Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
Respondent
WITH
Versus
State of Rajasthan
Respondent
With
Appellant
Versus
Page1
State of Rajasthan
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
On 26th January, 1996, a day of celebration and
conscientious remembrance of the Red Letter Day in the
history of India because 26th January is the date in 1950,
when our organic, inclusive, humane and compassionate
Constitution came into existence being given by the people
of this country to themselves and the nation has been
obliged to jubilate remembering the said important day in
our national history, for it chartered the path of many an
emancipation and conferred on the people the highly
cherished fundamental rights; about 8.30 a.m., there was a
blast of explosive substances between Gate No.12 and Gate
No. 13, towards the southern and eastern side of Sawai Man
Singh Stadium Jaipur, where the State level function on
Republic Day was going to be celebrated.
Page2
No. 39/1996. As per the FIR, when the blast took place, the
people who had assembled were asked to leave the stadium
so that there could be a check.
found that due to the blast, a big size crater had come into
existence at the scene of explosion. That apart, by the said
explosion, the sand hopped upward and fell on the places
meant for sitting in the stadium and also on the roof. The
glasses of the windows of the pavilion near the explosion
had broken into pieces. At the time when the explosion had
occurred, only police personnel but no civilians were present
in that part of the stadium. The public at large, which was
present inside the Stadium, was informed to leave the
Stadium so that the check and security could be carried out.
Due to the sound caused by the explosion, one Ramgopal
Choudhary, an employee of the Public Works Department,
who was passing nearby, had met with an injury on his ear
for which he was immediately sent to the hospital. On the
basis of the FIR, offences under Section 120-B read with
Sections 307 and 427 IPC, under Section 3 of the Prevention
of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and under Section 3
Page3
dated
1st
June,
1997
was
sent
to
the
It
Page4
3. During
the
investigation,
the
investigating
agency
After
against
the
arrested
accused
persons,
Page5
Page6
Page7
apart
from
false
implication,
denied
any
hereinabove.
All
the
accused
had
been
Page8
Page9
10
to
further
undergo
three
years
simple
to
further
undergo
three
months
simple
Page10
11
further
undergo
one
and
half
years
simple
Page11
12
of
the
1908
Act;
seven
years
rigorous
Page12
13
Page13
14
persons
had
helped
accused
Abdul
Mateen
in
the
Page14
15
which
recovered.
28
kattas
of
ammonium
nitrate
were
from
the
accused
were
utilized
for
the
However, it may be
Page15
16
17.
of
the
High
Court,
has
raised
the
following
contentions: -
Page16
17
(a)
is
an
accomplice
and
in
absence
of
any
Page17
18
or
Page18
19
Page19
20
Manish
Singhvi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
Page20
21
(ii)
Page21
22
The
evidence
of
the
approver
Pappu,
PW-1,
is
Page22
23
District
Magistrate
by
notification
dated
The High
Page23
24
Act.
Court has observed as follows: 7. The last submission is that no sanction was
obtained from the Central Government as laid
down under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances
Act for prosecuting the appellants for the offences
under the Explosive Substances Act. From the
judgment we do not find that any such objection
was taken. In any event from the record we find
that the Collector granted permission and this
must be pursuant to the delegation of powers as
contemplated under Section 18(2) of the TADA.
2
Page24
25
It has also been held that all the facts have been
In State of Tamil
Page25
26
On a perusal of the
Page26
27
they were arrested long after the occurrence but the test
identification parade was held within a period of three
weeks from the date of arrest. As the analysis of the trial
court shows, they could not have been arrested as the
Page27
28
4
5
Page28
29
Pradesh
through
Public
v. State of
Prosecutor,
It is also
6
7
Page29
30
Page30
31
Mohd.
Husain
Umar
Kochra
etc.
v.
K.S.
Page31
32
provisions,
presently
we
shall
proceed
to
At this
Page32
33
Page33
34
clinching
features
of
involvement
disclosed
circumstances
of
the
case,
however,
the
12
13
Page34
35
corroboration
of
every
particular
14
15
16
17
18
Page35
36
the view
in this regard was expressed in the following terms: An accomplice is a competent witness and his
evidence could be accepted and a conviction
based on it if there is nothing significant to reject
it as false. But the rule of prudence, ingrained in
the consideration of accomplice evidence, requires
independent corroborative evidence first of the
offence and next connecting the accused, against
whom the accomplice evidence is used, with the
crime.
44. In Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay 20, it has
been observed that this Court had never intended to lay
down
that
the
evidence
of
an
approver
and
the
19
20
Page36
37
Ranjeet
Singh
and
another
v.
State
of
Page37
38
He has clearly
Page38
39
Page39
40
Mr.
The
Page40
41
Chandra
Prakash,
the
Investigating
Officer
Page41
42
23
Page42
43
State
of
Uttar
Pradesh
v.
Deoman
(2010) 3 SCC 56
AIR 1960 SC 1125
Page43
44
and
Mohd.
Inayatullah
v.
State
of
Page44
45
(3) The
discovery
must
have
been
in
consequence of some information received from
the accused and not by the accuseds own act.
(4) The person giving the information must be
accused of any offence.
(5)
32
Page45
46
Page46
47
(2010) 6 SCC 1
Page47
48
live
bomb
was
recovered
which
was
Shivnath, PW-22,
Vinod
Page48
49
in
Prakash
Chand
v.
State
(Delhi
(1979) 3 SCC 90
(1972) 1 SCC 249
Page49
50
said
principle
has
been
reiterated
in
A.N.
Page50
51
Page51
52
(b)
39937,
40203
respectively,
one
carton
of
Page52
53
Page53
54
The
Page54
55
Page55
56
Thus,
(2003)
(2004)
(2009)
(2009)
1 SCC 217
5 SCC 334
6 SCC 372
12 SCC 546
Page56
57
That apart,
Page57
58
Express agreement
Circumstances
In this
Joshi
v. State of
Page58
59
through
CBI,
Bombay 48,
analyzing
various pronouncements, this Court opined thus: 68. For an offence Under Section 120B Indian
Penal Code, the prosecution need not necessarily
prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do
or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement
may be proved by necessary implication. It is not
necessary that each member of the conspiracy
must know all the details of the conspiracy. The
offence can be proved largely from the inferences
drawn from the acts or illegal omission committed
by the conspirators in pursuance of a common
design. Being a continuing offence, if any acts or
46
47
48
Page59
60
49
50
51
Page60
61
Page61
62
Page62
63
apart
internationalism.
from
respecting
Certain
imperatives
individuals
of
harbouring
leads
to
national
incomprehensible anarchy.
decay
and
gives
rise
to
Love for
Page63
64
Law
activity
internationally
as
it
is
obnoxious.
nationally
Such
has
to
fall
and
in
the
as
well
tolerance
as
would
obtaining
facts
and
Page64
65
reasonable
doubt,
the
law
has
rightly
visited
the
J.
[K.S. Radhakrishnan]
J.
[Dipak Misra]
New Delhi;
May 9, 2014.
Page65