspi r acy. The
of f ence of conspi r acy shal l cont i nue t i l l t he
t er mi nat i on of agr eement .

123. The i ngr edi ent s necessar y t o est abl i sh t he
of f ence of cr i mi nal conspi r acy have been di scussed by
a t hr ee J udge bench of t hi s Cour t i n t he case of Ram
Narayan Popli & Ors. & Ors v. Central Bureau of
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -251-

Investigation
61
i n a por t i on of t he bel ow par a, as
under :
342. . The el ement s of a cr i mi nal conspi r acy
have been st at ed t o be: ( a) an obj ect t o be
accompl i shed, ( b) a pl an or scheme embodyi ng
means t o accompl i sh t hat obj ect , ( c) an
agr eement or under st andi ng bet ween t wo or mor e
of t he accused per sons wher eby, t hey become
def i ni t el y commi t t ed t o co- oper at e f or t he
accompl i shment of t he obj ect by t he means
embodi ed i n t he agr eement , or by any ef f ect ual
means, and ( d) i n t he j ur i sdi ct i on wher e t he
st at ut e r equi r ed an over t act . The essence of a
cr i mi nal conspi r acy i s t he unl awf ul combi nat i on
and or di nar i l y t he of f ence i s compl et e when t he
combi nat i on i s f r amed. Fr om t hi s, i t
necessar i l y f ol l ows t hat unl ess t he st at ut e so
r equi r es, no over t act needs be done i n
f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy, and t hat t he
obj ect of t he combi nat i on need not be
accompl i shed, i n or der t o const i t ut e an
i ndi ct abl e of f ence.

As f ar as t he r ol e of each i ndi vi dual accused i s
concer ned, i t has been est abl i shed by t hi s Cour t t hat
each i ndi vi dual conspi r at or need not know t he cont ent s
of t he ent i r e conspi r acy, or each and ever y st ep. I t

61
( 2003) 3 SCC 641
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -252-

i s possi bl e t hat t he co- conspi r at or s knowl edge of t he
conspi r acy i s l i mi t ed t o hi s r ol e i n t he conspi r acy,
and he may have no knowl edge about t he act i ons of t he
ot her co- conspi r at or s. I n t he case of Yash Pal Mittal
v. State of Punjab
62
i t was hel d by t hi s Cour t as
under :
9. The of f ence of cr i mi nal conspi r acy under
Sect i on 120- A i s a di st i nct of f ence i nt r oduced
f or t he f i r st t i me i n 1913 i n Chapt er V- A of
t he Penal Code. The ver y agr eement , concer t or
l eague i s t he i ngr edi ent of t he of f ence. I t i s
not necessar y t hat al l t he conspi r at or s must
know each and ever y det ai l of t he conspi r acy as
l ong as t hey ar e co- par t i ci pat or s i n t he mai n
obj ect of t he conspi r acy. Ther e may be so many
devi ces and t echni ques adopt ed t o achi eve t he
common goal of t he conspi r acy and t her e may be
di vi si on of per f or mances i n t he chai n of
act i ons wi t h one obj ect t o achi eve t he r eal end
of whi ch ever y col l abor at or must be awar e and
i n whi ch each one of t hem must be i nt er est ed.
Ther e must be uni t y of obj ect or pur pose but
t her e may be pl ur al i t y of means somet i mes even
unknown t o one anot her , amongst t he
conspi r at or s. I n achi evi ng t he goal , sever al
of f ences may be commi t t ed by some of t he
conspi r at or s even unknown t o t he ot her s. The
onl y r el evant f act or i s t hat al l means adopt ed

62
( 1977) 4 SCC 540
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -253-

and i l l egal act s done must be and pur por t ed t o
be i n f ur t her ance of t he obj ect of t he
conspi r acy even t hough t her e may be somet i mes
mi sf i r e or over - shoot i ng by some of t he
conspi r at or s. Even i f some st eps ar e r esor t ed
t o by one or t wo of t he conspi r at or s wi t hout
t he knowl edge of t he ot her s i t wi l l not af f ect
t he cul pabi l i t y of t hose ot her s when t hey ar e
associ at ed wi t h t he obj ect of t he conspi r acy.

I t was al so obser ved i n t he case of Ajay Aggarwal v.
Union of India & Ors.
63
t hat :
8. I t i s not necessar y t hat each conspi r at or
must know al l t he det ai l s of t he scheme nor be
a par t i ci pant at ever y st age. I t i s necessar y
t hat t hey shoul d agr ee f or desi gn or obj ect of
t he conspi r acy. Conspi r acy i s concei ved as
havi ng t hr ee el ement s: ( 1) agr eement ; ( 2)
bet ween t wo or mor e per sons by whom t he
agr eement i s af f ect ed; and ( 3) a cr i mi nal
obj ect , whi ch may be ei t her t he ul t i mat e ai mof
t he agr eement , or may const i t ut e t he means, or
one of t he means by whi ch t hat ai m i s t o be
accompl i shed. .

124. I n t he pr esent case, t he pr osecut i on had r el i ed
upon t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he conf essi onal

63
1993 ( 3) SCC 609
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -254-

st at ement s of t he accused per sons i n or der t o set up
t he pl ea t hat t he of f ence of cr i mi nal conspi r acy had
been commi t t ed by each one of t hem. A car ef ul
exami nat i on of t hi s i nf or mat i on wi l l r eveal t hat t hi s
cl ai mof t he pr osecut i on does not hol d wat er .
125. To puni sh an accused under sect i on 120- B of t he
I PC, i t i s essent i al t o est abl i sh t hat t her e was some
common obj ect t o be achi eved and t hat t her e was an
agr eement by t he accused per sons t o achi eve t hat
obj ect i . e t her e was a meet i ng of mi nds . I n t he
pr esent case, i t cannot be sai d t hat t he conspi r acy
was hat ched by t he accused per sons i n f ur t her ance of
some common obj ect .
The common obj ect , accor di ng t o t he case of t he
pr osecut i on was t o t ake r evenge f or t he Godhr a Ri ot s
of 2002. But t hi s obj ect i s vague, and i s not ver y
speci f i c and t he char ge of cr i mi nal conspi r acy agai nst
t he accused per sons cannot be pr oved on i t s basi s.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -255-

Fur t her , even t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he
accused per sons di d not hel p t he pr osecut i on t o
est abl i sh t he chai n of event s i n pur suance of t he
al l eged conspi r acy. I n f act , t hey ar e hi ghl y
cont r adi ct or y and i mpr obabl e i n nat ur e.
126. Accor di ng t o t he pr osecut i on, as di scl osed i n t he
conf essi onal st at ement s of A- 1, A- 2, A- 3, A- 4 and A- 6,
t he conspi r acy was hat ched i n Saudi Ar abi a, and money
was del i ver ed t o I ndi a t hr ough haval a; t he t wo
fidayeens wer e appar ent l y escor t ed t o Ahmedabad by one
Ai yub Khan and t hey al so br ought t he ar ms and
ammuni t i on wi t h t hem. I t was st at ed t hat A- 2 t hen t ook
t he fidayeens i n hi s aut o r i ckshaw and hel ped t hem
r ecci e pl aces i n Ahmedabad and Gandhi nagar , and
f i nal l y hel ped t hem i n choosi ng t he Akshar dham t empl e
at Gandhi nagar as a sui t abl e pl ace t o car r y out t he
at t ack and hence t ake t he r evenge agai nst Hi ndus f or
t he Godhr a r i ot s. Accor di ng t o t he pr osecut i on, A- 2
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -256-

al so st at ed t hat t he accommodat i on of t he fidayeens
was set up at Bavahi r Hal l .
Per cont r a, as per t he conf essi onal st at ement of
A- 6, he was t he one who br ought t he t wo fidayeens f r om
Kashmi r , and dr ove t he car wi t h ammuni t i ons f r om
Kashmi r t o Bar ei l l y, and t hen came t o Ahmedabad i n a
t r ai n, and car r i ed t he ammuni t i ons i n beddi ng. A- 6,
accor di ng t o t he pr osecut i on, was al so t he one who
r eccei ed Gandhi nagar and Ahmedabad wi t h t he t wo
fidayeens, bef or e f i nal l y set t l i ng on Akshar dham as
t he si t e of t he at t ack. A- 6 al so st at ed, accor di ng t o
t he pr osecut i on, t hat t he fidayeens st ayed at t he
Gul shan Guest House. I nt er est i ngl y t hough, nei t her A- 2
nor A- 6 speak of each ot her or each ot her s r ol e i n
t he pl anni ng and conspi r acy, even t hough t hey wer e
bot h seemi ngl y doi ng t he same t ask, i . e, of ar r angi ng
f or t he accommodat i on of t he fidayeens, and maki ng
t hem r ecci e t he ci t i es of Gandhi nagar and Ahmedabad
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -257-

and we wonder how t her e can be t wo ver si ons of t he
same event .
127. I t i s t r ue t hat i n or der t o est abl i sh cr i mi nal
conspi r acy, i t i s not r equi r ed of ever y co- conspi r at or
t o know t he ent i r e sequence of t he chai n and event s,
and t hat t hey can st i l l be sai d t o be conspi r at or s
even i f t hey ar e onl y awar e of t hei r l i mi t ed r ol es and
ar e not abl e t o i dent i f y t he r ol e of any ot her
conspi r at or . But t hat i s not t he case her e. I t i s not
t he case her e t hat t he knowl edge of t he conspi r at or s
i s l i mi t ed t o t hei r r ol e. Each accused cl ai ms t o have
compl et e knowl edge of t he conspi r acy, whi l e
cont r adi ct i ng t he ot her s ver si on of t he same event s
t o const i t ut e t he act of cr i mi nal conspi r acy.
128. Ther ef or e, t he conf essi onal st at ement s of t he
accused per sons and t he accompl i ces do not compl ement
each ot her t o f or m a chai n of event s l eadi ng t o t he
of f ence. Rat her , t he deposi t i ons of t he pr osecut i on
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -258-

wi t nesses wer e cont r adi ct or y and di sr upt t he chai n of
event s and t ur n i t i nt o a conf usi ng st or y wi t h many
di scr epanci es, def eat i ng t he r ol es of each of t he
accused per sons whi ch have been al l egedl y per f or med by
t hem. Al so, none of t he event s of t he al l eged cr i mi nal
conspi r acy was suppor t ed by i ndependent evi dence t hat
i nspi r es conf i dence i n our mi nds t o uphol d t he
convi ct i on and sent ences met ed out t o t he accused
per sons.
128. Hence, we hol d t hat t he pr osecut i on has f ai l ed t o
pr ove beyond r easonabl e doubt , t he gui l t agai nst t he
accused per sons, f or t he of f ence of cr i mi nal
conspi r acy under Sect i on 120- B of t he I PC. We,
t her ef or e answer t hi s poi nt i n f avour of t he
appel l ant s.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -259-

129. Ar t i cl e 136 of t he Const i t ut i on conf er s appel l at e
j ur i sdi ct i on on t hi s cour t , t he scope and power s of
whi ch has been di scussed by t hi s cour t i n a cat ena of
deci si ons.
I n t he case of Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham &
Anr.
64
, Chi nappa Reddy, J . obser ved:
4. Ar t i cl e 136 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a
i nvest s t he Supr eme Cour t wi t h a pl eni t ude of
pl enar y, appel l at e power over al l Cour t s and
Tr i bunal s i n I ndi a. The power i s pl enar y i n t he
sense t hat t her e ar e no wor ds i n Ar t i cl e 136
i t sel f qual i f yi ng t hat power . But , t he ver y
nat ur e of t he power has l ed t he Cour t t o set
l i mi t s t o i t sel f wi t hi n whi ch t o exer ci se such
power . I t i s now t he wel l est abl i shed pr act i ce
of t hi s Cour t t o per mi t t he i nvocat i on of t he
power under Ar t i cl e 136 onl y i n ver y
except i onal ci r cumst ances, as when a quest i on
of l aw of gener al publ i c i mpor t ance ar i ses or a
deci si on shocks t he consci ence of t he Cour t .
But wi t hi n t he r est r i ct i ons i mposed by i t sel f ,
t hi s Cour t has t he undoubt ed power t o i nt er f er e
even wi t h f i ndi ngs of f act maki ng no
di st i nct i on bet ween j udgment of acqui t t al and
convi ct i on, i f t he Hi gh Cour t , i n ar r i vi ng at
t hose f i ndi ngs, has act ed " per ver sel y or
ot her wi se i mpr oper l y.

64
( 1979) 2 SCC 297
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -260-

Whi l e exami ni ng as t o whet her t hi s Cour t has t he power
t o i nt er f er e wi t h t he concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act
r ecor ded by t he cour t s bel ow, i t was hel d i n t he case
of Indira Kaur & Ors. v. Sheo Lal Kapoor
65
as under :
7. Ar t i cl e 136 of t he Const i t ut i on of I ndi a
does not f or ge any such f et t er s expr essl y. I t
does not obl i ge t hi s Cour t t o f ol d i t s hands
and become a hel pl ess spect at or even when t hi s
Cour t per cei ves t hat a mani f est i nj ust i ce has
been occasi oned. I f and when t he Cour t i s
sat i sf i ed t hat gr eat i nj ust i ce has been done i t
i s not onl y t he r i ght but al so t he dut y of
t hi s Cour t t o r ever se t he er r or and t he
i nj ust i ce and t o upset t he f i ndi ng
not wi t hst andi ng t he f act t hat i t has been
af f i r med t hr i ce I t i s not t he number of
t i mes t hat a f i ndi ng has been r ei t er at ed t hat
mat t er s. What r eal l y mat t er s i s whet her t he
f i ndi ng i s mani f est l y an unr easonabl e, and
unj ust one i n t he cont ext of evi dence on
r ecor d. I t i s no doubt t r ue t hat t hi s Cour t
wi l l unl ock t he door openi ng i nt o t he ar ea of
f act s onl y spar i ngl y and onl y when i nj ust i ce i s
per cei ved t o have been per pet uat ed. But i n any
vi ew of t he mat t er t her e i s no j ur i sdi ct i onal
l ock whi ch cannot be opened i n t he f ace of
gr ave i nj ust i ce. . .

65
( 1988) 2 SCC 488
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -261-

( emphasi s l ai d by t hi s cour t )
Fur t her , t hi s cour t has expl ai ned t he ci r cumst ances i n
whi ch i t can i nt er f er e wi t h t he f i ndi ngs of t he f act
r ecor ded by t he cour t s bel ow. I n t he case of Bharwada
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat
66
, i t was
hel d by t hi s Cour t t hat :
5. . Such a concur r ent f i ndi ng of f act cannot
be r eopened i n an appeal by speci al l eave
unl ess i t i s est abl i shed : ( 1) t hat t he f i ndi ng
i s based on no evi dence or ( 2) t hat t he f i ndi ng
i s per ver se, i t bei ng such as no r easonabl e
per son coul d have ar r i ved at even i f t he
evi dence was t aken at i t s f ace val ue or ( 3) t he
f i ndi ng i s based and bui l t on i nadmi ssi bl e
evi dence, whi ch evi dence, i f excl uded f r om
vi si on, woul d negat e t he pr osecut i on case or
subst ant i al l y di scr edi t or i mpai r i t or ( 4)
some vi t al pi ece of evi dence whi ch woul d t i l t
t he bal ance i n f avour of t he convi ct has been
over l ooked, di sr egar ded, or wr ongl y
di scar ded.

66
( 1983) 3 SCC 217
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -262-

Mor e r ecent l y, i n t he case of Ganga Kumar Shrivastav
v. State of Bihar
67
i t was st at ed whi l e di scussi ng
pr evi ous cases on t he subj ect t hat , t he f ol l owi ng
pr i nci pl es coul d gui de t he cour t s i n det er mi ni ng t he
scope of t he cr i mi nal appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on exer ci sed
by t he Supr eme Cour t , especi al l y on t he i ssue of
r ever si ng f i ndi ngs of f act by t he l ower cour t s:
10.
i ) The power s of t hi s Cour t under Ar t i cl e 136

of t he Const i t ut i on are very wide but i n
cr i mi nal appeal s t hi s Cour t does not i nt er f er e
wi t h t he concur r ent f i ndi ngs of t he f act save
in exceptional circumstances.

i i ) I t i s open t o t hi s Cour t t o i nt er f er e wi t h
t he f i ndi ngs of f act gi ven by t he Hi gh Cour t i f
t he Hi gh Cour t has acted perversely or
otherwise improperly.

i i i ) I t i s open t o t hi s Cour t t o i nvoke t he
power under Ar t i cl e 136 onl y i n very
exceptional circumstances as and when a
quest i on of l aw of gener al publ i c i mpor t ance
ar i ses or a decision shocks the conscience of
the Court.

67
( 2005) 6 SCC 211
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -263-

i v) When t he evi dence adduced by t he pr osecut i on
fell short of the test of reliability and
acceptability and as such i t i s hi ghl y unsaf e
t o act upon i t .

v) Wher e t he appr eci at i on of evi dence and
f i ndi ng i s vi t i at ed by any er r or of l aw of
pr ocedur e or f ound cont r ar y t o t he pr i nci pl es
of nat ur al j ust i ce, er r or s of r ecor d and
mi sr eadi ng of t he evi dence, or where the
conclusions of the High Court are manifestly
perverse and unsupportable from the evidence on
record
130. Fr om t he af or ement i oned t wo cases, t he l egal
pr i nci pl es l ai d down r egar di ng t he scope and ambi t of
exer ci se of t hi s Cour t s power , i t i s cl ear t hat even
t hough t he power s under Ar t i cl e 136 must be exer ci sed
spar i ngl y, yet , t her e i s absol ut el y not hi ng i n t he
Ar t i cl e whi ch pr ohi bi t s t hi s Cour t f r om r ever si ng t he
concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act by t he cour t s bel ow, i f i t
i s of t he opi ni on on t he basi s of t he evi dence on
r ecor d, t hat af f i r mi ng t he f i ndi ngs of t he cour t s
bel ow wi l l r esul t i n a gr ave mi scar r i age of j ust i ce.
Mor eover , i t has been hel d by t hi s Cour t i n t he case
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -264-

of Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of
Maharashtra
68
t hat i f t he case i s of deat h sent ence,
t hi s Cour t can exer ci se i t s power t o exami ne mat er i al
on r ecor d f i r st hand and come t o i t s own concl usi on on
f act s and l aw, unbound by t he f i ndi ngs of t he Tr i al
Cour t and t he Hi gh Cour t .
131. Her e, we i nt end t o t ake not e of t he per ver si t y i n
conduct i ng t hi s case at var i ous st ages, r i ght f r omt he
i nvest i gat i on l evel t o t he gr ant i ng of sanct i on by t he
st at e gover nment t o pr osecut e t he accused per sons
under POTA, t he convi ct i on and awar di ng of sent ence t o
t he accused per sons by t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) and
conf i r mat i on of t he same by t he Hi gh Cour t . We, bei ng
t he apex cour t cannot af f or d t o si t wi t h f ol ded hands
when such gr oss vi ol at i on of f undament al r i ght s and
basi c human r i ght s of t he ci t i zens of t hi s count r y

68
( 2012) 9 SCC 1
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -265-

wer e pr esent ed bef or e us. The i nvest i gat i on pr ocess
post Akshar dhamat t ack happened as under :
The i nci dence of Akshar dham happened i n t he
i nt er veni ng ni ght s bet ween 24. 09. 2002 and
25. 09. 2002. An FI R was r egi st er ed by PW- 126 on
25. 09. 2002.
Accor di ng t o t he i nst r uct i on of Super i nt endent
of Pol i ce, t he i nvest i gat i on of t he compl ai nt
was handed over t o Pol i ce I nspect or Shr i V. R.
Tol i a ( PW- 113) .
The i nvest i gat i on was t hen handed over t o t he
Ant i Ter r or i st Squad on 03. 10. 2002.
The i nvest i gat i on was t her eaf t er handed over t o
t he Cr i me Br anch whi ch was assi gned t o PW- 126
on 28. 08. 2003 at 6: 30 p. m.
The st at ement of PW- 50 was t aken at 8 p. m, on
t he same ni ght of 28. 08. 2003, af t er r ecei vi ng
ver bal i nst r uct i on f r om hi gher of f i cer - D. G.
Vanzar a i n t he mor ni ng.
A- 1 t o A- 5 wer e ar r est ed on 29. 08. 2003.
POTA was i nvoked on 30. 08. 2003.
The I . G. P. Kashmi r sends a f ax message t o
I . G. P. oper at i ons ATS Guj ar at st at e on
31. 08. 2003 r egar di ng A- 6 bei ng i n t he cust ody
of Kashmi r Pol i ce and t hat he has st at ed t hat
he was i nvol ved i n t he Akshar dhamat t ack.
A- 6 was br ought t o Ahmedabad on 12. 09. 2003 and
was ar r est ed at 9: 30 p. m.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -266-

A- 1 and A- 3 conf essed on 17. 09. 2003.
A- 2 and A- 4 conf essed on 24. 09. 2003.
A- 6 conf essed on 05. 10. 2003.
A- 6 was br ought t o Ahmedabad on 12. 09. 2003 and
was ar r est ed at 9: 30 p. m.

A car ef ul obser vat i on of t he above sai d dat es woul d
show t hat t he ATS was shoot i ng i n t he dar k f or about a
year wi t hout any r esul t . No t r ace of t he peopl e
associ at ed wi t h t hi s hei nous at t ack on t he Akshar dham
t empl e coul d be f ound by t he pol i ce. Then on t he
mor ni ng of 28. 03. 2003, t he case i s t r ansf er r ed t o
Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad. Thi s was f ol l owed by D. G.
Vanzar a gi vi ng i nst r uct i ons t o t he t hen- ACP G. S.
Si nghal ( PW- 126) about one Ashf aq Bhavnagr i ( PW- 50) .
PW- 126 was t her eaf t er made i n char ge of t he case on
t he same eveni ng at 6: 30 p. m. and t he st at ement of PW-
50 was r ecor ded at 8 p. m. , i . e wi t hi n one and a hal f
hour s. Thi s shr ouds our mi nds wi t h suspi ci on as t o why
such a vi t al wi t ness- D. G. Vanzar a, who di scover ed t he
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -267-

l i nk t o t he accused per sons, was not exami ned by t he
Speci al Cour t ( POTA) . The cour t s bel ow accept ed t he
f act s and evi dence pr oduced by t he pol i ce wi t hout
bei ng suspi ci ous about t he ext r eme coi nci dences wi t h
whi ch t he chai n of event s unf ol ded i t sel f i mmedi at el y
t hat i s, wi t hi n 24 hour s of t he case bei ng t r ansf er r ed
t o t he Cr i me Br anch, Ahmedabad.
132. We ar e r emi nded of t he l egendar y l i nes of J ust i ce
Vi vi an Bose i n t he case of Kashmira Singhs case
( supr a) wher ei n he caut i oned t hat :
2. The mur der was a par t i cul ar l y cr uel and
r evol t i ng one and f or t hat r eason i t wi l l be
necessar y t o exami ne t he evi dence wi t h mor e
t han or di nar y car e l est t he shocki ng nat ur e of
t he cr i me i nduce an i nst i nct i ve r eact i on
agai nst t he di spassi onat e j udi ci al scr ut i ny of
t he f act s and l aw.
( emphasi s l ai d by t hi s cour t )

The cour t s bel ow have not exami ned t he evi dence wi t h
mor e t han or di nar y car e . Fi r st l y, t he Speci al Cour t
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -268-

( POTA) accept ed t he j ust i f i cat i on made by t he
pr osecut i on i n sendi ng t he accused per sons t o pol i ce
cust ody af t er bei ng pr oduced bef or e t he CJ M on t he
gr ound t hat t her e was no compl ai nt made by t hem.
Secondl y, t he cour t s bel ow hel d t hat t he f act
t hat A- 1 t o A- 5 di d not know A- 6, does not di spr ove
t he t heor y of cr i mi nal conspi r acy, r at her i t di spl ays
t he ext r eme caut i on wi t h whi ch t he conspi r acy was
hat ched. We ar e unabl e t o br i ng our sel ves t o agr ee
wi t h t hi s r easoni ng of t he cour t s bel ow, as i n t he
i nst ant case, not onl y di d A- 1 t o A- 5 not know A- 6 and
vi ce ver sa, but al so A- 2, A- 4 and A- 6 had nar r at ed
di f f er ent ver si ons of t he same st or y, each of whi ch
cont r adi ct ed t he ot her and was act ual l y f at al t o t he
case of t he pr osecut i on. The cour t s bel ow mechani cal l y
and wi t hout appl yi ng t hei r mi nd, di scar ded t hi s
cont ent i on of t he l ear ned counsel on behal f of t he
accused per sons.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -269-

Thi r dl y, t he t wo Ur du l et t er s pur por t ed t o have
been r ecover ed f r omt he pocket s of t he t r ouser s of t he
fidayeens ( Ex. 658) , di d not have even a dr op of bl ood,
mud or per f or at i on by t he bul l et s, wher eas on physi cal
exami nat i on of t he t r ouser s by us, whi ch ar e mar ked as
mudammal obj ect s, we f ound t hat t he cl ot hes on t he
pocket s of t he fidayeens wer e per f or at ed wi t h bul l et s
and smear ed wi t h dr i ed bl ood even af t er 12 year s of
t he i nci dent .
The Speci al Cour t ( POTA) however , di d not f i nd i t
i mper at i ve t o exami ne why t he l et t er s r ecover ed f r om
t he pocket s of t he t r ouser s of t he fidayeens wer e
spot l ess. I t admi t t ed t he l et t er s as evi dence mer el y
on t he basi s of t he conf essi onal st at ement of A- 4 who
had, i n hi s st at ement r ecor ded t hat he had wr i t t en t he
l et t er s and had al so kept t he pen t o pr ove t hat t he
l et t er s wer e wr i t t en wi t h t he same pen. The Speci al
Cour t ( POTA) al so admi t t ed t he l et t er s as evi dence on
t he gr ound t hat si gnat ur es of Br i gadi er Raj Si t apat i
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -270-

as per t he st at ement of PW- 91 Maj or Lamba, wer e
pr esent on t hose l et t er s. The Hi gh Cour t admi t t ed t he
l et t er s as evi dence on t he gr ound t hat truth is
stranger than fiction by over l ooki ng not onl y t he
most i mpossi bl e f act t hat t he l et t er s mar ked by t he
pol i ce wer e spot l ess, but al so i gnor i ng t he evi dence
of PW- 105 who i n hi s deposi t i on r ecor ded t hat t her e
wer e no si gnat ur es of Br i gadi er Si t apat i or anyone
el se on t he l et t er s when t hey wer e handed over t o PW-
126.
133. Anot her er r or of t he cour t s bel ow i s r ef l ect ed i n
t he f act t hat t hey have not gi ven t he same wei ght age
t o t he def ence wi t nesses as t hey have t o t he
pr osecut i on wi t nesses. The l ear ned seni or counsel f or
t he accused per sons cont ended t hat t he cour t s bel ow
shoul d have gi ven same wei gt hage t o t he evi dence of
t he def ence wi t nesses as t hat of t he pr osecut i on
wi t nesses. However , t he evi dence of DW- 3 was not onl y
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -271-

di scar ded but al so not ment i oned i n t he deci si on of
t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) . DW- 3 st at ed as under :
Nazneen Bast awal a was a Muni ci pal Cor por at or
i n Dar i yapur ar ea i n t he year 2003. Al l t hose
wer e ar r est ed on 25. 8. 2003 under POTA.
Ther ef or e, a r al l y was or gani zed f or goi ng f r om
Dar i yapur Lake t o Kal upur . 200- 300 women
gat her ed near Dar i yapur Tal awadi at t en o cl ock
i n t he mor ni ng. Whi l e we wer e goi ng f or r al l y,
pol i ce made l at hi char ges and Nazneen was
f or ced t o si t i n vehi cl e.
.
Ther eaf t er , we wer e t aken t o t he Of f i ce of t he
Commi ssi oner at Shahi bag i n vehi cl e. Pol i ce
per sonnel sai d t hat you have t o engage advocat e
f or obt ai ni ng bai l . We wer e t aken t o Cour t no.
10 f r om t her e at Meghani nagar . Nazneen Ben
cal l ed an advocat e by maki ng a phone and
t her eaf t er we wer e r el eased on bai l at about 5
o cl ock i n t he eveni ng on t he r el evant day.
.
The per sons who wer e t aken f r om Dar i yapur
Kal upur under POTA wer e- Maul vi Ahmed, Maul vi
Abdul l a, Muf t i Kayum and many such peopl e. Al l
t hese peopl e wer e t aken bef or e ei ght t o ni ne
days of t he r al l y.

I n Cr oss Exami nat i on by Speci al P. P. Shr i H. M. Dhr uv
f or t he st at e, DW- 3 st at es as under :
. I had gi ven t he names of t he boys who wer e
ar r est ed under POTA t o Nazneenben. Boys wer e
t al ki ng i n Mohal l a. Maul vi Ahmed r esi des i n
Kal upur . I t t akes f i ve t o seven mi nut es i f we
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -272-

go t o Kal upur on f oot f r om my house whi ch i s
si t uat ed at Dar i yapur . Maul vi Abdul l ah r esi des
at Bal uchawad Mot i Havel i i n Kal upur ar ea.
Muf t i Kayum r esi des i n Dar i yapur and hi s house
i s si t uat ed at a di st ance of t wo t o t hr ee
mi nut es f r om my house. I t i s t r ue t hat t her e
may not be any occasi on f or me t o vi si t houses
of t hese peopl e, onl y we meet on t he way. I t i s
t r ue t hat Nazneen Ben t ol d f or ar r angi ng t he
r al l y i n r espect of t hei r ar r est under POTA. I t
i s t r ue t hat boys wer e sayi ng t hat Maul vi
Abdul l a, Muf t i Kayum and Maul vi Ahmed had been
t aken away by ar r est i ng t hem under POTA. I t i s
not t r ue t hat I had st at ed f al sel y t hat Muf t i
Abdul l a, Muf t i Kayum and Maul vi Ahmed wer e
t aken bef or e 8 t o 9 days of 25. 8. 2003.
They wer e not my ki n or ki t h out of t he per sons
who have been ar r est ed i n POTA. We r esi de i n
one Mohal l a and we bel ong t o one cast e. Muf t i
Kayumi s my nei ghbour . Ther e i s di st ance of t wo
or t hr ee mi nut es bet ween our houses. . . Mot her
of Muf t i Kayum met me and she t ol d t hat t hey
have been t aken and no one i s r el eased and
t her ef or e, a r al l y i s r equi r ed t o be ar r anged.
Ther e wer e t wo vehi cl es of pol i ce. Fi f t y or
si xt y women went i n t hem and t he r est of t hem
had l ef t .


appel l ant s)

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -273-

I t has been hel d by t hi s Cour t i n a cat ena of
cases t hat whi l e exami ni ng t he wi t nesses on r ecor d,
equal wei ght age shal l be gi ven t o t he def ence
wi t nesses as t hat of t he pr osecut i on wi t nesses. I n
t he case of Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar
69
,
t hi s Cour t hel d as under :
3. . Bef or e dr awi ng t he cur t ai n on t hi s scor e
however , we wi sh t o cl ar i f y t hat t he evi dence
t ender ed by t he def ence wi t nesses cannot al ways
be t er med t o be a t ai nt ed one by r eason of t he
f act um of t he wi t nesses bei ng exami ned by t he
def ence. The def ence wi t nesses ar e ent i t l ed t o
equal r espect and t r eat ment as t hat of t he
pr osecut i on. The i ssue of cr edi bi l i t y and t he
t r ust wor t hi ness ought al so t o be at t r i but ed t o
t he def ence wi t nesses on a par wi t h t hat of t he
pr osecut i on - a l apse on t he par t of t he
def ence wi t ness cannot be di f f er ent i at ed and be
t r eat ed di f f er ent l y t han t hat of t he
pr osecut or s' wi t nesses.


69
( 2002) 1 SCC 351
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -274-

Fur t her , i t has been hel d i n t he case of State of
Haryana v. Ram Singh
70
as under :
19. I nci dent al l y, be i t not ed t hat t he
evi dence t ender ed by def ence wi t nesses cannot
al ways be t er med t o be a t ai nt ed one t he
def ence wi t nesses ar e ent i t l ed t o equal
t r eat ment and equal r espect as t hat of t he
pr osecut i on. The i ssue of cr edi bi l i t y and t he
t r ust wor t hi ness ought al so t o be at t r i but ed t o
t he def ence wi t nesses on a par wi t h t hat of t he
pr osecut i on. Rej ect i on of t he def ence case on
t he basi s of t he evi dence t ender ed by t he
def ence wi t ness has been ef f ect ed r at her
casual l y by t he Hi gh Cour t . Suggest i on was
t her e t o t he pr osecut i on wi t nesses, i n
par t i cul ar PW 10 Dhol u Ram t hat hi s f at her
Manphool was mi ssi ng f or about 2/ 3 days pr i or
t o t he day of t he occur r ence i t sel f what mor e
i s expect ed of t he def ence case: a doubt or a
cer t ai nt y j ur i spr udent i al l y a doubt woul d be
enough: when such a suggest i on has been made
t he pr osecut i on has t o br i ng on r ecor d t he
avai l abi l i t y of t he deceased dur i ng t hose 2/ 3
days wi t h some i ndependent evi dence. Rej ect i on
of t he def ence case onl y by r eason t her eof i s
f ar t oo st r i ct and r i gi d a r equi r ement f or t he
def ence t o meet i t i s t he pr osecut or s dut y
t o pr ove beyond al l r easonabl e doubt s and not
t he def ence t o pr ove i t s i nnocence t hi s
i t sel f i s a ci r cumst ance, whi ch cannot but be
t er med t o be suspi ci ous i n nat ur e.

70
( 2002) 2 SCC 426
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -275-


Al so, i n t he case of State of U.P. v. Babu Ram
71
, t hi s
cour t hel d as under :
21. Shr i N. P. Mi dha, l ear ned counsel f or t he
r espondent submi t t ed wr i t t en submi ssi ons over
and above t he or al ar gument s addr essed by hi m.
One of t he cont ent i ons adver t ed t o by t he
l ear ned counsel i s per t ai ni ng t o t he evi dence
of t he def ence wi t ness ( DW 1 Mohar am Al i ) .
Counsel cont ended t hat i f t he evi dence of DW 1
Mohar amAl i can be bel i eved i t i s suf f i ci ent t o
shake t he basi c st r uct ur e of t he pr osecut i on
evi dence. Shr i N. P. Mi dha i nvi t ed our at t ent i on
t o t he f ol l owi ng obser vat i ons cont ai ned i n t he
deci si on of t hi s Cour t i n Dudh Nath Pandey v.
State of U.P.: ( SCC p. 173, par a 19)
Def ence wi t nesses ar e ent i t l ed t o equal
t r eat ment wi t h t hose of t he pr osecut i on.
And, cour t s ought t o over come t hei r
t r adi t i onal , i nst i nct i ve di sbel i ef i n
def ence wi t nesses.
22. We may quot e t he succeedi ng sent ence al so
f r om t he sai d deci si on f or t he sake of
compl et i on of t he obser vat i ons of t hei r
Lor dshi ps on t hat scor e. I t i s t hi s: Qui t e
of t en t hey t el l l i es but so do t he pr osecut i on
wi t nesses.
23. Deposi t i ons of wi t nesses, whet her t hey ar e
exami ned on t he pr osecut i on si de or def ence

71
( 2000) 4 SCC 515
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -276-

si de or as cour t wi t nesses, ar e or al evi dence
i n t he case and hence t he scr ut i ny t her eof
shal l be wi t hout any pr edi l ect i on or bi as. No
wi t ness i s ent i t l ed t o get bet t er t r eat ment
mer el y because he was exami ned as a pr osecut i on
wi t ness or even as a cour t wi t ness. I t i s
j udi ci al scr ut i ny whi ch i s war r ant ed i n r espect
of t he deposi t i ons of al l wi t nesses f or whi ch
di f f er ent yar dst i cks cannot be pr escr i bed as
f or t hose di f f er ent cat egor i es of wi t nesses.


134. The cour t s bel ow had i gnor ed t hese basi c l egal
pr i nci pl es whi l e admi t t i ng t he st at ement of wi t nesses
whi l e wei ghi ng t he case agai nst t he accused per sons.
Whi l e t he deci si on of t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) f ound
ment i on of DW- 1, DW- 2, DW- 4, DW- 5 and DW- 6, t he
evi dence of DW- 3 whi ch i ndi cat ed t hat some of t he
accused per sons mi ght have act ual l y been det ai ned i n
pol i ce cust ody much bef or e t he of f i ci al dat e of
ar r est , had been compl et el y over l ooked.

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -277-

However , FI R- I CR No. 3090 of 2003 ( Ex. 733) i n t he
pr esent case shows t hat DW- 3 was ar r est ed al ong wi t h
some ot her women under Sect i on 188 I PC f or pr ot est i ng
agai nst det ent i on of some per sons f r om t hei r ar ea.
Thi s, r ead wi t h t he not i f i cat i on G. P. K. / V. S. / 774/ 2003
by t he Pol i ce Commi ssi oner Ahmedabad Ci t y hol di ng t hat
f r omdat e 16. 08. 2003 00/ 00 hr s. t o 31. 08. 2003 at 24. 00
hr s. , not mor e t han f our per sons shal l gat her f or
hol di ng or cal l i ng any meet i ng or shal l t ake out any
pr ocessi on, i ndi cat es a st or y under t he l ayer s of
t r ut h whi ch t he pol i ce has managed t o suppr ess and t he
cour t s bel ow over l ooked.

Ther ef or e, accor di ng t o us, t hi s i s a f i t case
f or i nt er f er ence by t hi s Cour t under Ar t i cl e 136 of
t he Const i t ut i on, as we ar e of t he f i r m vi ew t hat t he
concur r ent f i ndi ngs of f act of t he Speci al Cour t
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -278-

( POTA) and t he Hi gh Cour t ar e not onl y er r oneous i n
f act but al so suf f er s f r omer r or i n l aw.


135. On t he basi s of t he i ssues we have al r eady
answer ed above based on t he f act s and evi dence on
r ecor d and on t he basi s of t he l egal pr i nci pl es l ai d
down by t hi s Cour t , we ar e convi nced t hat accused
per sons ar e i nnocent wi t h r espect t o t he char ges
l evel ed agai nst t hem. We ar e of t he vi ew t hat t he
j udgment and or der of t he Speci al Cour t ( POTA) i n POTA
case No. 16 of 2003 dat ed 01. 07. 2006 and t he i mpugned
j udgment and or der dat ed 01. 06. 2010 of t he Hi gh Cour t
of Guj ar at at Ahmedabad i n Cr i mi nal Conf i r mat i on Case
No. 2 of 2006 al ong wi t h Cr i mi nal Appeal Nos. 1675 of
2006 and 1328 of 2006 ar e l i abl e t o be set asi de.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -279-

Consequent l y, t he sent ences of deat h awar ded t o A- 2,
A- 4 and A- 6, l i f e i mpr i sonment awar ded t o A- 3, 10
year s of Ri gor ous I mpr i sonment awar ded t o A- 5 ar e set
asi de. Si nce we ar e acqui t t i ng al l t he accused i n
appeal bef or e us f or t he r easons ment i oned i n t hi s
j udgment and al so, si nce A- 1 was convi ct ed and
sent enced on t he basi s of t he same evi dence whi ch we
have al r eady r ej ect ed, we al so acqui t A- 1 who i s not
i n appeal bef or e us, of t he convi ct i on and sent ence of
5 year s Ri gor ous I mpr i sonment awar ded t o hi m by t he
cour t s bel ow, exer ci si ng t he power of t hi s Cour t under
Ar t i cl e 142 of t he Const i t ut i on and hol d hi m not
gui l t y of t he char ges f r amed agai nst hi m. We ar e awar e
t hat he has al r eady ser ved hi s sent ence. However , we
i nt end t o absol ve hi m of t he st i gma he i s car r yi ng of
t hat of a convi ct , wr ongl y hel d gui l t y of of f ences of
t er r or so t hat he i s abl e t o r et ur n t o hi s f ami l y and
soci et y, f r ee f r omany suspi ci on.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -280-

136. Bef or e par t i ng wi t h t he j udgment , we i nt end t o
expr ess our angui sh about t he i ncompet ence wi t h whi ch
t he i nvest i gat i ng agenci es conduct ed t he i nvest i gat i on
of t he case of such a gr i evous nat ur e, i nvol vi ng t he
i nt egr i t y and secur i t y of t he Nat i on. I nst ead of
booki ng t he r eal cul pr i t s r esponsi bl e f or t aki ng so
many pr eci ous l i ves, t he pol i ce caught i nnocent peopl e
and got i mposed t he gr i evous char ges agai nst t hem
whi ch r esul t ed i n t hei r convi ct i on and subsequent
sent enci ng.

137. We al l ow t he appeal s accor di ngl y by set t i ng asi de
t he j udgment and or der of Speci al Cour t ( POTA) i n POTA
case No. 16 of 2003 dat ed 01. 07. 2006 and t he i mpugned
common j udgment and or der s dat ed 01. 06. 2010 of t he
Hi gh Cour t of Guj ar at at Ahmedabad i n Cr i mi nal
Conf i r mat i on Case No. 2 of 2006 al ong wi t h Cr i mi nal
Appeal Nos. 1675 of 2006 and 1328 of 2006.
Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -281-

Accor di ngl y, we acqui t al l t he appel l ant s i n t he
pr esent appeal s, of al l t he char ges f r amed agai nst
t hem. The appel l ant s who ar e i n cust ody shal l be set
at l i ber t y f or t hwi t h, i f t hey ar e not r equi r ed i n any
ot her cr i mi nal case. We al so set asi de t he convi ct i on
and sent ence awar ded t o A- 1, t hough he has al r eady
under gone t he sent ence ser ved on hi m. Al l t he
appl i cat i ons f i l ed i n t hese appeal s ar e accor di ngl y
di sposed of .

J.
[A.K. PATNAIK]

J.
[V. GOPALA GOWDA]

May 16, 2014
NEW DELHI

Crl. Appeal No.2295-2296of 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crl. Appeal No.2295-2296of 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Musl i ms of Guj ar at come and by j oi ni ng st eps

Fr om: Real Repr esent at i ves of Gr oup of Musl i ms

Quest i on: Ar e you pr epar ed t o pr oduce panchnama

i ) The power s of t hi s Cour t under Ar t i cl e 136

You might also like