Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Exhibit575
INTHEDESIGNATEDCOURTUNDERTHETADA(P)ACT
FORGREATERBOMBAY,ATBOMBAY
T.A.D.A.SPECIALCASENO.01OF2006
TheStateofMaharashtra
(AttheinstanceofD.N.NagarPolice
StationvideC.R.No.144of1995)
]...Prosecution
Versus
1)AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsari
Age:45years,IndianInhabitant,
Occupation:Nil,residingatMohalla
Pathanpura,KasbaSaraimir,District
Azamgarh,SaraimirPoliceStation,
UttarPradesh.
2)RiyazAhmadIqbalAhmadSiddiqui
](Presentlyin
judicialcustody)
]CaseSeparated
Age:63years,IndianInhabitant,
Occupation:Nil,R/o.AtShivrampur,
PostBindraBazar,Tal.Gambhirpur,
DistrictAzamgarh, UttarPradesh.
3)MohammedNaeemAbdulRahimKhan
](APPROVER)
Age:58years,IndianInhabitant,
Occupation:Cardealing,Residingat
SpringField,SunderLane,Orlem,Malad
(West),Mumbai400064.
4)MohammedHasanMehendiHasanShaikh]
Age:51years,IndianInhabitant,
Occupation:Nil,ResidingatGuptaChawl, ]
RoomNo.13,AnwarCompound,Sainik
Nagar,Kausa,Mumbra,DistrictThane.
5]
VirendrakumarBiharilalJhamb
]
](Presentlyin
judicialcustody)
](onbail)
Age:86years,IndianInhabitant,
Occupation:BuildingConstruction
ResidingatYogiSamrudhiBungalow,
10thJ.V.P.D.SchemeRoad,Juhu,
Mumbai49.
]...AccusedNos.
1,4and5
(AccusedNo.2caseseparatedandAccusedNo.3Approver)
Mr.UjjwalNikam,SpecialPublicProsecutorfortheState.
Mr.SudeepPasbola,AdvocatefortheAccusedNos.1and4.
Mr.SrikantShivade,AdvocatefortheAccusedNo.5.
3
CORAM:HISHONOURJUDGESHRIG.A.SANAP
(DesignatedCourtforTADA)(C.R.No.54)
DATED:25thFebruary,2015.
: :JUDGMENT::
1]
Raghaniandothersreportedin2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri)377
(arisingoutofthesameCrimeNumberi.e.C.R.No.144of1995),
TheirLordshipsinthe'IntroductoryPart'ofthesaiddecisiondepicted
theprevailingscenariointhefollowingwords.
Undertheheapsofvoluminousrecordinthe
formofvariouspaperbooksspreadsoverthousandsof
pages,liesthehiddenstoryrelatingtothenew''merchants
ofdeathanddestruction''.Upondissection,whenpeeped
into,itreflectsthewoefulsituationprevalentinthesociety
wherewritsoftheorganisedcriminalgangsrunswhich
affectthepeacefulandinnocentcitizensofthecountry.
Thisworldofgangsters,popularlyknownasthe
''underworld'',comprisesvariousgangsheadedbynotorious
donsforwhomtheonlyvaluablethinginlifeis''wealth''
andtheuselessthing,the''life''ofothers.Deathsaresold
bythesedonsattheiraskingpriceandpurchasedbythose
whoresorttohaveimmediateresultsfortheirenrichment
withthedeflationoftheirotherwiseinflatedmoneybags.
Tothisunderworld,theunemployed,thoughtlessand
dejectedyouthsareattractedandthebossesofthe
gangstersleavenostoneunturnedtoutilizetheservicesof
suchfrustratedandmisledyouthforthecommissionof
crimes,tofurthertheirevildesigns.Contractkillingsby
employingmercenarykillers,afterreceiptofa
considerationknownassupariaretheorderoftheday,
particularlyincommercialcitiesofthecountrywherethe
raceforgettingenrichedovernightisgoingonatjetspeed.
Mumbai(withitserstwhilenameBombay),knownasthe
commercialcapitalofthecountry,isatthetopwheresuch
crimesarecommittedeverynowandthen.Pilingofthe
casesinthecourtsoflawwithouttheirdisposal
particularlywithrespecttodisputesrelatingtopropertyis
reportedtohavecreatedsatellitecentresofunusualtrade
whereprivatecourtsareheldbythegangstersanddisputes
aresolvedaccordingtothewillofthosewhocanpayasper
demandofthecriminaldons.Itissaidthatthe
unaccountedaccumulationofblackmoneyinthehandsof
afewhasencouragedthegangsterstowidenthescopeof
theiractivities.Becauseofthemoneyandmusclepower,
theyareinapositionofprocuringhighlysophisticated
weapons.Suchgangscollectmoneyfromvarious
5
businessmen,landdevelopers,personscarryingonillegal
activitiesingamblingdens,drugtraffickersetc.,Such
collectedmoneyistermedas''protectionmoney''whichin
Marathiisreferredtoaskhandani(khandaniisaMarathi
wordwhichrelatestothelongpasthistorywheretherulers
usedtocollectKhandanifromtheirsubjects).Afeelingis
prevalentinthecitythatitisnottheStatealonewhichcan
protectthelifeandpropertyoftherichandinfluential,but
itisthecriminalswhorenderprotectiontosuchpeoplefor
theconsiderationofthe ''protectionmoney''receivedby
them.
Suchongoingactivitiesoftheunderworldareproblems
facednotonlyinMumbaiandthiscountrybutalloverthe
globe.Generallyknownabroadas''organisedcrime'',it
hasbeenfoundtobeasubjectoffascinationinpopular
cultureandamajorcriminaljusticeconcerninthewestern
world.Suchorganisedcrimesposevariousproblemstothe
worldcommunityconcernedtocombatandfightit
out.
2]
3]
AccusedNo.1 AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsari
5]
standschargedfortheoffencespunishableu/sec.Secs.386and387
r/w120BoftheIndianPenalCode.
::
FACTSINBRIEF::
6]
Intheyear1938,apieceoflandbearingSurveyNo.40,
situatedatKolDongri,SaharRoad,Andheri(East),Mumbai,wasinitially
7
purchasedbyoneMetaBadalYadav. HehadfoursonsbynameBallu,
Kallu,JainandanandGarib. Thefoursonshad13children. Beingthe
members of Hindu Joint Family, all the children inherited the property.
Somewherein1979,1980,1981,thepartnersofM/s.KamlaConstruction
Company having their officecumresidence at Brij Kamal House,
Gulmohar Cross Road, Juhu, Andheri (West), Mumbai, purchased the
abovepropertyfromallthe13membersoftheYadavfamilybyexecuting
necessarydocuments.M/s.KamlaConstructionCompanyhaddeveloped
theplotandconstructedtwobuildingsontheplotin1984.M/s.Kamla
ConstructionCompanywasconstrainedtofileaCivilSuitagainstsomeof
the owners (members of Yadav family), who had refused to vacate the
remainingportionoftheland.
7]
CaseNo.22of1995)andanEstateAgentstayinginthesameareahad
prepared some forged documents and on the basis of the forged
documents,wasclaimingtherightsoverthesaidproperty.AccusedRajan
Fernandes(triedinTADASpl.CaseNo.22of1995),whohappenedtobe
an Estate Agent, brought a proposal from M/s. Labh Construction
Company, Ahmedabad. On the basis of the documents produced by
accused Subhedarsingh Ramdasingh Yadav, his Solicitor accused Bharat
Raghani(triedinTADASpl.CaseNo.22of1995)preparedagreementfor
saleinthenameofthreeownersi.e.RamrupBalluYadav,RamkevalBallu
Yadav,sonofRamdharBalluYadavandremainingothercousinbrothers
weretreatedasatenantsoftheplotofaland. PaymentofRs.25lakhs
8
was made to Ramrup Ballu Yadav and his family members, whereas
accusedSubhedarsinghYadavreceivedRs.11lakhsasallegedownerofa
partofanopenplotofland,partofSurveyNo.40.
8]
M/s.LabhConstructionCompanyfoundtheproposal
verylucrative.However,itwasofthefirmopinionthatunlesstheclaimof
Ms.KamlaConstructionCompanyissettledandtheyareremovedfrom
theproperty,theywouldnotgoaheadwiththedealandtransaction.This
decisionofM/s.LabhConstructionCompanywasconveyedtoaccused
BharatRaghaniandShaukataliJamarMistry@Chauhan(triedinTADA
Spl.CaseNo.22of1995)thentheytriedtonegotiatetostrikethedeal.
Jain brothers, partners of M/s. Kamla Construction Company thus
became a thorn in their flesh. Without passing the hurdle of the Jain
brothers,itwasnotpossibletogivefinalitytothedealwhichwasproposed
withM/s.LabhConstructionCompany.Inordertostrikethedealandto
completeitinallrespect,allthesepeoplehadstartedlookingaroundfora
solutionandultimatelyitwasdecidedtoseektheinterventionofIbrahim
KaskarandAbuSalem,thenotoriousgangsters,tomaketheJainbrothers
tomendtheirways.
9]
Bomb Blast Case. He was absconding and had established his base in
Dubai.RiyazAhmedSiddiquiwasdoingtheworkfornotoriousgangster
DawoodIbrahimandAneesIbrahimanddoinggoldsmugglingforthem.
Riyaz Siddiqui had also started staying in Dubai since February, 1993.
9
Riyaz Ahmed Siddiqui had acquaintance with the accused Abu Salem.
RiyazAhmedSiddiquiinformedtheaccusedAbuSalemandAneesIbrahim
Kaskar about the dispute in respect the Kol Dongri property and the
prospectsoftheprofit,ifthematterwasresolvedbytheirintervention.At
theinstanceofaccusedAbuSalem,RiyazSiddiquihadcalledShaukatali
MistrytoDubai. TheyhadameetingintheofficeofAneesIbrahimand
Abu Salem in Dubai. The said meeting was attended by accused Abu
Salem,ShaukataliMistry,RiyazAhmedSiddiqui,SalimRashidShaikh@
SalimHaddiandMehendiHasan.Inthesaidmeeting,ShakuataliMistry
apprisedthemabouttheKolDongriproperty.ShaukataliMistryinformed
themthattheownersoftheM/s.KamlaConstructionAshokJainandhis
brothers paid less amount to the stable owners and got prepared the
documentsbyobtainingtheirsignatures.ShaukataliMistryinformedthem
thattheywouldtalktothestableoccupiersandobtainthepossessionof
thevacantlandfromtheJainbrothers.ShaukataliMistrysuggestedtoall
thepresentthat,ifthisdealisfinalised,thentheywouldearncroresof
rupeesbysettlingthedealwithM/s.Labhconstructions.Itwasdecided
inthemeetingthattheywouldforcetheJainbrotherstovacatethesaid
pieceoflandandiftheydonotpayheed,theywouldkilloneofthefive
brothers. In the said meeting, the role of each one present there was
chalkedout. Inthesaidmeeting,itwas decidedthattheaccusedAbu
SalemandaccusedAneesIbrahimKaskarwouldmakephonecallstoJain
brothersandthreatenthem. RiyazAhmedSiddiquiwouldmake phone
callstoJainbrothersandwouldinformthemaboutAbuSalemandAnees
IbrahimKaskarandcreateaterrorintheirmindandwouldtellthemtoact
10
10
accordingtothesuggestionsofAbuSalemandAneesIbrahimKaskar. It
wasfurtherdecidedthatinMumbai,ShaukataliMistryalongwithaccused
NaeemKhanwouldholdthemeetingswiththeJainbrothersandinform
themthedetailsofthosemeetingsandtheprogressofthemeetingson
phone.Itwasalsodecidedthatifneedarisesthen,MohammedHasanand
SalimHaddialongwiththeirassociateswouldattackoneofthebrothersof
AshokJain.Thefinalitytotheconspiracywasgiveninthismeeting.As
perthe plan,accusedAbuSalemmade aphonecalltoaccusedNaeem
Khanandinformedhimabouttheirplan,the roleassignedtohimand
furthercourseofaction.
10]
11
producedtheirTitleDeedsandsatisfiedtheaccusedthattheywerethe
legalownersoftheproperty.However,theaccusedattendingthemeetings
asserted in almost all the meetings that the claim of M/s. Kamla
ConstructionCompanywasfalseandtheyshouldsurrendertheirrightsby
executingthesettlementagreementandaccepttheamountfixedbythem.
ThepartnersofM/s.KamlaConstructionCompanyrejectedtheproposal
and as a result thereof, Pradeep Jain was made to face the serious
consequences.
11]
AccusedIbrahimKaskarandaccusedAbuSalemhadill
fameandnameandassuchacloutintheunderworldgangs.Theywere
notusedtodigestsuchresistance.Inviewofthecircumstancesprevailing
attherelevanttime,whenalltheaccused,whoattendedthemeetings,
realised that partners of M/s. Kamla Construction Company were not
paying any heed to their illegal proposals, they informed the same to
accusedAbuSalem.TheaccusedAbuSalem,whowasknowntotestthe
bloodofextortionmoneyandillegalbooty,contacteddeceasedPradeep
Jain ontelephoneandfinallywarnedandthreatenedhimtoaccepthis
proposalandtosignthedocumentspreparedbyhisSolicitor,otherwise
facetheconsequences.InthefirstweekofJanuary,1995,accusedNaeem
Khan(Approver)wenttotheofficeofPradeepJainandofferedRs.2crores
toJainbrothersforremovingthemselvesfromthepropertyonbehalfof
accusedAbuSalemandiftheywerereadytopaythesaidamount,accused
Abu Salem would not harass the Jain brothers. The Jain brothers
discussedthesaidissueanditwasdecidedthatSunilJainshouldtalkwith
12
12
accusedAbuSalemonthistopic. SunilJainhadcalledAbuSalemand
offeredRs.25lakhsbywayofsettlementandrequestedhimnottoharass
them.AccusedAbuSalem,aselfproclaimedmentorofhisterroristgang,
got annoyedandfeltinsulted. AbuSalemtoldSunilJainthattheJain
brothersaretakinghimtobechindichor(pettythief)bymakingofferof
25lakhs.TheaccusedAbuSalemwarnedJainbrothersthattheyshould
pay him Rs.1 crore as an amount of the final settlement, if the Jain
brothers wanted peace and enjoyment of the property. He further
threatenedthatifhisdemandsarenotmet,thenhewouldkilloneofthe
Jain brothers. The Jain brothers in the mean time tried to avoid Abu
Salem by not taking his calls. After some days, Sunil Jain received a
telephone call from Abu Salem and he extended the threats of dire
consequencestotheJainbrothers. Asaresultofthesethreats,theJain
brothers expressed their willingness to pay Rs.1 crore in monthly
installmentofRs.10lakhs,astheywereinfinancialcrises. AccusedAbu
SalemreluctantlyacceptedthisproposalandinstructedSunilJainthathe
wouldsendNaeemKhan(Approver)toJainbrothersandtheyshouldpay
thesaidamounttohim. Within2to3daysofthistalk,accusedNaeem
Khan(Approver)wenttoJainbrothersandcollectedthefirstinstallment
ofRs.10lakhs.ThenextinstallmentwastobepaidinFebruary,1995but,
Jainbrotherscouldnotpaythesame.AbuSalemagainmadeacalltoJain
brothers.ItwasattendedbyPradeepJain.Therewasahotexchangeof
words and abuses between Abu Salem and Pradeep Jain. The hot
exchangeofwordsandabusesattheendofPradeepJain,enragedand
infuriatedtheaccusedAbuSalem,clashinghisegoasaselfproclaimed
13
13
DonoftheUnderworldinMumbai.Thisculminatedintotheunfortunate
incidentofmurderofPradeepJain.
12]
07/03/1995,SunilJain,AnilJainandPradeepJainreceivedaphonecall
at8.00p.m.intheirofficefromShaukatAli.ShaukatAlimadeenquiry
with them about presence of Jain brothers in the office. He was very
polite. Aftermakingenquiry,hedisconnectedthephone. Atabout8.15
p.m., two persons brought Jain Brothers' watchman by putting arms
around his neck. After entering the office, they made enquiry about
PradeepJain.AfterascertainingtheidentityofPradeepJain,theystarted
shootingbulletsatPradeepJain.SunilJainalsosustainedbulletinjuryto
his rightarm. 17bullets were pumpedintothe bodyofPradeepJain.
After shooting, the assailants namely Rajesh Igave, Sunil Nair, Subhash
BindandShekharKadamranaway.Aftertheshooting,therewasachaos
intheiroffice.AshokJain,SunilJainandandwatchmanVishnupickedup
PradeepJain intheircarandtookhim totheCooperHospital. Inthe
Hospital, doctor declared Pradeep Jain dead before admission. In the
Hospital, due to injury sustained by him Sunil Jain also fainted and
becameunconscious.
13]
ItisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatPW24DCPShri
RajnishSethgottheinformationofthecrimeonwireless.Hewenttothe
Cooper Hospital. PW25 Shri Ravindra Ganpatrao Shinde and PW17
JagdevraoGundajiJadhav,aftervisittothespot,wenttoCooperHospital.
14
14
On enquiry with the injured Pradeep Jain, Police Officer PW25 Shri
RavindraShindewassatisfiedthatitwasacrimecommittedunderthe
TADA(P)Act,1987and,therefore,heaccordedoralapprovaltorecordthe
informationofthecrimeundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.Onthe
reportofAshokJain,acrimebearingNo.144of1995wasregisteredatD.
N.NagarPoliceStationu/secs.302,307,452,506(ii)readwithSection
120BoftheIndianPenalCodereadwithSections5,27oftheArmsAct
1959readwithSection3(2)(i),3(2)(ii),3(3),3(5)and5oftheTADA(P)
Act,1987.
14]
Salemwasnotsatisfiedbycommitting themurderofPradeepJain on
07/03/1995.HewasgreedyenoughtothreatenJainbrothersevenafter
murderofPradeepJaintosatisfyhisransomdemand.Itisstatedthaton
13thdayofPradeepJain'sdeathaccusedAbuSalemmadeaphonecallat
the residence of Jain family. The call was attended by Jyoti Jain, the
widow of Pradeep Jain. Jyoti Jain identified the voice of Abu Salem.
AccusedAbuSalemenquiredwhethertheywerenotmourningthedeath
ofPradeepJainandstartedlaughingonthem. JyotiJainbecameangry
andabusedAbuSalembysayingthatwhathegotbykillingherhusband.
At that time accused Abu Salem threatened Jyoti Jain that he did not
receivetheamountasherhusbandhadbecameobstacleinhiswayand,
therefore,hekilledhim.AccusedAbuSalemthreatenedJyotiJainthatif
remainingamountisnotpaid,hewillkillJainbrothersonebyone.Jyoti
JainnarratedthisincidenttoSunilJain. Thefamilywasalreadyunder
15
15
shockandtraumaduetothemurderofPradeepJain.
15]
AccusedAbuSalemwasafterJainbrotherstomeethis
16
flats, he contacted accused Abu Salem and informed him that the flats
wereingoodconditionandcouldfetchgoodprice.
16]
disposeofthethreeflatsbearingNos.602,605and606byaccusedAbu
Salem.V.K.JhambsoldtheflatNos.605and606toonepersonbyname
HareshMohanGehi(PW14).Jainbrotherswererequiredtoexecutethe
agreementbecausethepropertystoodintheirname. PW13SunilJain
andAshokJainexecutedtheagreementsintheofficeofRegistrarinfavour
ofHareshMohanGehi(PW14).HareshMohanGehigavefourchequesof
Rs.sevenlakhseachdrawninthenameofKamlaConstruction.Allthe
transactionsofthesaidthreeflatsweredonebyV.K.JhambaccusedNo.5.
Itisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatonthesamedayoftheexecutionof
theagreementsinfavourofHareshMohanGehi,AbuSalemmadeaphone
calltoJainbrothersandstartedabusingthemfortheirfailuretopaythe
amount.JainbrotherstoldAbuSalemthattheywouldpaythemoneyto
VKJhambafterencashmentofthecheques. AbuSalembecameupset
afterhearingthisandcommandedJainbrotherstoarrangeformoneyon
priority basis. On account of the threats by accused Abu Salem, Jain
brothersarrangedRs.15lakhsandhandedoverthesametoV.K.Jhambat
hisresidence. Afterfewdays,JainbrotherwithdrewRs.15lakhsfrom
their bank account and handed over the same to V.K. Jhamb at his
residence.SunilJain,AshokJainanddriverRizwanKhanhadbeentothe
residenceofV.K.Jhambforthispurpose.
17
17]
17
OneflatbearingNo.602wasunsold.Inrespectofthe
saidflat,V.K.JhambsentablankagreementtoJainbrothersforsignature
withtheinstructionstoJainbrotherstosigntheblankagreement. Jain
brothers signed the said agreement but they had not received any
monetaryconsiderationforthisflateitherfromV.K.Jhamborpurchaser
MurjiPatel(PW8).AccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambarrangedtosendthemoney
receivedoutofthesaleoftheflatstoaccusedAbuSalemthroughHawala.
18]
AccusedAbuSalemandNaeemKhan(Approver)were
19]
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatduringthe
18
20]
18
Portugal.HewasbroughttoIndiainNovember,2005i.e.on11/11/2005.
He was shown arrested in this case on 24/11/2005. Accused Riyaz
Siddiqui was arrested on 12/12/2005, accused Mehendi Hasan was
arrested on 15/12/2005 accused Naeem Khan was arrested on
12/12/2005andaccusedV.K.Jhambwasarrestedon22/12/2005.After
thearrestofaccusedAbuSaleminthiscase,theinvestigationasperthe
orderofthethenCommissionerofPolice,Mumbai,washandedovertothe
Anti Terrorism Sqaud, Mumbai. After completion of the investigation,
supplementarychargesheetwasfiledagainstaccusedAbuSalem,Mehendi
Hasan, Riyaz Siddiqui, V.K. Jhamb and Naeem Khan on 28/04/2006.
Before filing the charge sheet, PW23 Shri Anami Roy accorded the
sanctionascontemplatedu/sec.20Asubsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act.
After filing supplementary charge sheet, my learned predecessor took
cognizanceoftheoffence.
21]
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatafterfiling
the charge sheet accused Naeem Khan and accused Riyaz Siddiqui
expressedtheirdesiretobecomeanapproverbydisclosingcompletetrue
facts of the crime. On being satisfied with the genuineness of the
statementsmadebythem,mylearnedpredecessorwaspleasedtotender
the pardon to them and which they accepted. Naeem Khan did not
hesitatetodeposebeforetheCourtanddisclosetrueandcorrectfactsfrom
hisknowledgeinrespectofthecrime. However,accusedRiyazSiddiqui
19
19
didnotcomplythetermsandconditionsofthepardonand,therefore,on
thecertificateoftheSpecialProsecutor,thepardongrantedtohimwas
forfeitedandhehadbeenrelegatedtothepositionoftheaccused.Itmay
be noted at this stage that as per the mandate of law, accused Riyaz
Siddiquiisbeingtriedseparately.
22]
Inordertobringhometheguiltagainsttheaccused,the
20
HareshMohanGehi(Exh.400)PW15ShriAmiraliAkbaraliEngineer(Exh.
404),PW16ShriVamanDhonduSapre(Exh.406),PW17ShriJagdevrao
GundajiJadahv,PW18SunilVasudeoRedkar(Exh.417),PW19ShriDatta
SambhajiDhavale(Exh.423), PW20 APIShriDineshParshuramKadam,
PW21 ShriSunilLaxmanraoDeshmukh (Exh.434),PW22 ShriKisanN.
Shengal(Exh.445),PW23AnamiNarayanRoy(Exh.461),PW24Rajnish
Seth(Exh.521),PW25ShriRavindraGanpatraoShinde(Exh.524).DW1
ShriSayyedAbbasAsgarAli(Exh.470)hasbeenexaminedbyaccused.
24]
prosecutionconsistofReportofAshokJain/FIR(Exhibit415),Inquest
Panchanama (Exhibit363), PostMortem Report of Pradeep Jain
(Exhibit361),InjuryCertificateofSunilJain (Exhibit558),Confession
of accused Abu Salem (Exhibit387), Confession of Mehendi Hasan
(Exhibit382), the Record and Proceeding of Chief Metropolitan
MagistratequaaccusedAbuSalem(Exhibit387A(colly.)),theRecord
and Proceeding of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate qua accused Mehendi
Hasan (Exhibit382A(colly.)),ArrestPanchanamaofaccusedNaeem
Khan dated 12/12/2005 (Exhibit 427), Sanction accorded by PW23
dated17/04/2006 (Exhibit462) andthecorrespondencemadebythe
PoliceOfficersduringthecourseofinvestigationetc..
25]
21
HasanMehendiHasanShaikhandlearnedAdvocateShriSrikantShivade
for accused No.5 Virendrakumar Biharilal Jhamb. I have perused the
writtennotesofargumentssubmittedbythedefenceAdvocates.
26]
broughtonrecord,followingpointsfallformydeterminationandIrecord
myfindingsthereonforthereasonstofollow.
:
POINTSFORDETERMINATION:
Sr.No.
POINTS
1.
FINDINGS
priorapprovaloftheDCPascontemplated
u/s20A(1)ofTADA(P)Actwasobtained
for recording the information about the
commission of the offences under the IntheAffirmative
provisions of Section 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii),
3(3),3(5)andSection5ofTADA(P)Act,
1987?
22
2.
22
IntheAffirmative
thisCourtundertheprovisionsofSections
3(2)(i),3(2)(ii),3(3),3(5)andSection5
oftheTADA(P)Act?
23
3.
23
24
4.
24
IntheAffirmative
25
5.
25
26
6.
26
27
7.
27
28
28
IntheAffirmative
CategoryIII(A)oftheArmsRules,1962in
thenotifiedareaofGreaterMumbaiand
thereby he has committed an offense
punishableU/sec.5ofTADA(P)Act,1987.
29
9.
29
IntheNegative
30
10.
30
31
11.
31
:REASONS:
27]
PanchanamaisatExhibit363.ThePostmortemReportofPradeepJain
32
32
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolafortheaccusedsubmitted
thatinthiscasetheATSwasnotempoweredtoarresttheaccused.Itis
submitted that accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan were
arrestedpriorto31/08/2006bytheACPattachedtotheATS,Mumbai.
Ld. Advocate relying upon the Government GR/Notification, Home
Department(Special),Mantralaya,Mumbaidated31/08/2006submitted
thatbyvirtueofthisGovernmentGR/Notificationthepowerswerevested
withtheATStoinvestigatetheoffencesrelatingtoterroristsactivities.Ld.
Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that prior to this Government
GR/Notification, Notification dated 17/11/2004 issued by the Home
Department(Special),Mantralaya,Mumbai,wasinoperationandbythe
saidNotification,theATS,Mumbaiwasnotempoweredtoinvestigatethe
offencesrelatingtoterroristsactivities.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolaforthe
accused,therefore,submittedthatinvestigationconductedbytheofficer
33
33
waswithoutanylegalauthorityand,therefore,thatbyitselfissufficientto
vitiatetheprosecutioninitiatedagainsttheaccused.
29]
thateveniftheNotificationsrelieduponbytheLd.AdvocateShriPasbola
fortheaccused,areacceptedasitis,thenalsothesubmissionsadvanced
on behalf of the accused cannot be accepted. Ld.SPP Shri Nikam
submitted that by invoking the powers of Section 417 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.'),
Governmentwasnotempoweredtoinvestthepowersofinvestigationqua
theoffencesunderanyparticularenactment.Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmitted
thatbythoseNotifications,relieduponbytheLd.AdvocateShriPasbolafor
theaccused,thestatusofthePoliceStationforthepurposeofdetention
etc.wasgrantedtotheATS..Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthatthisissue
hasbeenfinallydecidedbytheHon'bleBombayHighCourtandalsoby
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia.
30]
Admittedlyin1995thecrimewasregisteredbeingC.R.
No. 144 of 1995 at D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri, Mumbai. The
investigationwasinitiallyconductedbytheofficersofD.N.NagarPolice,
Station,Andheri,Mumbai. AfterarrestoftheaccusedAbuSalem,bya
specialorder,PW23handedovertheinvestigationofC.R.No.144of1995
to the Anti Terrorism Squad from D.N. Nagar Police Station, Andheri,
Mumbai.Itisnownecessarytoseewhetherarrestoftheaccusedmadeby
theATSwasillegalorotherwise.Thesameissuehadfeltforconsideration
34
34
beforetheHon'bleBombayHighCourt.Ld.SPPShriNikamhasproduced
onrecordphotocopyoftheorderpassedbytheHon'bleDivisionBenchof
BombayHighCourton14/08/2008inCriminalWritPetitionNo.1392of
2008.InthiscasebeforetheHon'bleBombayHighCourt,thesameissue
was raised by one undertrial prisoner. While considering the effect of
boththeNotificationsmentionedhereinabove,theHon'bleBombayHigh
CourthasobservedthattheNotificationdated31/08/2006iswithrespect
toplaceoflodgingapersonaccusedofanoffenceunderaparticularAct.
TheHon'bleBombayHighCourthasheldthatSection417readwithsub
clause(5)ofSection2oftheCr.P.C.makesitclearthatbyvirtueofthis
provision the Government cannot confer any power of arrest or
investigationtoanypoliceofficerbuttheGovernmentcanonlyappointa
placeofimprisonmentu/sec.417,andu/sec.2subsection(5)declarea
placetobeapolicestation.TheATShastheStatusofPoliceStation.
31]
prisoner.TheHon'bleBombayHighCourtbyorderdated29/11/2009in
CriminalWritPetitionNo.2862of2009dismissedthePetitiononthesame
grounds.TheaccusedinthiscasechallengedtheorderofHon'bleBombay
High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiadismissedtheSpecialLeavePetition2012/CRLMP.
No.(s)1963519636/2012on1stApril,2013.
32]
Besides,thesubmissionappearstobefallaciousforthe
simplereasonthattheinvestigationinthecrimewasconductedbythe
35
35
officeroftherankofAssistantCommissionerofPolice.TheAntiTerrorism
SquadwasestablishedbeingaSpecialSquadtoinvestigatecertainserious
terroristsrelatedcrimes.Theofficers,whohavebeengivenpostinginthe
saidDepartmentarethePoliceOfficers. Furthermore,theGovernment
hasgiventheStatusofaPoliceStationtotheATS..Evenbypostingasan
officerintheATS,theofficerwouldnotbedivestedofhisinherentpowers
to investigate the crime. Therefore, the submission advanced by Ld.
AdvocateShriPasbolafortheaccusedonthistechnicalgroundcannotbe
accepted. The submissions advanced by Ld.SPP are well founded and
supportedbythedecisionsoftheHon'bleBombayHighCourt. Onthe
basisofthematerialplacedonrecord,IamoftheopinionthattheATS
wasempoweredtoinvestigatethecrime.Therewasnoprohibitionunder
any law preventing the ATS from investigating any crime without any
specificvestingofpowersbytheGovernment.
OBJECTIONABOUTNONCOMPLIANCEOFSECTION306OFCR.P.C.
33]
Inthiscase,theprosecutionisheavilyrelyinguponthe
36
complianceofthemandatoryprovisionsofSections306,307and308of
theCr.P.C.ItissubmittedthattheProsecutionhasillegallyprocuredthe
evidenceoftheapprover. Inordertomeetthisobjection,Ld.SPPShri
UjjwalNikamattheoutsetsubmittedthatinthiscasethepardontendered
toPW1isbyinvokingtheprovisionsofSection307oftheCr.P.C..Ld.SPP
submittedthataspertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act,thechargesheet
wasdirectlyfiledinthisCourtand,therefore,therewasnoquestionof
invokingtheprovisionsofSection306subsection(4)oftheCr.P.C. Ld.
SPP during the course of his argument pointed out differentiating/
distinguishingfeaturesofSections306and307oftheCr.P.C..Inorderto
bringhomehissubmission,Ld.SPPhasrelieduponthefollowingdecisions.
34]
i)
JasbirSinghvs.VipinKumarJaggi
2001SCC(Cri.)1525
ii)
A.Devendranvs.StateofTamilNadu
(1997)11SCC720
iii)
SantoshKumarBariyarvs.Stateof
Maharashtra
2009(2)SCC(Cri.)1150
Inordertofindoutthesustainabilityoftheobjection,it
isnecessarytoconsiderthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleApexCourt.In
thecaseofJasbirSinghv.VipinKumarJaggiandother,theHon'bleApex
Courthasheldthattheprosecutionhastodecidewhetherapardonisto
betenderedornot. Oncetheprosecutiondecidestotenderthepardon,
theCourthastoagreetothetenderofpardon.InthecaseA.Devendran
37
37
v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Hon'ble Apex Court has distinguished the
provisionsofSection307and306subsection(4)(a)anditsapplicabilityto
differentsituations. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia hasheldthat
u/sec.307oftheCr.P.C.whenpardonistenderedaftercommitmentofthe
proceedings by the Court to which the commitment has been made,
legislative mandate is that the pardon would be tendered on the same
condition.Ifthepardonistenderedbeforecommitmentofthecasetothe
Courtcompetenttotryit,thecomplianceofSection306subsection(4)(a)
becomesmandatory. However,ifthepardonisgrantedbytheCourtto
whichtheproceedingiscommitted,thenSection306subsection4sub
clause(a)isnotattracted.Theexpression,"onthesamecondition"usedin
Section307referstoconditionsindicatedinSection306subsection(1)of
theCr.P.C.TheHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthatcombinedreadingof
subsection4ofSection306andSection307oftheCr.P.C.wouldmakeit
clearthatinacaseexclusivelytriablebytheSessionsCourtifanaccusedis
tendered pardon and is taken as an approver before commitment then
complianceofsubsection4ofSection306becomesmandatoryandnon
complianceofsuchmandatoryrequirementswouldvitiatetheproceedings
butifanaccusedistenderedpardonaftercommitmentbytheCourtto
whichtheproceedingiscommittedinexerciseofthepowersu/sec.307of
theCr.P.C.theninsuchacasetheprovisionsofsubsection(4)ofSection
306arenotattracted.Theproceduralrequirementundersubsection(4)
subclause(a)ofSection306oftheCr.P.C.toexaminetheaccusedafter
tendering pardon cannotbe held tobe a condition of grantof pardon,
whenitistenderedaftercommitmentofthecasetotheSessionsCourt.
38
38
35]
Maharashtra, theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatSection
306subsection(4)oftheCr.P.C.isproceduralinnature.Itisnecessaryto
befollowedonlybyaMagistrateashewouldnothaveanyjurisdictionto
try the case himself. The Sessions Judge before whom the case is
committedfortrialmustbeinformedastoonwhatbasispardonhasbeen
tendered.Section307oftheCr.P.C.doesnotcontainanysuchcondition.
ThepowerofSessionsJudgeisindependentoftheprovisionscontainedin
Section306oftheCr.P.C.TheconditionmentionedinSection307ofthe
Cr.P.C.referstotheconditionslaiddowninSection306(1)namely,that
thepersoninwhosefavourthepardonhasbeentendered,willmakeafull
and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his
knowledge.ThepowerofaSessionsCourtisnothedgedwithanyother
condition.
36]
39
37]
40
ASTOPOINTNOS.1AND2:
Theissueofpriorapprovaltorecordtheinformationof
thecommissionofthecrimeinthiscasebytheCompetentOfficerandalso
the issue of previous sanction by the Competent Officer for taking the
cognizanceoftheoffencebythisCourtarethecontentiousissues.Section
20Asubsection(1)oftheTADA(P)Act,1987mandatesthatwithoutprior
approvaloftheDistrictSuperintendentofthePolice,theinformationofthe
commissionoftheoffenceundertheTADA(P)Actcannotberecorded.In
Mumbai,therankofDeputyCommissionerofPoliceisequivalenttothe
rank of District Superintendent of Police. Section 20A subsection (2)
mandatesthattheCourtshallnottakecognizanceofanyoffenceunder
thisActwithoutprevioussanctionoftheInspectorGeneralofPoliceoras
the case may be the Commissioner of Police. This provision has been
incorporatedintheTADA(P)Acttoensurethatwithoutparticipationof
theSeniormostPoliceOfficers,theinvestigationshallnotproceedtorule
outthepossibilityofmisuseofthestringentprovisionsoftheTADA(P)
Act. In order to initiate the proceeding under the TADA (P) Act, dual
sanction,asprovidedu/sec.20A(1)andsubsection(2)ismandatory. If
the prosecution is not able to establish that there is no sanction, as
contemplated either bysubsection (1) or bysubsection (2)of Section
20AoftheTADA(P)Act,thenonthisgroundalonetheentireprosecution
getsvitiated.
38]
RajnishSeth,PW24,grantedtheoralapprovaltoPW25ShriRavindra
41
41
GanpatraoShindetoregisterthecrimeundertheprovisionsoftheTADA
(P)Act.LdSPPsubmittedthatPW24gothimselfacquaintedwiththefacts
ofthecrimebyvisitingthespotalongwithPW25andhospitalwherethe
deceasedandinjuredweretakenandonthebasisofthesame,hewas
satisfiedthattheoffencesundertheTADA(P)Actwerecommittedand,
therefore,grantedoralapprovaltoPW25toregisterthecrimeunderthe
provisions of the TADA (P) Act. Ld. SPP further pointed out that after
registrationoftheFIRonthebasisoftheoralapprovalgrantedbyPW24,
PW25soughtwrittenapprovalfromPW24andwhichwasaccordedby
him. Ld. SPP submitted that PW25 has corroborated the evidence of
PW24onallthematerialaspects.InthesubmissionofLd.SPPthereisno
reason to doubt the credibility of either PW24 or PW25. Ld. SPP
submittedthatonthebasisoftheFIRregisteredinCrimebearingNo.144
of1995byPW25,thetrialwasconductedagainstsixarrestedaccusedin
1997. Ld.SPPpointedoutthatalltheseaccusedwereacquittedbythe
TrialCourt.However,intheAppeal,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia
convictedtheaccusedNos.3,5and6.Ld.SPPsubmittedthattheHon'ble
Supreme Court of India has accepted this case of the prosecution and,
therefore, the objection raised by the defence in this case to the
prosecutionandevidenceofPW24andPW25iswithoutsubstance.
39]
Ld.SPPfurthersubmittedthatintermsoftheprovisionsof
42
oftheaccusedandonthebasisofthesanctionaccordedbyPW23,this
CourttookthecognizanceoftheoffencesundertheprovisionsoftheTADA
(P)Actagainsttheaccusedpersons.Ld.SPPsubmittedthattheevidence
ledbytheprosecutionisconsistentandreliable.
40]
Ld.AdvocateShriSudeepPasbolaappearingforaccused
AbuSalemsubmittedthatthetheoryoforalapprovalgrantedbytheDCP
Shri Rajnish Seth (PW24) is fallacious and it has been propounded to
coverupthelacunaleftinthecaseoftheprosecution.Ld.AdvocateShri
PasbolasubmittedthatafterrecordingtheFIRinthecase,PW25sought
thewrittenapprovalofPW24forrecordingtheFIR.Inthesubmissionof
Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola this exercise undertaken would clearly prove
that there was no oral sanction, as stated by the prosecution and,
therefore,thisexercisewasundertakensubsequenttotheregistrationof
theFIRinthecase.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatthereisno
contemporaneous recordto establish that oral approval was granted by
PW24tothePW25forrecordingtheinformationofthecrimeunderthe
TADA(P)Act. Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolafortheaccusedsubmittedthat,
therefore,thereisnocomplianceofthemandatoryprovisionsofSection
20AoftheTADA(P)Actand,therefore,onthisgroundalonetheentire
prosecutionhasbeenvitiated.
41]
Asfarasthesanctionu/sec.20Asubsection(2)ofthe
43
FirstIwoulddealwiththecaseoftheprosecutionon
43]
44
BeforeIgotoappreciatetheevidenceledbytheprosecution
onthepointoforalapprovalgrantedbyPW24ontherequestofPW25,it
isnecessarytoconsiderthelegalposition.Thebasicquestionneedstobe
addressed is as to whether the sanction contemplated u/sec. 20A sub
section(1)oftheTADA(P)Actcouldbeoralor mustnecessarilybein
writing. AccordingtotheLd.SPPlegalpositionhasbeensettledbythe
Hon'ble Supreme Court India on this issue. In order to support of his
submission, Ld.SPP has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndia.
44]
reportedin 1998
CRI.L.J.369(1),
the Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia
hasheldthatthereisnothinginsubsection(1)oftheActofSection20A
to indicate that prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police
shouldbeinwriting. Whatisnecessaryisthefactofapprovalwhichis
sinequanonforrecordingtheinformationaboutthecommissionofthe
offenceundertheAct. Theprovisionsisintendedtooperateasacheck
againstthe police officials oflower rankcommencing investigation into
offencesunderTADAActbecauseoftheseriousconsequenceswhichsuch
actionbefallstheaccused.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
thatthischeckcaneffectivelybeexercisedifasuperiorpoliceofficialof
therankofDistrictSuperintendentofPolicefirstconsiderstheneedand
feasibility of it. His approval can be obtained even orally if such an
exigencyarisesinaparticularsituation.Theoralapprovalbyitselfisnot
illegalandwouldnotvitiatefurtherproceedings.
45
45]
45
Inthecaseof StateofA.P.v.A.Sathyanarayanaand
InthecaseofMukhtiarAhmedAnsariv.State(N.C.T.
ofDelhi).reportedin2005CRI.L.J.2569(1),theHon'bleSupremeCourt
ofIndiahasheldthatpriorapprovalcontemplatedu/sec.20A(1)ofthe
TADA(P)Actneednotbeinwriting.
47]
Pathanandanotherv.StateofGujarat;WithYusufkhanaliasLaplap
Khuddadkhan Pathan and others v. State of Gujarat; With State of
Gujaratv. YusufkhanaliasLaplapKhuddadkhanPathanandothers;
With State of Gujarat v. Abdul Khurdush Abdul Gani Shaikh and
others, reportedin (2013)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1095;(2012)
11SupremeCourtCases606,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas
heldthat,priorapprovalbytheofficeroftherankofDSPforrecording
informationisaconditionprecedent.Ifthereisabsenceofapproval,then
itisanincurabledefectwhichgoestotherootofthematter.Inthiscase,
46
46
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasconsideredthedecisioninthecase
of KalpnathRaivs.StatethroughC.B.I.(1998CRI.L.J.369(1)); and
StateofA.P.v.A.Sathyanarayanaandothers(2002CRI.L.J.265)1),
andheldthatpriorapprovalneednotbeinwriting.Theapprovalcanbe
oral.
48]
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolainsupportofhissubmission
hasrelieduponthedecisionsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaonthis
point.Inthecaseof IzharulHaqAbdulHamidShaikhandanotherv.
StateofGujarat reportedin (2009)2SupremeCourtCases(Cri)653,
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthattheprovisionsofSection
20A(1)oftheTADA(P)Actaremandatory. Thenoncomplianceofthe
mandatoryprovisionsofSection20A(1)oftheTADA(P)Actisfataltothe
case of the prosecution. If the prosecution fails to establish that the
sanction,ascontemplatedu/sec.20A(1)oftheTADA(P)Act,wasnot
granted,thenentireproceedingsgetsvitiatedfornoncomplianceofthis
provision.
49]
47
canberecorded.Thefailuretoobtainpriorapprovalisfataltothecaseof
theprosecutionanditvitiatestheentireproceedingsagainsttheaccused.
50]
Ujjwal Nikam and Ld. Advocate Shri Sudeep Pasbola appearing for the
accusedandconsidertheapplicabilityofthelawlaiddownbytheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiaintherulings,citedsupra,itisnecessarytoadvert
tothefactsandevidenceledbytheprosecutioninthiscase.Thewheelsof
theinvestigatingmachineryareputinmotiononregistrationoftheFIR.
The FIR can be registered on the basis of oral or written
report/information received from any person. Similarly, FIR can be
registered on the basis of the knowledge of the incident by the Police
Officer.BeforerecordingtheFIR,therecouldnotbeanymaterialavailable
withtheconcernedofficerwhichwouldwarranthimtogothroughitand
then form an opinion with regard to the registration of the FIR or
otherwiseexceptthebroadfactsofcrime.BeforeregistrationofFIRunder
theprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act,thecompetentofficermentionedin
subsection(1)ofSection20AoftheTADA(P)Actwoulddefinitelybe
requiredtoformhisopinionaboutthecommissionofthecrimeunderthe
actonthebasisofthefactseitherknowntohimpersonallyorbroughtto
hisnoticebysomeotherofficer.
51]
empoweredu/sec.20A(1)oftheTADA(P)Actisnotsupposedtorecord
hisreasonsforgrantingtheapproval.Thesatisfactionoftheofficeratthe
48
48
preliminarystageoftheinvestigationisbasicallybasedonthefactseither
broughttohisknowledgeorknowtohimpersonally.Itmaybementioned
thatthisisthedistinguishingfactorbetweentheapprovalcontemplated
undersubsection(1)andthesanctioncontemplatedundersubsection(2)
ofsec.20AtheTADA(P)Act.Thesanctioncontemplatedsubsection(2)of
Section 20A of the TADA (P) Act is granted after completion of the
investigation. The competent officer empowered to grant the sanction
under subsection (2) is required to apply his mind to the material
collectedduringthecourseofinvestigationbytheInvestigatingOfficerand
on the basis of the said material, the competent officer is required to
record his satisfaction before according the sanction, as contemplated
u/sec. 20A subsection (2) of the TADA (P) Act. Therefore, sanction
contemplatedu/sec.20Asubsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Actcannotbethe
oralsanction.Butthatcannotbethecasewhenitcomestotheapproval
contemplated u/sec. (1) of Section 20A of the TADA (P) Act. The
competentofficerundersubsection(1)oftheTADA(P)Acthastoapply
hismindtothefactseitherbroughttohisknowledgeorknowntohim
personally.Itmaybenotedatthisstagethatinthecrime,theFIRisthe
firstdocument.
52]
PW24ShriRajnishSethforrecordingthecrimeundertheprovisionsof
the Act, on the written requisition of PW25 Shri Ravindra Ganpatrao
Shinde,heaccordedthewrittenpostfactoapprovalfortheregistrationof
thecrimebyPW25undertheTADA(P)Act.Thewrittenapprovalwas
49
49
grantedonthesamedayi.e.on07/03/1995. Itisnecessarytoconsider
theevidenceofPW17,PW24andPW25togethertocometoaconclusion
whetherthepriorapproval,ascontemplatedu/sec.20Asubsection(1)of
theTADA(P)Act,wasgrantedforregistrationofthecrimeornot. FIR
was registered on the basis of the report lodged by Mr. Ashok Jain.
Exhibit415isthephotocopyofthereportofMr.AshokJain.Hisoriginal
reportwasExhibitedinTADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995atExhibit196.
Onthebasisofthereport,thecrimewasregisteredbeingC.R.No.144of
1995undertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.Inordertoconsiderthe
trustworthinessofthewitnessesonthisissue,itisnecessarytogothrough
theirevidence.
53]
Attheoutset,itwouldbenecessarytoseetheevidence
of PW24 and then see whether his evidence has been corroborated by
PW25ShriRavindraGanpatraoShindeandPW17ShriJagdevraoGundaji
Jadhav.Themurderwascommittedat18.15hours.Attherelevanttime
PW24 Shri Rajnish Seth was the DCP of the concerned Zone. He has
deposedthaton07/03/1995inthenighthegotawirelessmessageabout
the incident. He has deposed thatthe injured had been moved tothe
CooperHospital.HeimmediatelywenttoCooperHospital.AttheCooper
Hospital,helearntthatonepersonbynamePradeepJainwasshotdead
andhisbrotherSunilJain,whohadsustainedtheinjury,wasadmittedin
theCooperHospital.HehasdeposedthatinthemeanwhilePW25,who,
at that time was attached to D. N. Nagar Police Station, reached the
CooperHospital. PW24hasdeposedinhisevidencethatintheCooper
50
50
HospitalhemadeenquirywithAshokJainandhisenquiryrevealedthat
Jain brothers were receiving threats from certain persons and these
shootershadbeensentatthebehestofthosepeopletosettlethescore
when they refused to agree to their demands in connection with the
property dispute. PW24 has deposed that on the spot ACP Talpade
requestedhimtoapplytheprovisionsofTADA(P)Actinthecase.PW24
hasfurtherdeposedthathewassatisfiedandconvincedthatthiswasan
act of terror and it is, therefore, necessitated the application of the
provisionsofTADA(P)Act. He,therefore,accordedtheoralapprovalto
ACPTalpadetoregistertheoffence/crimeundertheTADA(P)Act.Inthis
case,ACPTalpadehasnotbeenexamined. PW24hasfurtherdeposed
thataccordinglyheproceededtothesceneofoffenceandfromtherehe
proceeded to his office. He has further deposed that in his office, he
receivedawrittenrequestfromtheinchargeofD.N.NagarPoliceStation
seeking approval to apply the provisions of TADA (P) Act in this case.
PW24hasfurtherdeposedthathegrantedwrittenapproval.Thewritten
approvalgrantedbyhimisatExhibit522.
54]
thaton07/03/1995hewasattachedtoD.N.NagarPoliceStationasPI
(Administration)andonthatdayhewasholdingthechargeofSr.PI.of
D.N.Nagar Police Station. He came to know about the incident in his
office.Onreceiptoftheinformation,healongwithhisstaffwenttothe
spotaround8.30p.m..Onthespot,hecametoknowthatPradeepJain
51
51
and his brother Sunil Jail were taken to the Cooper Hospital. He has
deposedthatfromthespotheandhisstaffwenttoCooperHospital. In
thehospital,hemadeenquirywithAshokJain..AshokJainnarratedhim
thefactsofthecrimeinbrief.PW25hasdeposedthathehimselfandACP
TalpadesoughttheoralapprovalfromDCPRajnishSethtoregisterthe
crimeundertheprovisionsofTADA(P)ActandDCPRajnishSethgranted
them the oral approval to register the crime under the TADA (P) Act.
Accordingly, PW25 directed the duty Inspector Jadhav to register the
crimeundertheprovisionsofTADA(P)Act.Hehasfurtherdeposedthat
hewrotealettertoRajnishSethforhiswrittenapprovalforregistrationof
thecrimeundertheTADA(P)Act.Thephotocopyofhisrequisitionletter
isatExhibit525.PW25hasidentifiedthewrittenapprovalaccordedby
DCPRajnishSethatExhibit522.
55]
Theevidenceofthesewitnesseshasbeenassailedinthe
crossexaminationonthegroundthatthereisnocontemporaneousrecord
preparedbeforegrantingthewrittenapprovalbyPW24toestablishthat
anysuchoralapprovalwasgrantedbyPW24.Thesubsequentpostfacto
writtenapprovalgrantedontherequisitionofPW25byPW24hasgiven
risetothespeculationandassuchaweaponinthehandsofthedefenceto
suggestthatthisisadoubtfulcircumstancetodisbelievetheevidenceof
PW24 and PW25. PW24 and PW25 have been thoroughly cross
examined. I have gone through their crossexamination minutely. On
perusal of their crossexamination, I do not see that any single
circumstancehasbeenelicitedintheircrossexaminationtodisbelieveand
52
52
discardtheevidenceofthesetwowitnessesonthepointoforalapproval
accordedbyPW24forregistrationoftheoffenceundertheprovisionsof
theAct.Itistruethatthereisnomentionofthisoralapprovaleitherin
the FIR or in the subsequent written approval accorded by PW24.
However,thiscouldnotbethegroundtodisbelievetheevidenceofPW24
andPW25onthepointoforalapprovalforregistrationofcrime.PW24
has admitted in all fairness in the crossexamination that he did not
enquirerwithPW25whetherhehadmentionedthefactofthegrantof
oralapprovalintheFIR. Inhiscrossexamination,hehasadmittedthat
beforeaccordingtheoralapprovalhehadtalkwithACPTalpadeandMr.
Ashok Jain. PW25 has admitted in his crossexamination that the
constablewasdeputedat9.00p.m.witharequisitionlettertoDCPSeth
foraccordingwrittenapproval.IthasbeensuggestedtoPW24andPW25
thatthesocalledwrittenapprovalisafabricateddocument. Thispost
facto written approval is of nosignificance.The approval contemplated
u/sec.20Asubsection(1)oftheTADA(P)Actisthepriorapprovalfor
registrationoftheoffenceundertheTADA(P)Act.
56]
PerusaloftheevidenceofPW24andPW25together
didnotleaveanymannerofdoubtaboutthecredibilityofthewitnesses.
PW24andPW25bothwerepresentintheCooperHospital.OtherSenior
PoliceOfficerswerealsopresentintheCooperHospital.Thebroadfacts
ofthecommissionofthecrimeandtheweaponsusedinthecrimewere
brought to the notice and knowledge of PW24 and PW25. Before
grantingapprovalforregistrationofthecrimeundertheTADA(P)Act,the
53
53
concernedofficermustreachtoaconclusiononthebasisofthebasicfacts
of the crime that it prima facie discloses the commission of an offence
undertheTADA(P)Act.PW24inhisevidencehasdeposedthathemade
enquiryinthehospitalwiththePoliceOfficersandMr.AshokJain.Hehas
deposedthatinthehospitalhecametoknowaboutthemotiveforthe
commissionofthecrimeandtheactualfactswitnessedandseenbyMr.
AshokJain.Therefore,thematerialavailablewithPW24atthattimewas
sufficienttocometoaconclusionthatitwasanoffencecommittedunder
theprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.Ifstatementhadbeenmadewithout
disclosureofthisinformationtoPW24orPW24himselfgotacquainted
with this information of the crime, then there would have been strong
reason to doubt his evidence and reject it outrightly. Therefore, this
evidenceofPW24andPW25onthepointoforalapprovalforregistration
oftheoffenceundertheTADA(P)Actcannotberejected.Thelawhasnot
mandatedthattheapprovalforregistrationofacrimeundertheTADA(P)
Actshallbeawrittenapproval.
57]
Inthis casethereisonemoreadditionalfact,which
doesnotpermitmetoreject,disbelieveanddiscardtheevidenceofPW24
andPW25.OnthebasisofthesameFIR,thecrimewasregisteredbeing
crimeNo.144of1995.IntheinitialchargesheetfiledinC.R.No.144of
1995,outof13accused,sixaccusedwerearrestedandwereputontrial.
Theremainingaccusedwereshownas'AbscondingAccused'inthesaid
chargesheet. IhavealreadymentionedthatallthesixaccusedinTADA
54
54
SpecialCaseNo.22of1995wereacquitted.TheAppealwasfiledinthe
Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of acquittal. The Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiaallowedtheAppealquatheaccusedNos.3,5and
6.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaconvictedtheaccusedNo.5and6
undertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Actalsoandsentencedthemtosuffer
RigorousImprisonmentforLife.Itis,therefore,seenthatonthebasisof
thesameFIR,twoaccusedinthiscrimenamelyC.R.No.144of1995have
beensentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentforLife. Now,itisnot
possible to go anticlockwise and reopen the controversy and find out
whetherthecaseoftheprosecutionontheoralapprovalisacceptableor
not. Inthiscase,thisisonemoreimportantandstrongcircumstanceto
repealtheobjectionraisedonbehalfofthe defenceand,therefore,the
points raised by accused cannot be accepted. On the basis of the
independent evidence in this case, it has been proved that prior oral
approvalwasaccordedbyPW24forregistrationofthecrimeunderthe
TADA(P)Act.
58]
Itisnownecessarytodealwiththesanctionaccorded
by PW23 u/sec. 20A subsection (2) of the TADA (P) Act and the
objectionsraisedbythedefence.Fortakingthecognizanceoftheevidence
under this Act, the sanction of the Inspector General of Police or the
CommissionerofPoliceismandatory. Inthiscase,itisthecaseofthe
prosecutionthatPW23beingthethenCommissionerofPolice,Mumbai,
accordedthesanctionfortheprosecutionoftheaccusedfortheoffences
punishable under the provisions of the TADA (P) Act. PW22 is the
55
55
InvestigatingOfficer.Thedefencehasseriouslydisputedthelegalityand
validity of the sanction accorded by PW23. In order to find out the
correctness of thefactualandlegal issues,itis necessarytoperusethe
evidence of PW22. In his evidence, PW22 Shri Kisan N. Shengal has
deposed that on 27/02/2006 he forwarded the proposal to the
CommissionerofPolicealongwithphotocopiesofallthepaperscollected
duringinvestigationforobtainingsanctiontoprosecutetheaccusedunder
the provisions of the TADA (P) Act. He has further deposed that on
10/04/2006 the Commissioner of Police had called himself and all his
colleagues,whowereinvolvedintheinvestigationofthiscrime. Hehas
furtherdeposedthattheyattendedtheofficeoftheCommissionerofPolice
andapprisedhimaboutthefacts,materialsandthedocumentscollected
during investigation of the crime. They had a discussion with the
CommissionerofPoliceaboutthecase.Hehasfurtherdeposedthaton
17/04/2006theCommissionerofPolicegrantedsanctiontoprosecutethe
accused under the provisions of the TADA(P) Act. PW22 being the
InvestigatingOfficerwasrequiredtosubmittheproposal.
59]
PW23ShriAnamiNarayanRoywasrequiredtoapply
the mind to the proposal and record his satisfaction and accord the
sanction,ifhewassatisfiedaboutthecommissionoftheoffencesonthe
basisofthematerialsand paperssubmittedtohimundertheTADA(P)
Act.Asfarasthecrossofthiswitnessonthispointisconcerned,Idonot
seeanymaterialelicitedinhiscrossexaminationtodoubtanddisbelieve
thestatementsmadebyhiminhisExaminationinChief.PW23wasthe
56
56
57
A.T.S.discussedwithhimabouttheprogressoftheinvestigation.Hehas
admitted in his crossexamination that he was aware that accused Abu
SalemwasextraditedfromPortugaltoIndia.Hehasadmittedinhiscross
examinationthathedidnotnoticethatprosecutionspecificallyu/sec.5of
theTADA(P)ActwasdeniedintheExtraditionOrder.Inhiscrosshewas
asked about the custody of the record forwarded to him by the
InvestigatingOfficerShriShengal.Hehasfurtheradmittedthatthepapers
submittedwiththeproposalwerepreparedduringthecourseoffurther
investigation. Onperusalofhiscrossexamination,Iamconvincedthat
nothinghasbeenbroughtonrecordinhiscrossexaminationtodiscard
anddisbelievehisevidence.TheoralevidenceofPW23issupportedby
theSanctionOrder,whichisatExhibit462.PerusaloftheSanctionOrder
wouldshowthatongoingthroughthepapers,theCommissionerofPolice
wassatisfiedaboutthecommissionoftheoffencesundertheprovisionsof
theTADA(P)Act.TheSanctionOrderatExhibit462isadetailSanction
Order.OngoingthroughtheSanctionOrder,itcannotbesaidthatitisa
cryptic or vague Sanction Order. Perusal of the Sanction Order would
showthatitreflectstheapplicationofmindbytheCommissionerofPolice,
beforeaccordingthesanction.Inthefactsandcircumstances,Idonotsee
anyreasontodisbelieveanddiscardtheevidenceofPW22ShriKisanN.
Shengal and PW23 Shri Anami Narayan Roy on the point of the
proceedinginitiatedforobtainingsanctionandthefinalsanctionaccorded
byPW23.
60]
Onemoreobjectionraisedonbehalfofthedefenceis
58
58
thatthesanctiongrantedbyPW23isnotvalidbecauseitiscontrarytothe
factsdisclosedandprovedbeforethisCourt.ItispointedoutthatPW23
didnotgothroughthesanctionorderaccordedbythethenCommissioner
ofPoliceShriSatishSahani,whentheaccusedNos.1to6inTADASpecial
CaseNo.22of1995wereprosecuted.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolapointed
outthatthecaseoftheprosecutionreflectedinboththesanctionordersis
not identical. The case stated in the Sanction Order at Exhibit462 is
completelyanewcase.Thissubmissioncannotbeacceptedformorethan
onereasons.Perusalofboththe SanctionOrderswouldrevealthatthe
conspiracywashatchedtopressurizetheJainbrothersfortransferofthe
KolDongriPropertyand/ortopaytheransom.Thesanctionwasrequired
onlyfortheoffencespunishableundertheTADA(P)Act. Thesanction
wasnotrequiredfortheoffencesundertheIndianPenalCode.Perusalof
the Sanction Order would reveal that PW23 was satisfied about the
commissionoftheoffencesundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.In
thiscase,deathofPradeepJainbeinghomicidalhasnotbeendisputed.It
hascomeonrecordthatthearms/pistolswereusedbytheshooters.The
shooters pumped 17 bullets into the body of Pradeep Jain. PW23 has
deposedinhisevidencethathehadgonethroughthepaperssubmittedto
himbyPW22.PW23hasfurtherdeposedthathediscussedthefactsof
thecasewiththeInvestigatingOfficerPW22.Theuseoftheweaponsand
thehomicidaldeathofPradeepJainareundisputedfacts. Itmaybe
notedthatthiswasmorethanenoughforPW23toformhisopinionabout
thecommissionoftheoffenceundertheTADA(P)Act. Therefore, this
submissionwithregardtotheintroductionofthenewfactsonthebasisof
59
59
someplantedevidencecannotbeacceptedwhiledealingwiththeevidence
ofPW23,whichisonalimitedpoint.
61]
Inviewofmyabovesaidobservationsbasedonthefactsand
appreciationofevidence,Iconcludethattheprosecutionhasprovedthat
prior approval was accorded by PW24 Shri Rajnish Seth to record the
information. ThepropositionoflawlaiddownintheJudgmentrelied
uponbytheLd.SPPShriUjjwalNikamsupportshissubmission. Onthe
otherhand,thedecisionsrelieduponbythelearnedAdvocateShriPasbola
appearing for the accused do not help and assist the accused in
substantiating the contention. In view of my above said observations I
recordmyfindingsonPointNos.1and2intheaffirmative.
ASTOPOINTNOS.3TO11:
EVIDENCEOFAPPROVERPW1MOHD.NAEEMKHAN
62]
LearnedSpl.P.P.ShriUjjwalNikamsubmittedthatinthis
case PW1 Approver has unfolded the account of the facts of the
conspiracy,whichcouldotherwisehavenotbeenpossible.LearnedSpl.P.P.
submittedthatinthiscasetheevidencegivenbytheApproverissufficient
toestablishthattheApproverwasparticepscriminis,guiltypartneror
associate,inthecommissionofthecrimesinceinception. Accordingto
Spl.P.P. the Approver has divulged all the details of the conspiracy, the
objectoftheconspiracyandthepersonsinvolvedintheconspiracyand,as
suchheisthemostnaturalwitness.LearnedSpl.P.P.submittedthatPW1
Approver has withstood the grueling crossexamination and as such
60
60
establishedthathisevidenceiscredibleevidence. Ld.Spl.P.P.submitted
that in his evidence the Approver has provided the vivid details of the
crimeincludinghisinvolvementinthecommissionofthecrimeandthe
involvementoftheothers.Ld.Spl.P.P.submittedthatduringthecourseof
hisgruelingandsearchingcrossexamination,hehasgiven verynatural
and rational answers. According to learned Spl.P.P. those natural and
rationalanswersgivenbyPW1inhiscrossexaminationisonemorefactor
to confirm that PW1 is the particeps criminis and most natural and
crediblewitness.LearnedSpl.P.P.submittedthattheApproverisacriminal
byhisownadmissionsand,therefore,thesaidstigmacannotstandinthe
way of the testimony of the Approver, once it is found to be credible,
reliableandbelievable.LearnedSpl.P.P.hasalsoadvancedsubmissionon
the point of corroboration to the testimony of the Approver and the
corroborativepieceofevidenceadducedbytheprosecution.Atthisstage,
itismadeclearthatthesubmissionsonthispointwouldbedealtwith
separatelyoncetheaspectofparticepscriminisandcredibilityofPW1is
decided. LearnedSpl.P.P.submittedthatthedefenceoftheaccusedthat
thisApproverhasfallenallofsuddenafter101/2yearsoftheincident
andcameforwardtodeposeagainsttheremainingaccusedonaccountof
predecided plan to gain immunity from the prosecution, is completely
ruledoutbytherationalandnaturalanswersgiventothequestionsputto
himduringthecourseofcrossexamination.
63]
LearnedAdvocateMr.Pasbolaappearingfortheaccused
submittedthatperusaloftheevidenceofPW1Approverasawholewould
61
61
showthathedoesnotfallwithinthedefinitionofApprover/Accomplice.
LearnedAdvocateMr.PasbolasubmittedthatthisPW1onhisownadmits
thathewasnotapartytoanyconspiracymeeting.LearnedAdvocateMr.
PasbolasubmittedthatonperusaloftheevidenceoftheApproverinits
entiretywouldshowthattheroleofthisApproverissuperfluous.Learned
Advocate Mr. Pasbola further submitted that there are various material
omissions,inconsistenciesandcontradictionsintheevidenceofPW1and,
therefore, it is not safe to accept his evidence being either particeps
criminisorareliablewitness. LearnedAdvocateMr.Pasbolasubmitted
thatPW1Approveristhecreationoftheprosecutionjusttosendaccused
AbuSalemtothegallows. LearnedAdvocateMr.Pasbolasubmittedthat
thestorynarratedbyPW1iscompletelyanewstory. LearnedAdvocate
furthersubmittedthatPW1Approverhimselfisahardcorecriminaland
theinformerofPolice.InthesubmissionoflearnedAdvocateMr.Pasbola
inthebackdropoftheseadmittedfacts,thisisafitcasetoindicatethat
credibility of this witness is suspicious. Learned Advocate Mr. Pasbola
submitted that during the course of his police custody as well as his
judicialcustody,hewasextendedspecialtreatmentbyATSOfficersand
thisfactisanotherindicationthattherewasunderstandingbetweenthe
ATSOfficersandtheApprover. LearnedAdvocateMr.Pasbolasubmitted
thatPW1wasbroughtonthesceneaspertheclearcutunderstanding
between PW1 and the Police Officers and in order to substantiate this
statement,reliancehasbeenplacedbylearnedAdvocateonthevarious
statementsmadebythiswitnessinhisevidence. LearnedAdvocateMr.
PasbolasubmittedthatthisstagemanagedexerciseoftheATSOfficerscan
62
62
becondemnedonthebasisofthepositiveevidencebroughtonrecord.
64]
behalfoftheprosecutionandonbehalfoftheaccused,itisnecessaryto
minutelyscan,scrutinizeandanalyzetheevidenceoftheApprovertofind
outwhetherheisreallya'particepscriminis',credibleandreliablewitness.
Let me now see what the Approver has stated and unfolded in his
evidence.Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,thisaccusedwasarrestedon
12/12/2005, when he landed at International Airport, Mumbai. His
Passport,whichismarkedas 'ArticleA',wasrecoveredfromhim. Inhis
evidencehehasstatedabouthispastantecedentsandhisstayinMumbai
as well as in Dubai. In his evidence he has disclosed about his close
acquaintance with accused Abu Salem. He has identified accused Abu
SalemintheCourt.HehasdeposedthatheknowsAbuSalemsince1992.
HemethimforthefirsttimeintheofficeofAbuSalemat2ndHasnabad
Lane, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. He has further deposed that he got
acquaintedwithMohd.HasanMehendiHasan@Sunny,AccusedNo.4,in
the office of Abu Salem. He has deposed that Mohd. Hasan Mehendi
Hasan@SunnywasdriverofAbuSalemandhecouldseehiminthe
officeofAbuSalem,wheneverhehadbeentotheofficeofAbuSalem.He
hasidentifiedRiyazSiddiqui.Inhisevidencehehasfurtherstatedthathe
knowsAliDadi,Dr.Arshad,VishnuSharmaandShaukatMistry@Shaukat
Kadia,AbdullahofDunkanRoadandAzizBilakia@AzizDadi. Hehas
statedthathemetthemintheofficeofAbuSalem.Hehasfurtherstated
thatheknowsJainbrothersnamelyAshokJainandPradeepJain.Healso
63
63
knowsRajeshIgve,SunilNairandSalimHaddi. Inhisevidencehehas
further deposed about his visits to Dubai since the year 1982 and his
acquaintancewithAneesIbrahimandnotoriousgangsterDawoodIbrahim.
In his evidence he has further provided residential address of Anees
IbrahimandDawoodIbrahiminDubaiandalsotheresidentialaddressof
Abu Salem. According to him, Rajesh Igve and Sunil Nair are the
assailantsofdeceasedPradeepJain.
65]
Whilenarratingtheconspiracyinthiscase,hisrolein
theconspiracyandtherolesofAbuSalemandothers,hehasstatedina
categorical terms that in the month of November, 1994 he received a
phonecallofAbuSalemfromDubai.AbuSaleminformedhimonphone
thatthereisaveryhugeplotoflandsituatedatAndheri(East),KolDongri
area,whichbelongstoAshokJainbutitisinsomedispute. AbuSalem
further told him that if the said matter is carefully handled, then they
wouldmakehugeprofitoutofit.Asfarastheconspiracymeetingandthe
decisiontakenintheconspiracymeetingisconcerned,hehasstatedthat
AbuSaleminformedhimthatameetingwasheldinDubaibetweenAbu
Salem,AneesIbrahim,RiyazSiddiqui,ShaukatMistry@ShaukatKadia,
MehendiHasanandSalimHaddiandinthesaidmeetingitwasdiscussed
thatifAshokJainisremovedfromthesaidpropertythencanearnhuge
profit. HehasfurtherdeposedthatAbuSalemfurthertoldhimthatif
neededtheywouldeliminateoneoftheJainbrothers(Ekhadekotapka
denge). As far as the role of the Approver PW1 Naeem Khan in the
fulfillmentoftheobjectoftheconspiracyisconcerned,hehasdeposed
64
64
65
thedetailaccountofthevisit.Thisishisevidenceabouthisfirstvisitto
JainbrothersandthepropertyonthesayofaccusedAbuSalem.
67]
being informed about the object of the conspiracy and the plan to
eliminateoneoftheJainbrothers,hedecidedtoparticipateinthesame.It
isalsoseenonperusalofhisevidencethattheparticularrolewasassigned
tohiminaconspiratorialmeetingandcommunicatedtohimbyaccused
AbuSalemtotaketheconspiracytoitslogicalend.Itis,therefore,seen
thattheknowledgeofeliminationofanyoneofJainbrotherswhiletaking
the criminal conspiracytologicalendcaneasilybe attributedtoPW1.
PW1furthertellsusabouthissecondvisittotheofficeofJainbrothers.
HehasdeposedthataftertwotothreedaysheandShaukatMistrywentto
the office of Sunil Jain, which was situated at the ground floor of his
bungalowtoobtaincopiesoftheTitleDeeds.Hehasdeposedthatwhen
theyreachedhisbungalow,hetoldSunilJaintosurrendertheproperty.It
appearsthatthisultimatumwasgivenbyPW1toSunilJainasperthe
ordersofhismasterAbuSalem.PW1hasdeposedthatatthattimeAshok
Jainwaspresentthere.SunilJainretortedbysayingthatwhytheyshould
leavetheproperty. AfterhearingthisanswerfromSunilJain,Shaukat
Mistry got annoyed and he told that Sunil Jain is understanding more
smartly but he will understand really when at least one murder is
committed(IskoJaadaSamajMeinAaRahaJai.EkhadMurderhogatab
samajmeinaayega).PW1hasdeposedthathepacifiedShaukatMistry
andalsogaveunderstandingtoAshokJainandSunilJain. Atthattime
66
66
Ashok Jain supplied them photo copies of the Title Deeds and they
returnedback. PW1has further deposedthatafter coming out of the
officeofJainbrothers,hemadeaphonecallfromanearbySTDBooth.At
thattimeAbuSaleminstructedhimtogotoMilanSubwaysignalandwait
there.PW1wenttoMilansubwayandafter sometime ShaukatMistry
camethereandhehandedoverthephotocopiestohim.
68]
PW1hasfurtherdeposedaboutthefurtherinstructions
received from his master Abu Salem and the action taken by him
accordingly. He has deposed that after two to three days Abu Salem
contactedhimonphoneandinstructedhimtotakeboththepartiestothe
officeofAdvocateBharatRaghani.AbuSalemalsogavetelephonenumber
ofBharatRaghani's office. PW1has furtherdeposedthataftertwoto
threedaysagainhereceivedaphonecallfromhismasterAbuSalemand
he(AbuSalem)instructedhimtomeetShaukatKadiaatMilansubway
signal.Accordingly,PW1wentatMilansubwaysignalandmetShaukat
Mistry.He(ShaukatKadia)toldhim(PW1)thatameetingwassettledon
thenextdayat4.00p.m.intheofficeofAdvocateBharatRaghaniand
ShaukatKadiahasalreadyinformedthisfacttoJainbrothers. PW1has
deposedthatShaukatMistryinstructedhimtoattendthesaidmeeting.On
the next day PW1 obtained the address of Bharat Raghani's office by
makingaphonecallonthenumbergivenbyaccusedAbuSalem.
69]
meeting,personspresentinthemeetingandtheactualhappeningsatthe
67
67
meeting. Hehasdeposedthatonthenextdayhewenttotheofficeof
BharatRaghani.HefoundAshokJain,SunilJainandSubhashJainpresent
inthesaidoffice.HealsofoundSubhedarSinghYadav,RajanFernandes
andShaukatMistry@ShaukatKadiapresentthere.BharatRaghaniwas
alsopresentinthemeeting. AdvocateMr.BharatRaghaniwentthrough
thecopiesofpapersgivenbyJainbrothersforawhileandthenexplained
boththepartiesabouttheirrights.PW1hasdeposedthatBharatRaghani
toldthatKamlaConstructionhasnorightofwhatsoevernatureinthesaid
plot. On hearing this pronouncement from advocate Bharat Raghani,
Rajan Fernandes told Ashok Jain to leave the proerty (Tum yeh jagha
chhoddo).ShaukatMistryalsorepeatedsamesentenceaddressingAshok
Jain.AverbaldisputestartedbetweenAshokJainononehandandRajan
Fernandes and Shaukat Mistry on the other hand. He pacified them.
Thereafter, PW1 himself and Jain brothers left the said place. PW1
providedthedetailsofthemeetingtohismasterAbuSalemonphone.
ThisevidencewouldshowthatPW1wasactivelyinvolvedintheactivities
oftakingtheobjectofthe conspiracytoitslogicalend. Ifhehadnot
acceptedtheroleandtheworkassignedtohimbyAbuSalem,hewould
havenoreasontoparticipateinthemeetings,takeinstructionsfromAbu
SalemandtoupdateAbuSalemaboutalltheeventsandhappeningsin
eachandeverymeeting.
70]
dayshereceivedaphonecallfromAbuSalemandAbuSaleminformed
himthatafterseventoeightdaystherewillbeanothermeetinginthe
68
68
office of Bharat Raghani. PW1 has further deposed that he could not
attend the said meeting. However, he has stated that he received a
messagefromAshokJainonhispager.Heimmediatelycontactedhimon
phone.AshokJaintoldhimthatinthemeetingBharatRaghanitoldthem
tobringtheoriginaldocuments. AshokJainalsotoldPW1thatBharat
RaghanithrewawaythecertifiedcopiesoftheirTitleDeeds.Hehasalso
told about the quarrel between himself, Rajan Fernandes and Shaukat
MistryintheofficeofBharatRaghani.PW1hasfurtherdeposedthatafter
fourtofivedayshereceivedaphonecallfromAbuSalem. Atthattime
AbuSalemtoldhimthatameetingwillbeheldintheofficeofadvocate
Bharat Raghani and he has already intimated Ashok Jain and Shaukat
Mistryaboutit. PW1alsoinformedAshokJainaboutthesaidmeeting.
PW1wentto attendthe saidmeeting on the nextday in the office of
advocateBharatRaghani.InthesaidmeetinghefoundRajanFernandes,
Shaukat Mistry, Subhedar Singh and two unknown persons with them.
Similarly,hesawAshokJainandSunilJainthere. AshokJaingavethe
originalpaperstoadvocateBharatRaghani.BharatRaghaniwentthrough
thepapersandopenlydeclaredthatthesepaperswerenotrelatedtoKol
DongripropertyofJainbrothers.PW1hasdeposedthatafterhearingthis
declarationfromBharatRaghani,AshokJainbecameupsetandretorted
thatifthisstatementhadbeenmadebysomepeonorclerk,thenhewould
have acceptedit,butitwas notexpectedfrom the solicitor like Bharat
Raghani. Againinthesaidmeetingverbalexchangetookplacebetween
RajanFernandes,ShaukatMistryandAshokJain.PW1hasdeposedthat
heaskedJainbrotherstogooutoftheofficeandaccordinglyJainbrothers
69
69
wentoutofthesaidoffice. PW1hasdeposedthatAshokJainafterthis
incidentwasveryangryandupset.PW1hasdeposedthathepacifiedhim
and assured him that he would talk to Abu Salem and would see that
everythingissetright.PW1hasdeposedthatafterthishemadeaphone
call to Abu Salem and informed him about the happenings in the said
meeting. So this evidence is consistent with the decision taken in the
conspiracyandtheattemptsmadetopressurizeJainbrotherstopartwith
theirproperty.ItisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionthateitherAbuSalem
or the persons present in the conspiratorial meeting wanted to get the
property transferred to their name. The facts stated by PW1 in his
evidencewouldshowthattheywerepressurizingJainbrotherstodoaway
withthepropertyfirst. TheeventsandepisodesnarratedbyPW1,as
stated above, would show that they could not pursue Jain brothers to
eithergiveuporsurrenderthepropertyasperthedictateofeitherAbu
Salemorthepersonspresentintheconspiratorialmeeting.
71]
Inhisevidence,PW1ApproverNaeemKhanhasfurther
deposedaboutthechangeofmindandslightlymouldingofplanbyAbu
Salem.TheevidencegivenbyPW1sofarwouldrevealthathewasjust
followingtheinstructionsofhismasterAbuSalem. Hisevidencefurther
revealedthatAbuSalemwasdirectlyincontactwiththeotherpersons,
who were attending the meetings including Jain brothers. It can be
gatheredfromevidenceofPW1thatAbuSalemwasinterestedtoextort
moneyfromJainbrothers.Ascanbeseenfromthedecisiontakeninthe
conspiratorialmeeting,asstatedbyPW1thattheobjectoftheconspiracy
70
70
wastomakeJainbrotherstosurrenderthepropertyandbydoingsoearn
crores of rupees in the said transaction. In his further evidence PW1
directly touches the heart of the case of the prosecution. PW1 has
deposedthatafterthe lastfailedmeeting,in the firstweekofJanuary,
1995 he received a phone call from Abu Salem. It appears from his
evidence that now Abu Salem had changed his tone and direction of
furthercourseofaction. PW1hasdeposedthatatthattimeAbuSalem
instructedhimtocontactAshokJainandtellJainbrothersthatotherparty
is ready to give Rs. 2 crores. PW1 has deposed that Abu Salem also
instructedhimtotellJainbrothersthatif theyarereadytogiveRs.2
crorestothem,thenhewillseethattheotherpartyisremovedfromthe
dealandAshokJainwillbefreetodevelopthesaidproperty. PW1has
deposedthathewenttotheofficeofAshokJainandconveyedhis(Abu
Salem)messagetoAshokJain. AtthattimeAshokJaintoldPW1that
theyarethelegalownersofthepropertyhavingoriginalpapersandthe
possession,stilltheywillpayrupees20/25lakhstoSalembhai.PW1has
deposedaboutthereactionofAbuSalem,whenheinformedhimaboutit.
PW1hasdeposedthatwhenheinformedAbuSalemabouttheoffermade
byJainbrothers,AbuSalemappearedenragedandtoldhimtogoandtell
AshokJainwhetherhe(AbuSalem)wasaChindhiChor(pettythief).
AbuSalemhasfurthertoldhimthattheywouldrealisewhenoneoutof
fiveiseliminated.PW1hasdeposedthatatthattimeAbuSalemtoldhim
togoandinformAshokJainifhereallywantedcompromise,thenAbu
SalemwillbereadytoacceptRs.onecroreotherwiseno. Accordingly,
PW1wentandconveyedthemessageofhismasterAbuSalemtoAshok
71
71
Jain. NowherePW1hasdeposedaboutthechangeoftheplanbyAbu
Salem. ThisevidenceofPW1ApproverNaeemKhanwouldshowthat
AbuSalemwantedJainbrotherstoeitherpartwiththeirpropertyandget
someamountfromotherpartyoriftheywerenotreadytodoso,then
satisfyhisdemands.ThisevidenceofPW1showsthataccusedAbuSalem
wasalsodirectlydealingwithJainbrotherstoforcethemtosuccumbto
hisdemands.
72]
receivedaphonecallfromAbuSalemandatthattimeAbuSalemtoldhim
thathehadfinalizedthedealforRs.1crore(Rs.onecrore)withAshok
Jain and Jain brothers would give Rs. 10 lakhs per month. PW1 has
furtherdeposedthatAbuSaleminstructedhimtogoandcollectthesaid
amount.PW1,obedientservant,wenttoAshokJainandmethiminhis
office on the next day. PW1 conveyed him (Ashok Jain)the message
receivedfromAbuSalem. AtthattimeAshokJaintoldhim(PW1)to
comeonthenextday.PW1wenttotheofficeofJainbrothersonthenext
day.AtthattimeAshokJainpaidhimRs.tenlakhs.PW1tellsusthathe
informedthisfacttoAbuSalemonphone.AspertheinstructionsofAbu
Salemonphone,PW1keptRs.twolakhswithhimandpaidRs.eight
lakhstooneAbdullahofShehzadiBuilding,DunkanRoad,Nagpada.
73]
1995.HehasdeposedthatintheendofFebruary,1995,againhereceived
a phone call from Abu Salem and informed him to meet one Mehendi
72
72
Hasan i.e. accused No.4, in Moti Mahal Hotel situated at S.V. Road,
Andheri,at4.00p.m.andgivehimRs.onelakh.PW1accordinglywent
to Moti Mahal Hotel and met Mehendi Hasan. Mehendi Hasan was
accompanied byonepersonbynameSalimHaddi. PW1paidRs.one
lakhtoMehendiHasan.Theycametoanearbyphoneboothandinformed
thisfacttoAbuSalem.AtthattimeMehendiHasanalsohadatalkwith
AbuSalem.
74]
incident,whichoccurredon02/03/1995. PW1hasstatedthatonthat
day he received a pager message from Abu Salem. He immediately
contactedAbuSalemonphoneandfoundthatAbuSalemwasveryangry.
At that time Abu Salem asked who was Pradeep Jain and whether he
knowsmannersoftalking. PW1hasinformedAbuSalemthatPradeep
JainwasbrotherofAshokJain.PW1hasfurtherdeposedthatatthattime
hetriedtopacifyAbuSalem,butAbuSalemabruptlydisconnectedthe
phone. PW1 narrates further his attempts to contact Jain brothers.
However,accordingtohim,hecouldnotcontactJainbrothers.According
tohim,on08/03/1995hereadinNewsPaperaboutmurderofPradeep
Jaininhisbungalowinthepreviousnight.HeimmediatelywenttoSTD
BoothandmadeaphonecalltoAbuSalemandaskedAbuSalemabout
thenewsofmurderofPradeepJainandcorrectnessofthenews.PW1
hasdeposedthatAbuSalematthattimerepliedthatthenewswastrue
andsuchpersonsonlyknowthislanguageandnowtheywouldregularly
paytheamount.Here,againAbuSalemgavehimsomeorders.PW1has
73
73
deposedthatAbuSalemtoldhimtomeetMehendiHasanatMotiMahal
Hotel at 5.00 p.m. and deliver him remaining Rs. one lakh. PW1
accordinglywenttoMotiMahalHotelandmetMehendiHasan.Mehendi
Hasanwasaccompaniedbytwopersons.MehendiHasanintroducedthem
asRajeshIgave,PoliceConstable,andSunilNairKarateInspector,andtold
thatbothofthemhavesentPradeepJaintoHeaven.PW1deliveredRs.
onelakhtoMehendiHasan.TheywenttoSTDBoothatAndheriNakaand
informedthisfacttotheirmasterAbuSalem.MehendiHasanalsotalked
withAbuSalemandconfirmedthereceiptofthemoney.
75]
ThisevidenceofPW1relatetheconspiracyhatchedin
themeetingatDubai.Similarly,thecommunicationofthesaidconspiracy
anditsobjecttoPW1andalsotheroleassignedtohimbyAbuSalem.It
alsospeaksabouttheexpressconsentandwillingnessofPW1tobecomea
part of the conspiracy. The evidence of PW1 further reveals that,
consistentwiththeroleacceptedbyhim, hearrangedandattendedthe
meetings with Jain brothers and from time to time conveyed the
happeningsinthemeetingstoAbuSalem.Perusalofthisevidencewould
showthathe(PW1)wasnotastrangertotheconspiracyandtodoallthe
needfulactstofulfilltheobjectoftheconspiracy.
76]
PW1narratestheincidentoccurredpostPradeepJain
murder.HisevidencewouldshowthatAbuSalemdidnotputafullstopto
theconspiracybyeliminatingPradeepJain. Itappearsonperusalofhis
evidence that Abu Salem continued to threaten Jain brothers to extort
74
74
money from them. PW1 in his further evidence speaks about another
modeadoptedbyAbuSalemtoextorttheransomfromJainbrothers.He
hasdeposedthatinMarch/April1996AbuSalemmadeaphonecallto
himandinstructedhimtogotoJuhuandmeetoneJhambSahabandalso
toldhim(PW1)thathe(AbuSalem)hadalreadytoldsaidJhambSahab
aboutPW1.PW1hasdeposedthatatthattimeAbuSaleminformedhim
thatnameofPW1hassurfacedinPradeepJainMurderCase.AbuSalem
also instructed him to go along with Jhamb Sahab to SherAPunjab
Colony,MahakaliCavesRoad,Andheri(East)andinspectandassessthe
valuesofallthethreeflatssituatedtherebecauseJainbrothershadno
moneytopaytothemandinlieuthereoftheyhadagreedtohandover
threeflatstothem. AtthattimeAbuSalemalsogavehimonemobile
phonenumberinforminghimthatitwasthetelephonenumberofJhamb
Sahab.PW1followedtheordersofhismasterAbuSalem.HecalledMr.
Jhambonthegivennumberandaftertakingtheaddressofhisbungalow
wentthere.HehasspecificallydeposedthatAbuSalemhadtoldhimthat
firstnameofJhambwasVirendra. Atthebungalowonepersongreeted
himandintroducedhimselfasJhambSahab.PW1accompaniedthesaid
Jhambinhis118NECartoAndheri(East).PW1hasdeposedthatthere
were three persons in the said car i.e. he himself (PW1), one person
drivingthecar,whowassittinginthewheelchairwithblackgoggleinthe
CourtHallandidentifiedbyhimasaccusedNo.5andoneanotherperson
bynameJhambSaheb.PW1hasdeposedthattheaccusedNo.5leftthe
car on the way to Andheri. Thereafter, he (PW1) and another Jhamb
Sahab went to Andheri (East), Mahakali Caves Road in SherEPunjab
75
75
Thisishisroleinthesecondlegofconspiracy. Inthis
casealsohehasfollowedtheordersofhismasterAbuSalem.Inthispart
oftheconspiracy,itisnothiscasethathewasinformedbyAbuSalem
abouttheexactnatureoftalkandtransactionbetweenhimandaccused
No.5 Jhamb. The evidence of PW1 post Pradeep Jain murder speaks
about the involvement of the accused No.5 in helping Abu Salem to
disposedoffthethreeflats,whichweregiventotheminlieuofransom
amountbyJainbrothers.
78]
TheorderpassedbythisCourtdated21/07/2006needs
tobementionedatthisstage.TheInvestigatingOfficer,onreceiptofan
applicationfromtheaccused,madeanapplicationbeforethisCourtfor
76
76
80]
Itis,therefore,apparentonthefaceoftherecordthat
whiletenderingthepardon,thisCourtwassatisfiedthattheapplication
was made by the accused to become a witness and disclose true and
correct facts of the crime.It is, therefore, seen that there is noiota of
materialtopointoutthattheprocedurefollowedwhiletendingthepardon
wasnotaccordingtolaw. TherewasnooptionbeforetheCourtthanto
acceptthestatementmadebytheApprover. TheCourtevencouldnot
have declinedto tender a pardon when he had expressedhis desire to
becomeanApprover.
81]
TheevidenceoftheApproverPW1NaeemKhansuffers
frominherentdefect.TheApproverhimselfisacriminal.Itmaybenoted
that one of the associates in the commission of the crime becomes an
Approvertosavehisskin,butatthesametimedirectlynotchestheskinof
77
77
hiscoaccused.Hebetraysallhiserstwhilepartnersinthecommissionof
the crime. It is, therefore, necessary that great care and precaution is
requiredtobetakenwhileappreciatingtheevidenceofApprover. The
evidenceoftheApprovercannotbesaidtobetrustworthy,unlessanduntil
Courtisfullysatisfiedthathewasinvolvedinthecommissionofthecrime
withhiscoaccusedandthedisclosuremadebyhimprojectsatruepicture
of the commission of the crime including his involvement in the
commission of the crime. The evidence of PW1 Approver has been
subjectedtosearching andgrueling crossexaminationbyAdvocatesMr.
Pasbola and Mr. Shivade, who according to me, are the best criminal
lawyersintheprofession. LearnedAdvocatesduringthecourseoftheir
crossexamination have not left a single stone unturned to unearth the
truthandtoestablishbeforethisCourtthatthismanwasbroughtonscene
from nowhere to help the prosecution and give false evidence. It is
necessary to see the crossexamination minutely. At this stage, it is
necessarytomentionthatlearnedSpl.P.P.submittedthatduringthecourse
of the crossexamination, PW1 has made consistent and rational
statementstogiveimpressionthathewasparticepscriminisandcertain
events disclosed by him in his crossexamination fortifythe case of the
prosecution that Approver was fully involved in the commission of the
crime. Learned Spl.P.P. submitted that in this case certain suggestions
madetotheApproverarepregnantwiththefactsinissueinthistrialand,
therefore, on the basis of those suggestions, it has to be said that the
defence has admittedimpliedly the involvement of the Approver in the
commissionofthecrime.
78
82]
78
Itistritelawthatcrossexaminationisadoubleedge
83]
substantiate the defence of the accused that this Approver was not
particepscriminisandtobringonrecordandpointoutcertainomissions,
improvements, contradictions and discrepancies in his evidence. In his
evidencePW1ApproverNaeemKhanhasstatedthathewasnotpresentin
conspiratorialmeeting. AccordingtoPW1,hewasmadeknownofthis
conspiracyinNovember,1994. Inhisevidencehehasnarratedtherole
playedbyhimfromtimetotimeasperthe dictates ofhis masterAbu
Salem. Learned Spl.P.P. admitted that there are certain omissions /
improvements in the evidence of the Approver given before the Court.
LearnedSpl.P.P.hasexplainedthesame.AccordingtolearnedSpl.P.P.after
arrestoftheaccused,statementoftheApproverwasrecordedbythePolice
Officers.Lateronasperthedesireexpressedbyhim,hisconfessionwas
recorded.ItispointedoutthattheApproverdidnotretracthisconfession
79
79
atanytime.Itispointedoutthatthisaccusedhasnarratedalltherelevant
facts in his confession recorded by DCP Naval Bajaj. Learned Spl.P.P.
submittedthatwhenApproverhadmadeastatementbeforePoliceOfficer,
hedidnotknowthathewouldbegrantedpardonandforthatreasonhe
mightnothavecomeoutwithallthefactsofthecrimeknowntohim.But
hehasdisclosedallthefactswhenhegaveevidencebeforethisCourt.It
may be mentioned that the pardon was tendered to this accused on a
conditionthathemustmakeatrueandfulldisclosureofthefactsknown
tohiminrespectofthecrime.LearnedSpl.P.P.relyinguponthedecisionin
the case of Madan Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab reported in 1970
Supreme Court Cases 1006, submitted that omissions in the earlier
statement of the approver do not necessarily render his evidence
unreliable.InthiscasetheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthat
whentheaccomplicegiveshispolicestatementhedoesnotknowthathe
wouldbegrantedpardonandpossiblyforthatreasondoesnotcomeout
withallthefactsknowntohimandhedoessowhilemakinghisstatement
before the Magistrate as he knows by then that he would be tendered
pardononconditionthathewoulddiscloseallthefactsknowntohim.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the omission in the
police statement, therefore, by itself would not necessarily render his
evidenceunreliable.TheHon'bleSupremeCourthasfurtherheldthatin
consideringwhetherapprover'sevidencepassedthetestofreliability,the
Courtwouldhavetoconsiderwhethertakenasawholeandinthelightof
thefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseitwasacredibleversionornot.
80
84]
80
IhavegonethroughtheevidenceofPW1NaeemKhan
Inhisevidencehehasadmittedthatforthefirsttimein
81
thattheconspiracywashatchedmuchpriortoNovember,1994andeven
the meetings with Jain brothers were held by Shaukat Kadia, Rajan
FernandesandSubhedarSinghYadavpursuanttothatconspiracy.Onthe
basisofthissubmission,theroleofPW1doesnotbecomesuperfluous.
OnthecontrarythisstatementmadebyPW1canlendassurancetothe
caseoftheprosecutionthatheistheman,whoknowsminutedetailsof
theconspiracyandhehascomeforwardtodeposeabouttheconspiracy,
whichevensometimesruncontrarytothecaseoftheprosecution.Ifitisa
caseofthedefencethatthiswitnessisaplantedwitness,thiswitnesshas
cometodeposeagainstotheraccusedinaconspiracywithMumbaiPolice
tosendtheotheraccusedtogallows,thenthiswitnessinallprobabilities
wouldhavetoedthelineoftheprosecution.Inthateventualityhewould
nothavebeenallowedtomakeanystatementcontrarytotheirowncase.
ItissuggestedthatthiswitnesswasgivenspecialtreatmentbytheATS
Officers. Hewasmadecomfortableand,therefore,hehasacceptedthe
promise given by the ATS Officers and turned Approver. It may be
mentionedthatthissubmissionwouldhavebecomeappealableprovided
thiswitnesshadmadeastereotypestatementconsistentwiththeearlier
caseoftheprosecution. TheATSOfficerswouldnothaveevendaredto
introducesuchawitnessasanApprover,whoinallprobabilitywouldhave
damaged their entire case. This is a very soundreason to come to a
conclusionthatPW1Approverhascomeforwardwithacaseandmade
disclosureofcertainfactsknowntohim. Ifhehadtoedthelineofthe
PoliceOfficersthenhewouldhavemadeastatementconsistentwiththe
earlierpartofthecaseoftheprosecution.Inviewofthisstatementofthe
82
82
Approver,thecredibilityoftheApproverbecomesaboveboard.Similarly,
the credibility of the ATS officers also become aboveboard. They had
decidedtogowiththiswitnessasanApproverthoughhemadecertain
statements,whicharecontrarytotheearliercaseoftheprosecution. It
appearsthattheATSOfficershavetakenarisktobringthiswitnessbefore
the court and make him narrate all the facts of the conspiracy, people
involvedinthiscrimeanddurationoftheconspiracy.Thisisanindication
thatApproverisanaturalwitness.IftheApproverhadbeenconcoctedor
tutored witness, then he would have toed the line of ATS Officers and
madesomestatementsconsistentwiththeircaseofconspiracy.
86]
OnemorecontentionraisedtopointoutthatApprover
isnotparticepscriminisandheisnotareliablewitness.Thereisdelay
of101/2yearsbyhimtocometoIndiaandmakeadisclosureinvolving
himselfandtheotheraccused.Onthepointofdelay,thiswitnesshasbeen
thoroughly crossexamined. It may be noted that the answers and the
explanationgivenbythiswitnesscannotbesaidtobeafalsestatement.In
theearliertrial,thiswitnesswasshownasawantedaccused. Accused
MehendiHasanwasnotshownasawantedaccusedintheearliercharge
sheet. Itistobepresumedthatwithoutdisclosureofhisinvolvementin
the commission of the crime, he would not have been arraigned as a
wantedaccusedintheearlierchargesheet.Thesubmissionofthedefence
thathehasbeenplantedwitnesswouldhavebeenacceptableprovidedhe
hadcomeonthesceneforthefirsttimein2005.Butthatisnotthecase
overhere.IthascomeonrecordinhisevidencethataccusedAbuSalem
83
83
himselfinformedhimthathisnamewasrevealedasaccusedinPradeep
JainMurderTrial.Hewaswantedaccused.Evenifitisassumedforthe
sakeofargumentthatforsometimehewasinIndiaandforthatmatterhe
travelledtoandfrobetweenIndiaandDubaioneveryoccasionafter1996
doesnotmeanthatheisatfault.Ithastobetreatedasafaultandfailure
ofourpolicemachinerytoarresthim.Thereisnoiotaofevidencetoshow
that before 2005 atanytime the police hadanyinformation abouthis
arrivalinIndiaanddeparturefromIndia. Ithascomeonrecordinhis
evidence that he is a hardened criminal. He is not a layman and,
therefore,wecannotexcepthimtobehavelikealaymanandtofallinthe
trapofpolice.ThehardcorecriminallikePW1wouldbedifficulttonab
evenbythepolice. Atthisstage,beforegoingtohisexplanation,Iam
remindedofsayingthatBirdsofthesamefeathersflocktogether.When
Birdsofthesamefeathersflocktogether,theynoeachotherscapabilities,
pluspoints,minuspointsandthenetworkinIndiaaswellasoutsideIndia.
ThedoubtastowhythismanwouldcomedowntoIndiain2005onlyand
notbeforethatisreasonable. Hisarrival,accordingtotheprosecution,
wastimelyandproperlyexplained,butaccordingtothecoaccused,itwas
untimelytosuitthepurposeoftheATS..
87]
acquaintancewithaccusedAbuSalem. Inhisevidencehehasdisclosed
abouttheactivitiesandthedaredevilnatureofAbuSalem.Hemustbe
awareofthefactthatAbuSalemwouldgotoanyextentandeliminate
anybody. PW1followedthedictatesofAbuSalemwithoutbotheringto
84
84
know his earnings in this deal. He has also given the reason why he
agreedtoworkforAbu Salem. Thatwill be dealtwithseparately. At
presentthe reasonwhyhedidnotcometoIndia andsurrenderbefore
policepriorto12/12/2005ismaterial.Hewasthoroughlycrossexamined
onthispoint.TheexplanationgivenbyPW1appearstoberationaland
reasonable.Inthefactsandcircumstancesitcannotbesaidtobeafalse
explanationjustforthesakeofconvenience. InhisevidenceatPage39
Para43PW1hasdeposedthathehadstartedrepentingoverthecrime
afterthemurderofPradeepJain.PW1hasdeposedthatthereasonsfor
hisrepentancewasthatbymeetingPradeepJainhe(PW1)hadbecome
closetohimandsecondlyhehadnotexpectedthattheepisodewillendin
thedeathofPradeepJain.Thisonereasonhehasgivenforbecomingan
Approver. This has come in his crossexamination. In his cross
examinationatPage40Para45,PW1hasadmittedthathecametoknow
in2002thatAbuSalemwasarrestedinPortugal.PW1hasadmittedthat
hehaddecidedtofollowAbuSalemtoIndiaasandwhenhewasbrought
toIndia.ThisfactwouldshowthathewaskeepingtrackofAbuSalem.At
Page44Para51hehasadmittedthatintentionbehindcomingtoIndia
was to surrender before the Police, admit the guilt and minimize the
burdenonhisconscience.Hewasaskedthepointedquestionwhyhedid
notcometoIndiaearlierto2005,whenhewasintendingtodiscloseall
thefactsrelatingtothecrimetothepolice.AtPage48Para59PW1has
statedthatthoughhewasthinkingtodiscloseallthefactstopoliceby
surrenderingbuthecouldnotdosoasAbuSalemwasstillatlarge.PW1
has further admitted that after the arrest of Abu Salem in 2002,
85
85
apprehensiononhispsycheaboutAbuSalemwaslessened. PW1has
further admitted that still after 2002 he did not come to India and
surrenderbeforepolicebecausehewasnotsurewhetherAbuSalemwould
bebroughtfromPortugaltoIndia. Inthefactsandcircumstances, this
reasonappearstobemostrational,probableandacceptable.Heknewthe
terrorofaccusedAbuSalem.AbuSalemwasagreedyUnderworldDonto
eliminateoneandall,whostoodinhisway.PW1isafamilyman. Ifa
familymanthinksonthisline,itisbutnatural.Ihavealreadyobserved
thatifhisnamehadnotbeendisclosedintheearlierchargesheetasa
wantedaccusedandifhehadbeenbroughtonthesceneforthefirsttime
justtocreateevidence,thenthatcouldhavebeenastrongcircumstanceto
acceptthedefence.Butinthiscasehe(PW1)wasawantedaccusedand
inhisevidencePW1hasprovidedvividdetailsstuddedwithhisroleand
theroleofhiscoaccusedintheconspiracy. Therefore,itcannotbesaid
thattheApproverwashavinghandingloveswithMumbaiPoliceandas
pertheunderstandingarrivedatwiththem,he(PW1)cametoIndiaon
12/12/2005. Idonotseeanythingunnaturalinthis. WhenAbuSalem
wasbroughttoIndiafromPortugalhemighthavethoughtthatthisisthe
proper opportunity to surrender before the Police and to face the
consequences.Itiscommonknowledgethatevenacriminalcannotbear
withtheburdenofsuchgruesomecrimeforyearstogether.Therefore,I
donotagreewiththesubmissionofthedefencethatPW1NaeemKhanis
broughtintoIndiaunderaconspiracytocreateevidenceagainstaccused
AbuSalem.
86
88]
86
Itmayfurtherbenotedthatatthetimeofhis(PW1)
statementrecordedon17/12/2005hedidnotdiscloseallthefacts.When
hedecidedtoconfessthecrimeoutofrepentance,he(PW1)changedthe
tone of his statement and disclosed almost all the facts of the crime
includinghisroleinthecrime.PW1tooksixmonthstime,afterhisarrest,
to ponder over the decision to become an Approver. If he (PW1) was
playinginthehandsofPolicepursuanttosomeconspiracywiththepolice,
ontheverydayofhisarrest,he(PW1)wouldhavemadeitclearbefore
CourtthathewantedtobecomeanApproverinthiscase.Nobodycould
havepreventedhimfromdoingso.
89]
pointingoutthatheisahardcorecriminalandhadgoodcontactswiththe
OfficersoftheLawEnforcementAgenciesincludingPolice.Atthisstageit
maybementionedatthecostofrepetitionthatoneofmajorflawsinthe
evidenceoftheApproveristhathehimselfisacriminal. Inthis case,
therefore,thequestioniswhethermerelybecauseofhiscontactswiththe
LawEnforcementAgencies,hecouldbeplantedasawitnessinthiscase?
Onthispoint,PW1wasthoroughlycrossexamined.Itmaybementioned
thatthiswitnesscouldhaveavoidedtodiscloseallhiscontactswiththe
LawEnforcementAgencies.Butinallfairnesshehasadmittedinhiscross
examination at Page 43 Para 48 that in 1990 he came in contact with
AuthoritiesunderF.E.R.A.,D.R.I.andCustoms.PW1hasfurtheradmitted
thathebecameinformerofFERA,DRIandCustomsin1990.However,he
(PW1)hasdeniedthathewasainformerforPolice. PW1alsodenied
87
87
that he got Rs. 27 lakhs as reward. PW1 was confronted with his
statement made before Police on 17/12/2005. Ultimately it has been
establishedthat27lakhs rewardwas claimedbyhim forprovidingthe
informationtotheAuthorities.Itmaybementionedthatmerelybecause
ofhisroleasanInformerofLawEnforcementAgencies,thiscouldnotbea
groundtodiscardhisevidenceabouthisinvolvementinthecommissionof
this crime. It may be mentioned at this stage that on the basis of his
contactswiththeLawEnforcementAgencies,he(PW1)wouldhaveused
hisclouttoseethathisnamedoesnotsurfaceinPradeepJainMurder
Trial.Itmayfurtherbementionedthatifhewassoimportantpersonfor
theLawEnforcementAgencies,thenontheirowntheywouldhavemadeit
a point to help him in his bad time. Therefore, this could not be the
groundforhimtogethimselfinvolvedinthecommissionofthecrime.It
bemaynotedatthisstagethatwhenhisnamewassurfacedinthiscrime,
hewouldhavenoknowledgethathecouldbecomeanApproverandclaim
theimmunity.Itis,therefore,seenonthebasisoftheseadmissionsthathe
(PW1) is a criminal and also the informer of the law Enforcement
Agencies. Inthefactsandcircumstances,this caseofthedefencethat
merelybecauseofthisheconspiredwiththeATSOfficersdoesnotstandto
reasonandassuchcannotbeaccepted.
90]
AtPage46Para54thedefenceLawyeraskedhimabout
88
CustomsandDRIwhomheknewasanInformerandsoughttheiradviceas
towhatheshoulddoashisnamewasinvolvedinthiscaseasasuspect.
This answer given by this witness is most rational and reasonable.
Therefore,onthebasisofhiscontactswiththeLawEnforcementAgencies,
whichhehasadmittedinhiscrossexamination,couldnotbetheground
toimplicatehimselfinsuchaheinouscrime.BeingaInformeroftheLaw
EnforcementAgenciesandhimselfacriminal,he(PW1)wouldhavebeen
awareoftheconsequencesofbeinganaccusedinsuchaheinouscrime.It
maybementionedthatonthebasisofhiscriminalantecedentsandhis
acquaintancewiththeOfficersofLawEnforcementAgencies,thecaseof
thedefencethathe(PW1)hasbeenplantedasawitnesssimplytonail
accusedAbuSalemcannotbeaccepted.
91]
PW1wouldhelpAbuSaleminhismisdeedswithouthavingtheassurance
of financial benefit in the deal or otherwise. PW1 has been cross
examinedonthisaspectalso.Inhisevidence,PW1hasdeposedthathe
usedtovisittheofficeofAbuSalem.Hewasacquaintedwithhim.They
were knowing each other being the Birds of same feather. Without
having the knowledge of the capabilities of PW1 and his man
managementskill,AbuSalemwouldnothaveassignedthisroletohim.It
isnecessarytoseewhatPW1hastosayabouthisbenefitintakingthe
dealofKolDongriPropertytoitslogicalend.Alltheseaccused,PW1and
theirrelativeshavecriminalbackground. Itisexplicitfromtheevidence
producedonrecord. PW1hasnarratedthereasonwhyheagreedtodo
89
89
thefavourforAbuSalemandactconsistentwiththedecisionstakeninthe
conspiracyandtodotheroleassignedtohim. AtPage51Para65he
(PW1hasadmittedthatbetweenMarch,1993toNovember,1994hehad
atalkwithAbuSalemonphone. He(PW1)hasadmittedthatthesaid
talkwasinconnectionwiththereleaseofhisnephewDanny(Meheraj)as
hewasarrestedbythePoliceinconnectionwithfiring.PW1hasadmitted
thatthesaidtalktookplaceintheyear1994. Hehasadmittedthatthe
saidtalkwithAbuSalemregardingAndheriKolDongripropertyhadtaken
placeaboutthreemonthsafterDanny'sarrest.Ithascomeonrecordinhis
confessionthathisnephewwasarrestedforcommittingthemurderasper
the instructions of Abu Salem and, therefore, he contacted Abu Salem
aboutit.ThenAbuSalemassuredhimthathewoulddotheneedful.He
lateronengagedalawyerandthenephewofPW1gotbail. AtPage67
Para96,PW1hascategoricallyadmittedthathe(PW1)wasnotpromised
topayanythingbyAbuSalemforhisinvolvementinthismatter.Hehas
admittedthathedidnotreceiveanythinginthematter. PW1hasalso
admittedthathedidnotdemandanythingfromAbuSalem. Apointed
question was asked to him that, when you were not promised by Abu
Salem, then why did you participate in conspiracy of Pradeep Jain
murder?Thiswitness(PW1NaeemKhan)hasgivenpointedanswer.He
hasstatedthataccusedAbuSalemhadhelpedhis(PW1)relativeinthe
matteroffiringandhe(PW1)wasnotexpectingthatthematterwouldgo
toofarinculminationofPradeepJain'smurderandfurtherhe(PW1)was
also expecting that if the deal goes through properly, he may get
something. ItmaybenotedthatthisanswergivenbythewitnessPW1
90
90
NaeemKhan(Approver)cannotbebrushedaside. Hehascategorically
statedthereasonforfollowingthecommandsofhismasterAbuSalem.
The reason is rational and probable. He decided to help Abu Salem
because he was indebted to Abu Salem for the help extended by Abu
Salemtohisnephew.
92]
Inthecrossexamination,hewassubjectedtogrueling
enquiryonhisevidenceatPage15Para21. InhisevidencePW1has
deposed that in January, 1995 he had received a phone call from Abu
Salem and Abu Salem had instructed him to contact Jain brothers and
informthemthatotherpartywasreadytogiveRs.2crorestohim.PW1
hasfurtherstatedthatAbuSalemtoldhimthatiftheyarereadytogive
Rs.2crore,thenAbuSalemwouldseethatotherpartyisremovedfromthe
dealandJainbrotherswouldbefreetodeveloptheproperty.Itappears
that this is the omission in his earlier statement. This fact has been
mentionedintheconfession.Itissubmittedthatthisstatementmadeby
PW1 does not find support even from the confession of accused Abu
Salem and evidence of Sunil JainPW13. While considering this
statement,itisnecessarytobearinmindthatAbuSalemwasinterestedin
extortingmoneyfromJainbrothers.ThisstatementmadebyPW1cannot
beconsideredinisolationwithhisotherevidence.Itappearsonperusal
of hisevidencein entiretythathe (PW1)wasin factthe mosttrusted
soldierofAbuSalemtodealwithJainbrothersforholdingthemeetings
withJainbrothersandtotakecareofmonetarytransactions.Itappearson
perusal of his evidence that he was not involved in dealing with Jain
91
91
92
93]
92
93
conspiracyinNovember,1993couldnotbesaidtobeacorrectstatement.
On the basis of the material placed on record, a reasonable judicial
inferencecanbedrawnthatitmusthavehappenedduetosomemistake
either on the part of the witness or the Officer, who recorded the
statement. Onthebasisofthiscontradiction,itcannotbesaidthatthis
witnesshasnarratedtwodifferentconspiraciesconveyedtohim,firstof
November,1993andthesecondofNovember,1994.
94]
witnessandhehasbeenbroughtonsceneinconspiracybetweenPolice
andPW1,theattentionoftheCourtwasdrawntowardsthePassport
Article'A'andvariousdiscrepanciesfromthesaidPassport.ThePassport
isatraveldocumentofaparticularperson.OnthebasisofthePassport,
thedestinationstravelledbythepersoncanbegathered.Inthiscase,the
Passporthasbeenrelieduponbytheprosecutiononlyforthepurposeto
showthatPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)travelledinIndiaon12/12/2005
fromDubai.ItissubmittedthatthePassportisafakePassportpreparedto
createarecordoftravellingoftheApproverfromDubaitoMumbai. It
maybementionedthatevenwithoutproductionandproofofthisPassport
theCourtwouldnothavediscardedthecaseoftheprosecutionthatthis
PW1wasarrestedon12/12/2005.PW1waswantedaccusedsince1995.
HecouldnotbearrestedbyPolice.Atthemostitcouldbesaidtobethe
failureofPolicetoarresthiminthiscrime. Itmaybementionedatthis
stagethatPW1wasnotinvolvedintheincidentofattackonJainbrothers.
ThemainculpritsinvolvedintheattackonPradeepJainwereRajeshIgave
94
94
andSunilNair.ItisnecessarytomentionatthisstagethatRajeshIgave,
whohappenedtobeaservingPoliceConstableonthedateoftheattackon
Jainbrothers,waslateronkilledinanencounter.SunilNairisalsooneof
thewantedaccusedinthiscase. Hewasoneoftheassailants. Itmay
furtherbenotedthatpolicecouldnotarrestSunilNairtilldate. In the
factsandcircumstances,itcannotbesaidthattofavoursomebodyorto
favourSunilNair,Policehavenotarrestedhim.Suchsubmissiondoesnot
standtoreason.ThesameprinciplehastobeappliedinthecaseofPW1.
SunilNairwasashooter. IncomparisonwithSunilNair,PW1Approver
NaeemKhanisplacedinafarbetterposition.Hecouldhaveonhisown
travelledtoanydestinationofhischoice.Inhisevidencehehasdeposed
thatin1996heleftIndiaforDubai.
95]
madethathisoldPassportwasdestroyedonlywithaviewtoshowthatin
1994,1995and1996PW1was notinIndia and,therefore,there was
hardlyanyreasonforhimtoparticipateinthesocalledconspiracy.Itmay
be mentioned that merely because of the failure to produce the old
Passport,thisstatementcannotbeacceptedbyapplyinganystandardand
any logic. In this case the prosecution was not required to prove the
PassportsoftheApprover. Thereisnoissueinvolvedwithregardtothe
validity or otherwise of the Passport of PW1. The limited question
involvedinthiscaseiswhetherhetravelledtoIndiaandlandedatSahar
International Airport on 12/03/2005. It has to be presumed that the
Policecouldnotarresthimbecausehewouldhavebeenhidinghimself.In
95
95
hisevidencehehasgiventhereasonstothesatisfactionoftheCourtforhis
decisiontocomedowntoIndiaonlyon12/12/2005.Ihavefoundthose
reasonsacceptable.Thereasonshavebeengiveninthecrossexamination.
Ihavedealtwiththereasonsseparately.Therefore,thequestionaboutthe
fakenatureofthePassportorotherwiseofArticle'A'isnottheissuebefore
this Court. The issue before this Court is limitedandthe said issueis
whetherthiswitnesshadarrivedinIndiaonthebasisofthisPassportfrom
Dubaiatthegiventimeandonthegivendate.Thisfacthasbeenproved.
PerusalofthePassportwouldshowthatthereisdeparturestamponhis
Passport, when he left Dubai and there is immigration stamp on his
PassportatSaharInternationalAirport.Wearenotconcernedwithother
details of the Passport. It is common knowledge that this hardcore
criminalshave their ownnetworkandtheycanprocureanynumberof
fake passports. But since this is not the issue in this case, the cross
examinationconductedonthisissuetonailthiswitnessesasalier,isofno
assistancetothecaseofthedefence.Thedefenceoftheaccusedthatthis
PassportisacreationofPolicecannotbeaccepted.
96]
Thereisonemoredocumentonrecordtoshowthaton
thegivendatethisaccusedwasarrestedbyATS.Exhibit427istheArrest
Panchnama. ThisPanchnamawasdrawnon12/12/2005between19.40
hours to20.10 hours. Itwas drawin the office ofATS. Idonotsee
anythingunnaturalaboutdrawingofthispanchnamaintheATSOffice.
AfterarrivaloftheaccusedattheAirport,theOfficersoughttohavebeen
in a hurry to take him in custody and bring him to the office. If the
96
96
panchanamaisnotdrawnattheAirportimmediatelyaftertakinghimin
custodywouldnotbethegroundtodiscardthepanchanamaofthearrest
ofaccusedon12/12/2005.Therefore,fortheaforesaidreason,Iamnot
prepared to accept the submission that the Passport Article'A' is the
creationinconspiracywithMumbaipoliceandtheaccusedtoplanthimas
awitnessagainstaccusedAbuSalem.
97]
IhavealreadymentionedthatPW1hasbeensubjected
tosearchingandgruelingcrossexaminationbyAdvocateMr.Pasbolaand
AdvocateMr.Shivade,thebestcriminallawyersintheprofession.Perusal
oftheevidenceofPW1andparticularlyhiscrossexaminationinentirety
wouldshowthatthiswitnesshaswithstoodsearchingandgruelingcross
examination. Despite making searching crossexamination, nothing
substantialhasbeenbroughtonrecordinhiscrossexaminationtodoubt
thecredibilityofthiswitness.OnperusalofcrossexaminationofPW1,it
appearsthatmainevidenceofthiswitnessthathewasinformedaboutthe
conspiracy by Abu Salem and he was assigned particular task by Abu
SalemandhedidfollowtheinstructionsofAbuSalemandheldvarious
meetingswithJainbrothersandatalltimesthreatenedJainbrothersto
succumbtothedemandsofAbuSalemhasnotbeenshattered.
98]
thatthefactsnarratedbyhimdiscloseintrinsicaccountoftheconspiracy.
Thiswitnesshasdisclosedcertainrelevantfactsinhiscrossexamination
forthefirsttimeandthosefactslendassurancetothestatementsmadeby
97
97
thiswitnessinhisExaminationinChief.Theanswersgivenbythiswitness
incrossexaminationdonotdoubthisinvolvementintheconspiracyand
fulfillmentoftheinstructionsofAbuSalembyhimtotaketheconspiracy
toitslogicalend.Thiswitnesswasnotdirectlyinvolvedinthemeetingof
conspiracy.Inordertoholdhimguiltyoftheconspiracy,itisnotnecessary
thatheoughttohavebeenoneoftheparticipantsinthemeeting.Whatis
materialinhiscaseisthatwhetherhewasmadeknownthedecisiontaken
intheconspiracyandanyroleassignedtohimtotaketheconspiracytoits
logicalendandhisagreementtodothesaidrole.Ihavealreadyobserved
thatAbuSalemwasbasedinDubai. HewasdirectlydealingwithJain
brothers. Abu Salem, as can be seen from his (PW1) evidence, was
interestedinextortingmoneyfromJainbrothers.So,therewasboundto
besomechangeintheplan,thedecisionandthesettlement.PW1was
not party to it. He was simply there to act according to the decision
conveyed to him by his master Abu Salem. This fact has also been
confirmedbyAbuSaleminhisconfessionandbyPW13SunilJain.
99]
entiretyrulesoutthepossibilityofthiswitnessfallinginthetrapofPolice
andto firstconfess the crime and later on became an Approver. The
conduct of PW1, prearrest and postarrest, completely rules out the
possibilityofanyconspiracybetweenhimandMumbaiPolice. Itistrue
thatasaApproverheisentitledforimmunityfromtheProsecution.Itis
alsotruethathehasbetrayedhiserstwhilecompanionstosavehisskin.
Hisstatementisinculpatory.Initiallyhehadimplicatedhimselfbymaking
98
98
aconfession.ItmaybementionedthatifhewasincontactwithMumbai
Police,assoughttobealleged,hecouldhavestraightwayappearedbefore
Court and expressed his desire to become an Approver. There was no
reason for Mumbai Police to extend him any amnesty. Perusal of his
evidence would show that he has disclosed all the facts within his
knowledge.Itisverydifficulttoacceptthepropositionthatsuchastory
canbeconcoctedbysheerimagination.Ifawitnessisconcoctedandthe
storyisfigmentofafertileimaginationofthePolice,thenitisverydifficult
forthewitnesstowithstandthesearchingandgruelingcrossexamination.
A witness, who comes before Court and narrates a story concocted by
Police, is bound to be exposed somewhere or the other in his cross
examination.
100]
examination,buthehasalsodisclosedcertainrelevantfactsinhiscross
examination.Suchfactscannotbedisclosedunlessapersonhasactively
participatedinsuchconspiracyandhasdoneallpossibleactstotakethe
conspiracytoitslogicalend. Eveninhisevidencehehasgivenstraight
admissions. On one occasion he stated that he was not party to the
conspiracy.ButwhenCourtaskedhimandwhenherealizedtheblunder
committedbyhim,hegaveexplanationandstatedthathewasapartyto
the conspiracy. It may be noted that straight admissions given by the
witnessinthecrossexaminationinanywaycannotbereadoutofcontext
andinisolationwithpositiveevidencebroughtonrecord.
99
101]
99
TheevidenceofPW1,ifreadintotality,wouldreveal
hisroleintheconspiracyaswellastheroleoftheotheraccused.Itisseen
onperusalofhisevidencethathehasfollowedtheordersofhismaster
Abu Salem. The account of the meetings placed on record by PW1
provides us vivid details studded with the role of each and everyone
participatedinthemeetings.Inhisevidence,PW1haspositivelystated
thatduringthemeetingshehadtriedtoimpressuponJainbrothersto
follow the dictates of Abu Salem, otherwise they would have to face
seriousconsequences.PW1hasnotavoidedtoansweranyquestioninhis
crossexamination on any ground. His role in the conspiracy was fully
establishedinthiscasebyhisownevidence. PW1hasnottriedtorun
away from answering serious and challenging questions in his cross
examination.PW1hasdisclosedinhiscrossexaminationveryimportant
facts,whichrevealedhisclosenexuswithAbuSalemandhisassociates.
102]
choicetosay'No'tothecommandsgivenbyhismasterAbuSalem,butto
fallinlinewithAbuSalem.WhyhehasfalleninlinewithAbuSalemor
otherwise is not the issue. It has come on record in his evidence that
consistentwiththeroleassignedtohimandinstructionsgiventohimfrom
timetotimebyAbuSalem,hearrangedmeetingwithJainbrothersand
triedhislevelbesttoconvinceJainbrotherstofollowthedictatesofAbu
Salem.
103]
His(PW1)evidencewouldrevealthathehasnotonly
attendedthemeetings,but,whenAbuSalem,asperthecase,settledthe
100
100
issuewithJainbrothersforRs.onecrore,healso(PW1)collectedRs.ten
lakhsfromJainbrothersandarrangedtoforwardittoAbuSalemthrough
Hawala. Inhisevidence,hehasprovidedthenamesofHawalaDealers.
Inmyopinion,alayman,whoisnotactuallyinvolvedincommissionof
suchheinouscrime,wouldnotbeinapositiontoprovidevividdetailsof
the crime and minute account of the events occurred till murder of
PradeepJainandafterwards. Thisevidence,therefore,byapplyingany
standardandruleofcredibilityrevealshisdeepinvolvementinthecrime,
hisknowledgeoftheconspiracy,hisroleintheconspiracyandhistacit
consent to act as per the dictates of his master Abu Salem. He has
explanationforeverythinginthecrossexamination,whichisintendedto
discredithimonthegroundthatheisaplantedwitness. Hisevidence,
therefore,clearlyproveshisdeepinvolvementintheconspiracy.Hewas
madeawareoftheconspiracyandtheobjectoftheconspiracy.He(PW1
ApproverNaeemKhan)notonlyunderstoodtheconspiracyanditsobject
fromAbuSalem,buthealsoallthroughouttriedtotaketheobjectofthe
conspiracytoitslogicalend.
104]
Itmaybementionedthatcertainfactsdisclosedbyhim
inhisevidence,importantonsomeaspects,runcountertothefactsofthe
prosecutioncase. Butitcouldnotbethegroundtoconcludethatheis
tellinglies.Itisacardinalrulethatapersonisnotsupposedtopossessa
photogenic memory. In this case, PW1 narrated the incident, which
occurredin1995.Itis,therefore,seenthattheevidenceoftheApprover
unfoldsallthefactswithinhisknowledge. Theevidenceonrecordhas
101
101
Inthecaseof Saravanabhuvanvs.StateofMadras,
AIR 1996 SCC (Cri.) 1273, (cited by Spl.P.P. Shri Ujjwal Nikam), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the antecedents of the
Approverdonotreallymakehimeitherbetterorworse.Theevidenceof
theApprovercanonlybeacceptedonitsownmeritsandwithsufficient
corroboration.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiathusheldthatcriminal
antecedents of the Approver cannot weigh against the evidence of the
Approver provided the said evidence is reliable and is corroborated in
material particulars. In this context, it is necessary to state that
accomplice/approver cannot be without criminal antecedents. The
Approver is a particeps criminis. Unless and until he is particeps
criminis,hisevidenceagainstthecoaccusedcannotbeatallconsidered.
Theapproverhimselfisaguiltypartnerorassociateinthecommissionof
thecrimewithcoaccused.ItmaybenotedthattheApproverdecidesto
becomeawitness,whenhisconsciencedoesnotbeartheburdenofthe
crime committed by him and in view of the repentance, remorse and
contritionoverthecommissionofthecrime,hecomesbeforeCourtwitha
requesttotenderhimpardonsoastoenablehimtounfoldallthefactsof
102
102
thecommissionofthecrimeincludinghisinvolvementinthecommission
ofsuchcrime.Thechangeofheartandmindbytheaccomplicedepends
uponvariouscircumstancestobetrayhispartnersinthecommissionofthe
crime. There could be various reasons. Human psychology cannot be
judged by applying any universal formula. Each person may react in
differentwaysinasimilarstateofcircumstances.TheApproverPW1has
narratedthereasonsforhisbetrayalofthefaithofhisotherassociates.
106]
identifiedPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)beingthesameperson,whohad
attendedthemeetingswithJainbrothersandothersinBharatRaghani's
office.PW13hasalsostatedabouttheliaisoningdonebyPW1between
JainbrothersandAbuSalem.Itisseenthatintheearlierpartofthetrial,
JainbrothersdidnotdisclosethenameofNaeemKhan.However,thefact
remains that his involvement in the commission of the crime was
establishedin1995. Hewasshownasawantedaccusedintheearlier
chargesheet. It may be noted at this stage that Jain brothers did not
disclosesomaythingsintheearlierpartofthetrial. Ld.SPPsubmitted
thatthe reasoncouldbe the terror createdbyAbu Salemandtherole
playedbyPW1NaeemKhan(Approver).Inthefactsandcircumstances,I
do see substance in the submission. PW1 was close associate of Abu
Salem. Jain brothers knew the dreaded nature of Abu Salem and his
associates.NeitherAbuSalemnorPW1werearrestedandfacingthetrial
atthattimewithotheraccused. Therefore,thiscouldbethereasonfor
Jainbrothersnottodisclosehisname.Thereisampleevidenceonrecord
103
103
that, even after murder of Pradeep Jain, they were put under constant
threatandterror.Therefore,inmyview,nondisclosureofnameofPW1
byJainbrothersintheearlierpartofthetrialappearstobethenetresult
oftheunlawfulactivitiesofAbuSalemandhisassociates.
107]
IthascomeonrecordintheevidenceofPW1thathe
was using the Pager and on Pager he was sending messages either to
accused Abu Salem or to Sunil Jain. Similarly, he was receiving the
messagesonhisPagerfromaccusedAbuSalem.Ld.Advocateappearingfor
theaccusedsubmittedthatthisevidenceofPW1onthepointofuseof
Pager at that time is totally unacceptable. It is submitted that at the
relevanttimeradiopagerservicewasnotavailable.Inordertoestablish
thisfact,theaccusedhaveexaminedonewitnessindefencei.e.D.W.No.1.
Inhisevidence,DW1hasdeposedaboutthefactofcomingintooperation
ofRadioPagingService.Hisevidencerevealsthatduringrelevantperiod
RadioPagingServicewasnotavailableandthesamewaslaunchedforthe
firsttimeon08/06/1995,Inhiscrossexamination,ithasbeensuggested
tothiswitnessthatMTNL,Mumbai,hadlaunchedRadioPagingService
muchpriorto08/06/1995. Inhisevidencehehasstatedthat heisnot
awarewhenMTNL,Mumbai,commencedRadioPagerServicesinMumbai.
HehasalsostatedthatheisnotawarewhetherMTNL,Mumbai,wasalso
oneoftheRadioPagerServiceProvidersinMumbai.Hehasstatedthathe
didnotverifyfromtherecordthatMTNL,Mumbai,wasalsoproviding
Radio Paging Services in Mumbai and from which date. It has been
suggestedtohimthatMTNL,MumbaicommencedRadioPagingServicein
104
104
Mumbaion02/10/1992anddiscontinuedthesameon31/03/2004. It
maybenotedthatthiswitnesshasstatedinhisExaminationinChiefthat
Radio Paging Service was first launched in Mumbai Metropolis on
08/06/1995.HewasnotsureaboutthelaunchofRadioPagerServiceby
MTNL, Mumbai, and the date of the same. He could not deny in his
evidence that it was launched in Mumbai by MTNL on 02/10/1992. A
pointed question was askedtohim whetherPublic Sector Undertakings
likeMTNL/BSNLarenotrequiredtoapplyforpermissionorlicenceto
provideanyTelecommunicationService.Thiswitnesshasstatedthatheis
notawareofthisfactastheseCorporationsarecomingunderdifferent
branchofTelecommunicationDepartment,whichcomeunderMinistryof
Communication. As suchthe issue of use of Pager by PW1 prior to
08/06/1995 cannot be said to be doubtful circumstance. There is one
morecircumstancetoaccepthisstatementthatatthattimehewasusing
thePager.Inhisevidencehe(PW1)hasdeposedthaton02/03/1995he
hadreceivedapagermessagefromAbuSalem.Thisfactwouldindicate
thatAbuSalemwasalsousingPageratthattime.IfPW1wasnotusing
Pager,thentherewasnoquestionofsendingmessagebyAbuSalemonhis
(PW1)Pager.ThisfacthasbeenconfirmedbyaccusedAbuSaleminhis
confession.Similarly,PW13hasalsodeposedthatonnumberofoccasions
heforwardedmessagestoPW1onhisPager. Thisfactfurtherindicates
thatevenPW13wasalsousingPagerinMumbaiatthattime. Onthe
basis of the evidence of the defence witness, this fact, which has been
proved,onthebasisoftheoralevidenceandsupportedbycircumstantial
evidence,cannotbediscarded.
105
108]
105
examinationofthedefencewitnessesbytheaccused,appropriatecarewas
nottakenbytheprosecution.Thiscanbedemonstratedfromthefurther
acts of the prosecution. Exhibit 564 is the application made by the
prosecutor for production of the documents with regard to the
commencementofRadioPagingServicebyMTNL,Mumbai,intheyear
1992.Byorderdated07/01/2015Ihaverejectedthesaidapplicationfor
thereasonsrecordedinthesaidorder.Itmaybenotedatthisstagethat
this attempt made at belated stage was a halfhearted attempt.
Appropriatecarewasnottakentoensuretheproofofthedocumentsby
takingrecoursetotheappropriatemodeofproofofsuchdocument.The
reasons recorded by me in my order for rejecting the prayer are self
explanatory.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethatonthebasisofother
evidenceIhaveacceptedthecaseoftheprosecutionabouttheuseofthe
Pager by PW1 Naeem Khan (Approver) at the relevant time. If the
appropriatestepshadbeentakenearlierbytheprosecution,theninthat
eventtheconcretedocumentaryevidencewouldhavecomeonrecord.
109]
conspiracystuddedwiththeroleplayedbyeachoneofthem.Hehasalso
narratedinextensohisroleintheconspiracy. Hehasalsonarratedthe
roleofaccusedAbuSalem,MehendiHasanandVirendraJhamb.Accused
Virendra Jhamb came on the scene after murder of Pradeep Jain. His
evidence would indicate that even after murder of Pradeep Jain, Abu
Salem was not satisfiedand he continued the spell of threats toextort
106
106
moneyfromJainbrothers.TheinvolvementofVirendraJhambinthiscase
hasbeenrevealedforthefirsttimeaftermurderofPradeepJain.Inhis
evidencePW1hasdeposedabouthismeetingswithVirendraJhamband
visitto Mamta CooperativeSociety,SherEPunjabColonyatMahakali
CavesRoad,Andheri(East),toseethreeflats.AsfarasaccusedVirendra
Jhambisconcerned,hehasdeposedthatontheinstructionsofhismaster
Abu Salem, he met Virendra Jhamb. At this stage, it is necessary to
mentionthathe(PW1)wasnotawareofthedealbetweenAbuSalemand
Virendra Jhamb However, his evidence clearly establishes that accused
VirendraJhambwasactingaspertheinstructionsofAbuSalemtodispose
off the three flats from Mamta Cooperative Housing Society, SherE
PunjabColony,whichbelongedtoJainbrothers.Afterseeingtheflats,he
informedAbuSalemthattheflatswereingoodconditionandtheflats
couldfetchgoodprice. AbuSalemthenstarteddisposingoffthethree
flatsthroughJhambBuildersandothers. Inhisevidencehe(PW1)has
furtherstatedthataftersometime,whenhemadeenquirywithaccused
AbuSalemaboutthosethreeflats,atthattimeaccusedAbuSalemtold
himthatheneednotbotheraboutitbecausethatmatterwastakencareof
byVirendraJhamb.
110]
TheevidenceofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)unfolds
firsthandaccountoftheeventsoccurredandwitnessedbyhim.Inviewof
thisintrinsicevidenceledbyPW1,itcannotbesaidthathewasastranger.
Similarly,itcannotbesaidthathewastutoredandconcoctedtosupport
the prosecution without being a party to the conspiracy and without
107
107
playinganyparttotaketheobjectoftheconspiracytoitslogicalend.He
hasdeposedabouthisowninvolvementinthecrimeandhissaidevidence,
after testing on the touchstone of reliability and credibility, appears
intrinsically natural and probable catalog of the events that had taken
place.Inthiscase,onthebasisofhisevidence,apartfromestablishinghis
involvement in the commission of the crime along with him, he has
deposedabouttheotheraccusedandalsoimplicatinghimselfinsucha
mannertogiverisetoaconclusionofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.By
applyingthetestofcredibilityandreliabilitytotheevidenceofPW1,Ido
notseethatthereisanythinginherentlyimprobableandimpossibleinhis
evidence. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the
evidenceoftheApproverinthiscasehaspassedthetwintest;i)thatheis
particeps criminis and ii) that his evidence independently of other
evidenceonthefactsdeposedbyhimiscredibleandreliable.
111]
Itisnownecessarytoconsiderthelawonthepointof
appreciationofevidenceoftheApprover,natureofcorroborationtothe
evidenceoftheApproverandwhethertheconfessionofthecoaccusedcan
be used as independent corroborative piece of evidence to the facts
deposedbytheApprover.
112]
independently,itisnecessarytoconsiderthelawlaiddownbythevarious
decisionsonthesubjectoftheevidenceoftheApprover.Inthecaseof
Saravanabhuvanvs.StateofMadras,AIR1996SCC(Cri.)1273,(cited
108
108
bySpl.P.P.ShriUjjwalNikam),theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
that ordinarily a court seeks for corroboration of the evidence of an
Approver before convicting an accused person on that evidence. It is
further held that generally speaking this Corroboration is of two kinds.
Firstly,theCourthastosatisfyitselfthatthestatementoftheApproveris
credibleinitself andthereisevidenceotherthanthestatementofthe
Approver that the Approver himself had taken part in the crime and
secondly, after the Court is satisfied that the Approver's statement is
credibleandhispartinthecrimeiscorroboratedbyotherevidence,the
CourtseekscorroborationoftheApprover'sevidencewithrespecttothe
partoftheotheraccusedpersonsinthecrime,andthisevidencehastobe
ofsuchanatureastoconnecttheotheraccusedwiththecrime.
113]
InthecaseofRanjeetSinghandanothervs.Stateof
Rajasthanreportedin(1988)SupremeCourtCases(Cri)229,itisheld
thatwhilelookingforcorroborationtotheevidenceoftheapprover,the
Courtmustfirstlookatthebroadspectrumoftheapprover'sversionand
thenfindoutwhetherthereisotherevidencetolendassurancetothat
version.Thenatureandextentofthecorroborationmaydependuponthe
factsofeachcase.Thecorroborationneednotbeofanydirectevidence
that the accused committed the crime. The corroboration even by
circumstantial evidence may be sufficient. But such evidence as to
corroborationmustbeindependentandmustnotbevagueorunreliable.
109
114]
109
InthecaseofShankaraliasGauriShankarandothers
110
particulars,forthatwouldamounttorenderingthestoryoftheaccomplice
itselfsuperfluous. Whatisrequiredisthattheevidenceincorroboration
mustbeanindependenttestimonywhichaffectstheaccusedbyconnecting
or tending to connect him with the crime. It is sufficient if there is
corroborationastothematerialcircumstancesandthecrimeandofthe
identity of the accused in relation to the crime. The corroborative
evidencecanbedirectorcircumstantial. TheHon'bleSupreeCourthas
held that ultimately the question whether there is such sufficient
corroboration or not, again depends upon the facts of circumstances of
eachcase.
115]
NowIproposetoconsidertheJudgmentsreliedupon
bythelearnedAdvocatefortheaccusedinsupportofhissubmissionand
alsoonthepointofevidentiaryvalueofthetestimonyoftheApproverand
natureofcorroborationrequiredfortheevidenceoftheApprover.Inthe
caseofAbdulSattarvs.UnionTerritory,Chandigarh,reportedin 1985
SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)505,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas
heldthattheapproverisacompetentwitnessbutontheuncorroborated
testimonyoftheapproveritwouldberiskytobaseconvictionparticularly
inrespectofaseriouschargelikemurder.
116]
Inthecaseof Chandanandanothervs.TheStateof
111
111
thetestimonyoftheaccompliceisconcerned,thelawiswellsettledandit
isestablishedasa'RuleofPrudence'thatthetestimonyofaccompliceifit
is thought reliable as a whole conviction could only be based, if it is
corroborated by independent evidence either direct or circumstantial
connectingtheaccusedwiththecrime.Itisfurtherheldthatifthetestof
credibilityisfulfilled,firstlyifthestoryherelatesinvolveshiminthecrime
andappearsintrinsicallytobeanaturalandprobablecatalogofevents
thathadtakenplace.Thestoryifgivenofminutedetailsaccordingwith
realityislikelytosaveitfrombeingrejectedbrevimanu.Secondly,once
that hurdle is crossed, the story given by any approver so far as the
accusedontrialisconcerned,mustimplicatehiminsuchamannerasto
giverisetoaconclusionofguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
117]
112
118]
112
Chandigarhreportedin1998SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)1,theHon'ble
Apex Court has held that an accomplice by long legal tradition, is a
notoriously infamous witness, one who being particeps criminis,
purchaseshisimmunitybyaccusingothers.Inindictments,particularlyof
seriouscrimes,thecounselofcautionandtheRuleofPrudenceenjointhat
itisunsafetorestaconvictionontheevidenceofaguiltypartnerina
crime without independent corroboration on the material particulars.
Judicialexperiencewas elevatedtoaruleoflaw. Itisapracticewhich
deservesallthereverenceoflaw. However,thenatureandextentofthe
corroborationmustnecessarilyvarywiththenatureandcircumstancesof
eachcase.Enunciationofanygeneralrule,validforalloccasions,isnot
practicable.SameisthepropositionoflawinthecaseofRamNarainvs.
StateofRajasthanreportedin1973SupremeCourtCases(Cri)545and
Niranjan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1996 Supreme Court
Cases(Cri)939.
119]
InthecaseofRameshwarS/oKalyanSinghv.TheStateof
113
Supreme Court of India has held that the main test is whether the
statement was made as early as can reasonably be expected in the
circumstancesofthecaseandbeforetherewasanopportunityfortutoring
orconcoction.
121]
Thedecisioninthecaseof SheshannaBhumannaYadavv.
StateofMaharashtrareportedinAIR1970SupremeCourt1330,ison
thepointofnatureofcorroborationrequiredtotheevidenceofapprover.
In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the warning of the
danger of conviction on uncorroborated evidence is given when the
evidenceisthatofanaccomplice.Thenatureofcorroborationisthatitis
confirmatoryevidenceanditmayconsistoftheevidenceofsecondwitness
or of circumstances like the conduct of the person against whom it is
required.Thecorroborationmustconnectortendtoconnecttheaccused
with the crime. When it is said that the corroborative evidence must
implicatetheaccusedinmaterialparticularsitmeansthatitisnotenough
that a piece of evidence tends to confirm the truth of a part of the
testimonytobecorroborated.
122]
in (2011)9SupremeCourtCases479 almostalltheearliermentioned
Judgmentsonthepointofevidentiaryvalueoftheapprover'sevidenceand
nature of corroboration have been considered.Inthis case,the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtIndiahasheldthatthoughaconvictionisnotillegalmerely
because it proceeds on uncorroborated testimony of an approver, yet
114
114
universalpracticeisnottoconvictupontestimonyofanaccompliceunless
itiscorroboratedinmaterialparticulars. Itisheldthatinsistenceupon
corroborationisbasedonruleofcautionandisnotmerelyaruleoflaw.
Corroborationneednotbeinformofoculartestimonyofwitnessesand
mayevenbeinformofcircumstantialevidence. Itisfurtherheldthat
onceevidenceofapproverisheldtobetrustworthy,itmustbeshownthat
story given by him so far as an accused is concerned, must implicate
accusedconcernedinsuchmannerastogiverisetoaconclusionofguilt
beyond reasonable doubt. It is further held that where evidence of
approver is found unreliable, worth of his evidence is lost and such
evidence, even by seeking corroboration cannot be foundation of
conviction.
123]
Onappreciation,scrutinyandanalysisoftheevidence
oftheapprover,ithasbeenfoundthattheapproverisparticepscriminis
andhisevidenceasawholeaboutthecommissionofthecrimebyhimand
coaccusedisreliableandcredible.Theevidenceoftheapprover,thus,has
passed the first requirement/hurdle. As per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the evidence of approver must be
corroborated by independent evidence. It is, therefore, necessary to
embark upon the task to find out whether other evidence led by the
prosecution in this case is independent evidence and corroborates the
testimonyoftheapproverinmaterialparticulars.Itis,therefore,necessary
toconsidertheevidenceoftheotherwitnessesonebyone.
115
124]
115
CONFESSIONSANDOTHEREVIDENCE
Inthiscasetheprosecutionhassoughttorelyonthe
ConfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasantoprove
thechargesagainstthemandalsoforthepurposeofcorroborationtothe
evidenceofPW1ApproverNaeemKhan. Beforegoingtoconsiderthe
evidence of other witnesses, I propose to deal with the Confessions of
accusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalemandalsotheevidenceof
theconcernedDeputyCommissionersofPolice,whohaverecordedtheir
confessionsandtheevidenceoftheInvestigatingOfficer.
125]
prosecutionhasadducedonrecordamplecogentandreliableevidenceto
provebeyondreasonabledoubtthataccusedMehendiHasanandaccused
Abu Salem made voluntary Confessions and confessed the crime
committedbythemandothercoaccused.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatonthe
basisoftheevidenceadducedonrecord,theprosecutionhasprovedthat
theConfessionsofaccusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalemare
voluntaryandtrue. Ld.SPPsubmittedthatatthetimeofrecordingthe
confessionsofaccusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalem,concerned
Deputy Commissioners of Police have complied with all the mandatory
requirements of Section 15 of the TADA(P) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of
TerroristAndDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Rules,1987(hereinafter
referredtoas'TADARules). Ld.SPPsubmittedthattheprosecutionby
adducing cogent and reliable evidence has proved that the Confessions
madebyaccusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalemhavenotbeen
116
116
theresultofthreat,torture,promise,inducement,coercionetc. Ld.SPP
submittedthatduringthecourseofPoliceCustodyofaccusedAbuSalem
andaccusedMehendiHasan,theywereproducedbeforethisCourtfrom
timetotimeandontheirproductionbeforethisCourt,theydidnotmake
anycomplaintbeforethisCourtofanyilltreatmentortortureatthehands
oftheInvestigatingOfficersformakingtheconfessions.Ld.SPPsubmitted
thatwhenaccusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalemwereproduced
beforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistrateonthenextdayofrecordingof
their respective Confessions, they did not make a complaint of ill
treatment,tortureorharassmenteitheratthehandsoftheInvestigating
OfficerorbytheconcernedDeputyCommissionerofPolicewhilerecording
theconfessions.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatinthiscase,boththeaccusedhave
retracted their Confessions. But in the submission of Ld.SPP the said
retractionsareafterthoughtandunderlegaladvice.Ld.SPPsubmittedthat
in this case the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
accused Mehendi Hasan and accused Abu Salem made voluntary
Confessions and thus admitted the crime committed by them. In the
submissionoftheLd.SPPtheConfessionoftheaccusedrecordedu/sec.15
oftheTADA(P)Actisasubstantivepieceofevidenceandtheconviction
againsttheaccusedandalsoagainstthecoaccusedcanbebasedonthe
saidConfessions.
126]
evidence brought on record in this case would show that the socalled
Confessionsoftheaccusedwereobtainedbyilltreatment,torture,threat
117
117
118
theevidenceintheformofcorrespondencebetweenthePoliceOfficers.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Pasbola submitted that when accused Mehendi Hasan
wasproducedbeforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,onaccountofthe
threatextendedbythePoliceOfficer,hecouldnotopenhismouthbefore
theMagistrate.Ld.AdvocateMr.Pasbolasubmittedthattheconfessionof
accusedMehendiHasanplacedonrecordisnotaconfession,butitisa
creationofrecordbythePoliceOfficersaspertheinformationcollectedby
themduringinvestigation.
CONFESSIONOFMEHANDIHASAN
127]
accordingtothePoliceOfficers,madetheirConfessionsontwodifferent
dates and before two different Officers. Therefore, for the sake of
convenience, first I would like to deal with the Confession of accused
MehendiHasan.
128]
Inthiscase,theprosecutionhasheavilyrelieduponthe
ConfessionsofaccusedNo.1AbuSalemandaccusedNo.4MehendiHasan.
Asperthesettledlegalposition,theconfessionrecordedu/sec.15ofthe
TADA(P)Act cannotbeusedagainsttheaccusedandalsoagainstco
accusedunlessanduntilitisprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthesaid
confessionisvoluntaryandtrue.Thesatisfactionoftheabovestatedtwin
testissinequanonforactingupontheconfessionagainsttheaccusedand
the coaccused. Whether a particular confession is voluntary and true
confessionisaquestionoffactandassuchhastobedecidedonthebasis
119
119
oftheevidencebroughtonrecord,admittedfactsandothercircumstances
obtained on record in each case. The confession of accused Mehendi
Hasan, as per the case of the prosecution, was recorded by DCP Shri
BodkhePW11,asperthepowersvestedinhimu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)
Act.Variousfactorsandlegalrequirementsrequiredtobecompliedwith
needtobeborneinmindbeforerecordingafindingoffactontheissueof
voluntariness and truthfulness of the confession. In this case, it is the
defenceoftheaccusedthathedidnotmakeaconfession.Hewassimply
madetosignthestatementalreadypreparedbytheOfficersofATS. Let
menowexaminethefactualissuesonebyonetouchingthecoreissueof
voluntarinessandtruthfulnessoftheconfessionassoughttobeassertedby
theprosecutionandassoughttobedeniedbythedefence.
129]
OnthebasisofthecontradictoryevidenceofthePolice
120
ofthePoliceOfficersthattheyhavegivendifferentdatesofthearrestof
accusedMehendiHasan.Similarly,thereiscontradictiononthepointof
the actual place of arrest of accused Mehendi Hasan. PW20 API Shri
DineshKadamatPage407Para9hasadmittedthataccusedNo.4Mehendi
Hasanwasarrestedon12/12/2005.PW21PIShriSunilDeshmukhwas
nottheInvestigatingOfficer.HewasassistingInvestigatingOfficerPW19
ACPShriDhavale.PW19ACPShriDhavalehasdeposedatPage377para
10thaton15/12/2005hereceivedtheinformationthatwantedaccused
MehendiHasanhadcomeatPattheBapuraoMargarea. Heaccordingly
deputed his subordinates PI Shri Khanvilkar and some other officers to
arrestMehendiHasanandtheofficers,aftereffectingthearrest,produced
accusedMehendiHasanbeforehim. So,according toPW19ACP Shri
DhavalethataccusedMehendiHasanwasarrestedon15/12/2005from
PattheBapuraoMargarea.AccordingtoPW19ACPShriDhavale,PIShri
Khanvilkarwasoneofthemembersoftheteamdeputedtoarrestaccused
MehendiHasan.Inthiscase,PIShriKhanvilkarhasnotbeenexamined.
130]
deposedthathewasassistingACPShriDhavaleintheinvestigationofthis
case.Inhisevidencehehasspecificallymentionedthedatesofarrestof
theaccusedincludingaccusedMehendiHasan.AtPage416Para4hehas
deposedthaton15/12/2005ACPShriDhavaleinstructedhimtosearch
andarrestaccusedMehendiHasan.Hehasdeposedthaton15/12/2005
on information he along with other police staff went to Mumbra and
arrested accused Mehendi Hasan outside Mumbra Railway Station near
121
121
entrancegate.HehasfurtherdeposedthatArrestPanchanamawasdrawn
byPSIShriKhandarkar.ItmaybementionedatthisstagethatsaidArrest
Panchnama was not included in the chargesheet. It was sought to be
produced on record at the time of evidence of PW21 PI Shri Sunil
Deshmukh.ForthereasonsrecordedinPara4atPage416,thesaidArrest
Panchnamawasnotadmittedbeingproducedatbelatedstage.Thisfact,
therefore,wouldindicatethatArrestPanchanamawasavailable.Neither
theInvestigatingOfficeratthetimeoffilingofthechargesheetbothered
toincludethesaidArrestPanchanamainthelistofthedocumentsfiled
withthechargesheetnorlearnedSpl.P.P.ShriUjjwalNikamproducedthe
sameatthetimeofgivinganoticeu/sec.294oftheCr.P.C..Butthefact
remainsthatPanchnamaofarrestofaccusedMehendiHasanwasdrawn
by PW21 PI Shri Sunil Deshmukh. In this case, evidence of PW21 is
importantanddeservesmoreweightageincomparisonwiththeevidence
ofPW19ACPShriDhavaleandPW20APIShriDineshKadam. PW19
ACPShriDhavalehasstatedthataccusedMehendiHasanwasarrestedon
15/12/2005. However, according tohim,MehendiHasan wasarrested
fromPattheBapuraoMargarea. PattheBapuraoMargareaisapartof
GreaterMumbaiwhereasMumbraissituatedinDistrictThane. So,the
date of arrest of accused Mehendi Hasan deposed by PW19 ACP Shri
DhavaleandPW21PIShriSunilDeshmukhissamebuttheplaceofarrest
deposedbythemisdifferent.
131]
OnconsideringtheevidenceofPW19ACPShriDhavle,
PW20APIShriKadamandPW21PIShriSunilDeshmukhtogetherand
122
122
the role played by each one of them in the arrest of accused Mehendi
Hasan, I would have accepted the evidence of PW21 PI Shri Sunil
Deshmukh as reliable evidence being the evidence of the officer, who
actuallyeffectedthearrestofaccusedMehendiHasan.However,inorder
toclearmydoubtsinthebackdropofthedefenceoftheaccusedandthe
contradictorystatementsmadewithregardtothedateofthearrestand
theplaceofarrestofaccusedMehendiHasan,Ithoughitappropriateto
call for the case diaries. Necessary direction was given to the learned
Prosecutortothateffect.ThelearnedProsecutorproducedthecasediaries
dated12/12/2005and15/12/2005inthiscaseformyperusal.Iperused
thecasediaries.InthebackdropoftheevidenceofthePoliceOfficersand
thedefenceoftheaccused,Ithoughtthatperusalofthecasediarieswas
necessarytoaidmeinthistrial. Thisexercisehasbeenundertakenby
virtueofpowersvestedwiththisCourtu/sec.172oftheCodeofCriminal
Procedure.Onperusalofthecasediarydated12/12/2005,itappearsthat
tillthentheinvolvementofaccusedMehendiHasanwasrevealedinthis
trial.However,hewasnotarrestedon12/12/2005.Perusalofcasediary
dated15/12/2005revealsthataccusedMehendiHasanwasarrestedby
theteamofthePoliceOfficersheadedbyPIShriSunilDeshmukh(PW21).
It further reveals that he (Mehendi Hasan) was arrested at Mumbra
RailwayStation,D.P.Road,Mumbra.TheadmissionsgivenbyPW19ACP
ShriDhawaleabouttheplaceofarrestofaccusedMehendiHasanandthe
admissionsgivenbyPW20APIShriKadamaboutthedateofthearrestof
accused Mehendi Hasan have to be presumed as the admissions given
under misconception. APIShriKadamwas one of the membersofthe
123
123
team,whichhadarrestedaccusedMehendiHasan. Heappearstohave
committedamistakewhilestatingthedateofarrestofaccusedMehendi
Hasan.TheCaseDiariesdated12/12/2005and15/12/2005havecleared
the doubt. On the basis of the contradictory evidence of the Police
Officers,atthemost,itcanbesaidthatthePoliceOfficerstookthismatter
in a very casual manner. They did not even bother to go through the
availabledocumentsofthecasebeforegivingevidenceintheCourt.Itis,
therefore, seen on the basis of the evidence of PW21 PI Shri Sunil
DeshmukandwhichhasbeenconfirmedonthebasisoftheCaseDiaries
dated 12/12/2005 and 15/2/2005 that accused Mehendi Hasan was
arrestedon15/12/2005atMumbra.
132]
applicationforwardedtothisCourtthroughjailandwhichwasregistered
asMiscellaneousApplicationNo.14of2006inT.A.D.A.SpecialCaseNo.
01of2006,theaccusedhimselfhasadmittedthathewasarrestedfrom
Mumbraarea.Inthesaidapplicationtheaccusedhasfurtherstatedthat
hewaspickedupfromhishouse,whichissituatedinMumbraarea,on
08/12/2005. Therefore, the statement made by the accused about the
place of his arrest confirms the evidence given by PW21 PI Shri Sunil
Deshmukh. Onthebasisoftheevidenceandforthereasonsrecorded
herein above, it has, therefore, been established that accused Mehendi
Hasanwasarrestedon15/12/2005.Thereisonemorecircumstanceto
disbelievethedefenceoftheaccusedabouthisarreston08/12/2005.On
15/12/2005, when accused Mehendi Hasan was produced before this
124
124
Court,hedidnotmakestatementthathewaskeptinillegaldetention
from 08/12/2005. On the contrary, he made a statement before this
CourtthathehadnocomplaintofilltreatmentatthehandsoftheATS
Officers.ThisfactcanbeborneoutfromtheRoznamaofthisCourtdated
15/12/2005. On 15/12/2005 this accused was remanded to police
custodytill03/01/2006. (Forthepurposeoftherecordofthiscase,
photocopiesof theCaseDiariesdated 12/12/2005 and 15/12/2005
arekeptinsealedenvelope,markedasArticle'N'.Itbeattachedto
thebunchofthedocumentswiththeconfessionofaccusedMehendi
Hasan.Theoriginalcasediaryisreturned).
133]
TheconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasanwasrecorded
byPW11ShriShivajiTulshiramBodkheon09/01/2006.Itisthedefence
oftheaccusedthathewasproducedbeforeDCPZoneVShriRajeshKumar
Morforrecordinghisconfessionon30/12/2005andtheaccusedstated
before DCP Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor that he does not want to make a
confession. Beforegoing todealwiththe evidenceofPW11DCPShri
Bodkhe,itisnecessarytodwelluponthisdefenceoftheaccusedandthe
material brought on record in the oral evidence as well as by way of
documentaryevidence.Onbehalfoftheaccused,reliancehasbeenplaced
on documentary evidence, which is part of Exhibit530(colly.) to
substantiatehisdefence.Letmenowexaminethedocumentaryevidence
and find out whether there is substance in the defence or not.
Exhibit449, Exhibit450 and Exhibit530(colly.) arethosedocuments.
PW22 Investigating Officer ACP Shri Kisan Narayan Shengal has not
125
125
134]
Attheoutsetitisnecessarytoseethecontentsofthe
126
OfficersoftherankofDeputyCommissionerofPolice,keepinginmind
thattheaccusedarethemembersofcrimesyndicateindulginginserious
crimesinmanypartsoftheCity.Thelastparagraphofthislettercontains
theinstructionsgiventoDCPZoneVShriRajeshKumarMorquaaccused
Mehendi Hasan. The Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P.
Raghuwanshi instructed DCP, ZoneV Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor to keep
accusedMohd.HassanMehendiHassan@Sunnyinhiscustodyforthe
period he required for interrogation and keep him in any of General
Lockupunderhisjurisdiction.TheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.
Raghuwanshi further instructed DCP, ZoneV Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor to
inform him about any important information received during the
interrogationimmediately.Plainreadingofthisletterwouldshowthatthe
decision was taken to nominate the officer of the rank of Duputy
CommissionerofPolicetointerrogatetheaccusedarrestedinthiscrime.
DCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMorwasinstructedtointerrogateaccused
MehendiHasanandkeephiminanygenerallockupunderhisjurisdiction
and transmit important information received during the interrogation
immediatelytotheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshi.
PlainreadingofthisletterwouldshowthatJointCommissionerofPolice
Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi never instructed or directed or nominated DCP,
ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMortorecordconfessionofaccusedMehendi
Hasan. Similarly, perusal of the letter dated 26/12/2005 of Joint
CommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.RaghuwanshiatExhibit449inentirety
would show that he even impliedly did not instruct DCP ZoneV Shri
RajeshKumarMortorecordconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasan.
127
135]
127
ItappearsthatDCPZoneVShriRajeshKumarMordid
notevenusehisrobustcommonsense.ItappearsthatDCP,ZoneVShri
Rajesh Kumar More acted in over enthusiastic manner and created a
trouble for the Investigating Agency. In the letter dated 26/12/2005
written by DCP Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor to API Shri Dinesh Kadam
(PW20),hehasmadeareferenceoftheletteroftheJointCommissioner
ofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshiandstatedthathehasbeeninstructedby
that letter to record confessional statement of accused Mohd. Hasan
MehendiHasan@Sunny.Itiscrystalclearthatthisstatementisfactually
incorrect. As per the instructions contained in the letter of the Joint
Commissioner of Police Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi, he (DCP Shri Rajesh
KumarMor)wasinstructedtokeepaccusedMehendiHasaninanygeneral
lockupwithinhisjurisdiction. AccusedMehendiHasanwaskeptatthe
lockupofMahimPoliceStationfrom30/12/2005to01/01/2006.Idonot
seeanythingwronginkeepingaccusedMehendiHasanatMahimPolice
Stationlockup.TheInvestigatingOfficerwasnotsupposedtobreachthe
written instructions of his Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P.
RaghuwanshiandinsistforthedetentionofaccusedMehendiHasaninthe
ATS lockup. Perusal of the Case Diary maintained at Mahim Police
Stationwouldshowthateverywherethepurposeofthedetentionofthe
accused has been mentioned. It is for recording confession of accused
MehendiHasanbyDCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMor.Itmaybenoted
thatifanyrecordiscreatedpursuanttotheletterdated26/12/2005by
DCP, ZoneV Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor, then, the said record is of no
consequence. The letter dated 26/12/2005 given by DCP, ZoneV Shri
128
128
ItmaybementionedatthisstagethattheOfficerofthe
rankofthe JointCommissionerofPoliceandparticularlyattachedtoa
SpecialBranchofAntiTerrorismSquad(ATS)mustbeconsciousofthefact
that the Investigating Officer or the Officer interrogating the accused
during the course of investigation was not empowered to record the
confession.ItmayfurtherbementionedthattheJointCommissionerof
PoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshicouldnotbesaidtohavebeenignorantof
theprocedurefollowedinsuchamatter.Theevidenceproducedonrecord
in this case clearly suggest that the procedure followed by the Joint
CommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.RaghuwanshiwhilenominatingtheDCPs
forrecordingconfessionsofthreetofouraccusedinthiscrime.Itwould
revealthattheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshinever
intended to nominate DCP, ZoneV Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor to record
confession of the accused. If any instruction is given in peculiar
circumstance to the officer of the rank of the DCP to interrogate the
accusedduringthecourseofinvestigationisnotsomethingwhichcouldbe
termedasawrongactonthepartoftheJointCommissionerofPoliceShri
K.P.Raghuwanshi.
137]
129
followedbytheInvestigatingOfficeraswellastheJointCommissionerof
PoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshiwhenevertheaccusedexpressedhisdesire
duringthecourseofinterrogationtoconfessthecrime.Exhibit446isthe
NotesubmittedbyACPShriKisanShengalon31/12/2005witharequest
totheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshitonominate
oneDCPforrecordingconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemAbdulKayyum
Ansari. The Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi
thereafternominatedDCP,ZoneXIShriDattaKaraletorecordconfession
ofaccusedAbuSalem. Exhibit447 is theNotesubmittedbyACPShri
KisanShengalon05/01/2006witharequesttotheJointCommissionerof
Police Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi to nominate one DCP for recording
confession of accused Mohd. Hassan Mehendi Hassan. The Joint
CommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.RaghuwanshithereafternominatedDCP,
Shri Bodkhe to record confession of accused Mohd. Hassan Mehendi
Hassan.Exhibit448istheNotesubmittedbyACPShriKisanShengalon
10/01/2006witharequesttotheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.
Raghuwanshito nominate one DCP forrecording confession of accused
Mohd.NaeemAbdulRahimKhan.TheJointCommissionerofPoliceShri
K.P.RaghuwanshithereafternominatedDCP,ShriNavalBajajtorecord
confessionofaccusedMohd.NaeemAbdulRahimKhan. Itis,therefore,
apparentonthefaceoftherecordthattill26/12/2005accusedMehendi
Hasanhadnotexpressedhisdesiretoconfessthecrime. Bythe letter
dated26/12/2005 Exhibit449 DCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMorwas
not nominated by the Joint Commissioner of Police, A.T.S. Shri K. P.
Raghuwanshi,torecordconfessionalstatementofaccusedMehendiHasan.
130
130
ItmayfurtherbenotedthattheOfficeroftherankof
theJointCommissionerofPolicewouldnothavecreatedsucharecord
which coulddestroy their case completely. It is nobody's case that the
JointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshiinterrogatedaccused
MehendiHasanandduringthecourseofthatinterrogation,heexpressed
desiretoconfessthecrime.UnlessanduntiltheJointCommissionerof
Police,ATSisapprisedofthefactthattheaccusedhasexpresseddesireto
confessthecrime,therewouldhavebeennooccasionforhimtowritesuch
131
131
alettertotheDCP,ZoneVonsomeassumptionsorpresumptions. The
Officer of the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police would not have
deviatedfromtheprocedurefollowedinsuchamatterandwhichhasbeen
establishedtohavebeenstrictlyobservedbyhim. Itis,therefore,highly
unbelievablethatunderthislettertheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.
P. Raghuwanshi had authorized/nominated the DCP, ZoneV Shri Rajesh
KumarMortorecordconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasan. Thestation
diaryentriesneedtobereadinjuxtapositionwiththeletteroftheJoint
CommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshidated26/12/2005. Itis
furtherapparentonthefaceofrecordthatthestationdiaryentrieswere
notmadebytheDCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMor.Itwasnaturalonthe
partoftheDCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMortokeepaccusedMehendi
Hasan in any of general lockups within his jurisdiction as per the
instructionsoftheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshi.
Merelybecauseofthefactthattheaccusedwasdetainedinthelockupat
MahimPoliceStation,itcannotbepresumedthattheaccusedwaskeptin
isolationonlywithapurposetorecordhisconfession. Inthefactsand
circumstances,thisdefenceoftheaccusedthathewasproducedbeforethe
DCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMorforrecordinghisconfessioncannotbe
accepted.
139]
ThePoliceOfficershaveadmittedthataccusedMehendi
Hasan,aspertheinstructionsoftheJointCommissionerofPolice,A.T.S.
ShriK.P.Raghuwanshi,wastakentotheofficeoftheDCP,ZoneVShri
RajeshKumarMorforthepurposeofinterrogation.Itisacardinalruleof
132
132
lawthattheOfficerconductingtheinvestigationorinterrogationcannot
recordconfessionundertheTADA(P)Act. Theaccusedisrequiredtobe
removed from the custody of the Investigating/Interrogating Officer
wheneverheexpressesdesiretoconfessthecrime.Itcannotbeaccepted
thatthiselementary/rudimentaryprinciplewasnotknowntotheSenior
OfficerMr.K.P.Raghuwanshi,theJointCommissionerofPolice,A.T.S..I
do not see anything wrong in the opinion formed by the Joint
CommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshitonominatesomeofficerof
therankoftheDCPtointerrogatetheaccusedinthecrime.Ithascome
on record in the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW22 ACP Shri
Kisan Narayan Shengal that other DCPs also visited the lockup and
interrogatedaccused.Hehasadmittedthathedidnotmaintaintherecord
of the same. It may be noted that considering the seriousness and
magnitudeofthecrimeandalsothehighprofilegangstersbeinginvolved
inthecrime,ifinterrogationiscarriedoutbythespecialistsuperiorofficer
isnotsomethingwhichcouldbeacondemnablewrong.
140]
defenceoftheaccused. Itisthecontentionoftheaccusedthathewas
beatenblackandblue. Itisalsothedefenceoftheaccusedthathewas
threatenedofdireconsequencesinthecase.Hedidnotopenhismouth
before any Authority or Court. On 03/01/2006, the Police Custody
RemandofthisaccusedMehendiHasanwasexpiring. Theaccusedwas
producedbeforethisCourton03/01/2006.TheaccusedMehendiHasan
didnotmakeacomplaintofilltreatmentortortureatthehandsofthe
133
133
ATSOfficersduringthePoliceCustody.Theaccusedwasproducedbefore
thisCourtaftertheepisodeoftheproductionoftheaccusedbeforethe
DCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMor. Itisthecontentionoftheaccused
that during this period he was illtreated, tortured, threatened and
mercilesslybeaten.Iftheaccusedwasforcedduringthisperiodtomake
aconfessionbyresortingtoilltreatmentetc,hewouldhavecomplained
aboutthesamebeforethisCourt. Therefore,itistoolateonthepartof
theaccusedtocomplainofilltreatmentduringhispolicecustody. The
entire evidence has to be read in juxtaposition with the instructions
contained in the letter of the Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P.
Raghuwanshi.Ifitissodone,thenthedefenceoftheaccusedfallsflat.
141]
trueisaquestionoffactandhastobedecidedonthebasisoftheevidence
adducedbytheprosecutioninthecase. Inthiscase,theconfessionof
accused Mehendi Hasan was recorded by PW11 DCP Shri Shivaji
Tulshiram Bodkhe. The point of voluntariness and truthfulness of the
confessionboilsdowntotheevidenceofPW11DCPShriBodkhe.Onthe
basis of the evidence of PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe, it is necessary to
ascertainwhetherthecomplianceofthemandatoryprovisionsofSection
15subSection(2)oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15subRule(3)subclause
(b)oftheTADARuleshavebeenmadeornot.TheprovisionsofSection
15oftheTADA(P)Actareadeviationfromtheprovisionsofgenerallaw
on the point of admissibility and use of confession. As the per the
provisionsofSection15subSection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act,competent
134
134
officerisrequiredtogiveastatutorywarningtotheaccusedthatheisnot
boundtomakeaconfessionandifhemakestheconfession,thenitcanbe
usedagainsthimas anevidencein the Court of law. Similarly,before
recordingconfession,thecompetentofficermustformanopiniononthe
basisofhisenquirythattheaccusedismakingtheconfessionvoluntarily
andthenonlyheshallproceedtorecordtheconfession.
142]
ItisnownecessarytoseetheevidenceofPW11DCP
ShriShivajiTulshiramBodkheveryminutelyandfindoutwhetherhehad
complied with all the mandatory provisions of law and the confession
madebeforehimbytheaccusedisvoluntaryandtrue. PW11DCPShri
Bodkhehasdeposedthatasperthedirectionsof theJointCommissioner
ofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshi,heinstructedthe InvestigatingOfficer
ACPShriShengal(ATS)videExhibit380dated06/01/2006toproduce
accused Mohd. Hassan Mehendi Hassan before him on 07/01/2006 at
11.00a.m. TheaccusedMehendiHassanwasproducedbeforeDCPShri
Bodkheon07/10/2006at11.00a.m.Hehasdeposedthatwhenaccused
MehendiHasanwasproducedbeforehim,heaskedInvestigatingOfficer
ACPShriShengalandotherpolicestaffaccompanyingtheaccusedandhis
other staff members to go out of his office. He himself and accused
MehendiHasanweretheonlypersonspresentinhisoffice.Beforestarting
enquiry with the accused, he verified that nobody was outside in his
chamberwithinthehearingdistance.Hehasinformedtheaccusedthathe
wasDCP.Hemadeenquirywiththeaccusedabouthisnameandaddress.
He has deposed that he informed the accused that there was no
135
135
compulsiononhimtogiveconfessionalstatement. Hefurtherinformed
himthatifhemakesanyconfessionalstatement,thenitcanbeusedasa
evidenceagainsthim.Hehasfurtherinformedtheaccusedthathewasnot
inthecustodyoftheInvestigatingOfficerandwasinhiscustody.Healso
madeenquirywiththeaccusedwhetherhewascompelledorluredorill
treatedforgivingconfession. Theaccusedrepliedinnegative. Hehas
deposed that he made enquiry with the accused about the language in
whichtheaccusedwasconversantwith.Aftermakingpreliminaryenquiry,
hedecidedtogivetheaccused48hourscoolingofftimetoreflectoverhis
decisiontomakeaconfessionwithadirectiontotheInchargeofDahisar
PoliceStationinwhichhewasorderedtobekeptandproducehimagain
on09/01/2006.
143]
BeforeIgotodealwiththeactualstatementmadeand
recordedintheconfessionalstatement,itisnecessarytoseetheevidence
ofPW11DCPShriBodkheonthepointofthepreliminaryenquirymade
by him with accused Mehendi Hasan on his production before him for
recording confession on 09/01/2006. PW11 has deposed that on
productionofaccusedMehendiHasanbeforehimon09/01/2006,asper
hisdirection,theotherofficerslefthischamber.Hehasdeposedthathe
enquiredwith the accused whether anybody methim in the lockup or
harassedhim.Theaccusedrepliedinnegative. Hehasfurtherenquired
withtheaccusedwhetherthecoolingoffperiodwassufficientornot.The
accused replied in the affirmative. PW11 has further deposed that he
againexplainedtotheaccusedthattherewasnoanycompulsiononhim
136
136
togiveanystatementandifhegivesstatement,itcanbeusedasevidence
against him in the Court. He has further enquired with the accused
whether anybody has pressurized or lured or manhandled him. The
accusedrepliedinthenegative.PW11DCPShriBodkhehasdeposedthat
onthebasisofhisenquiryhewassatisfiedthattheaccusedwasconfessing
hisguiltvoluntarily. Afterbeingsatisfiedthattheaccusedwasreadyto
makeconfessionvoluntarily,hetoldtheaccusedtostatewhathewanted
tostateandthereupontheaccusedmadeaconfessionandwhichhehas
recorded.
144]
PW11DCPShriBodkhehasfurtherdeposedthatwhen
the accused completed his confession, he read over the same to the
accusedandtheaccusedadmittedthesametobecorrectlyrecordedasper
his say. He then obtained signatures of the accused on every page on
backsideandhe(PW11)himselfmadehissignatures.Afterobtainingthe
signaturesoftheaccused,heappendedtheCertificate/Memorandumto
thesaidconfessioninhisownhandwritingandmadethesignaturebelow
the said certificate/memorandum. The confession of accused Mohd.
HassanMehendiHassanisatExhibit382.
145]
assailedonthebasisofthevariousadmissionsgivenbyPW11DCPShri
Bodkhe in his crossexamination. It is submitted that this witness has
admittedincleartermsthatthemandatoryprovisionsofSection15sub
section(2)oftheTADA(P)Actwerenotcompliedwith.Itissubmitted
137
137
onthebasisoftheadmissionselicitedinthecrossexaminationthatithas
beenestablishedbeyonddoubtthattheaccuseddidnotmakeconfession
voluntarily and the confession was handy work of the ATS Officers in
collusionwithPW1NaeemKhan,Approver.
146]
Letmenowfirstgothroughtheconfessionandfindout
whetherthemandatoryrequirementsofSection15subsection(2)ofthe
TADA(P)Actwerecompliedwithornot.TheconfessionisintwoParts.
FirstpartiswithregardtotherecordofproceedingbyPW11DCPShri
Bodkhe on 07/01/2006. On this day for the first time the accused
MehendiHasanwasproducedbeforePW11DCPShriBodkhe.Perusalof
thefirstpartoftheconfessionwouldshowthatPW11DCPShriBodkhe
firstmadeenquirywiththeaccusedonallthepointsandthenrecordedhis
proceeding. In part one of the confession, PW11 DCP Bodkhe has
recorded that the accused was produced before him on 07/01/2006 at
11.45a.m.torecordhisconfessionalstatementu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)
Act,1987.
147]
Inpara4hehasrecordedthathetooktheaccusedin
hiscustodyandtoldtheotherATSOfficersandhisstafftogooutofhis
chamberandensuredthatnobodycouldseeorheartheproceedinginhis
chamber.Atpara5hehasrecordedthatheinformedtheaccusedthathe
wasnomoreinthecustodyoftheAntiTerrorismSquad(ATS),Mumbai
andafterthisinformation,heaskedthequestionstotheaccused.Thefirst
questionisregardinghisintroductionasDCPtotheaccused.Thesecond
138
138
questioniswithregardtotheaddressoftheaccused.Thethirdquestionis
withregardtotheeducationoftheaccused.Thefourthquestioniswith
regardtothelanguageinwhichtheaccusedwasconversantwith. The
fifth question is with regard to the enquiry about threat, torture or ill
treatment or allurement at the hands of the police. The accused has
answeredthisquestioninthenegative.Thesixthquestionistoknowthe
willingness/desireexpressedbytheaccusedtomakeaconfessionandthe
confirmationofthesameattheendoftheaccused.Theseventhquestion,
which appears to be the bone of the contention, is with regard to the
statutorywarninggiventotheaccusedu/sec.15subsection(2)ofthe
TADA(P)Act.Bythisquestion,theDCPShriBodkheinformedaccused
MehendiHasanthatheisnotundercompulsiontomakeastatementand
ifhemakesstatement,thenthesamecanbeusedagainsthimintheCourt
of law. The accused answered that he knew this fact. The accused
answereditintheaffirmative. Theeighthquestioniswithregardtothe
decision taken by the DCP to give sufficient cooling off period to the
accusedtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeaconfession. Bythesaid
question,PW11theDCPShriBodkheinformedtheaccusedthathewould
notbeunderthecontrolandthepressureofthearrestingagencyi.e.the
ATS, Mumbai. The accused answered this question stating that he
understoodthisfact. TheDCPPW11furtherinformedtheaccusedthat
herein after he would be kept in Borivali Police Station Lockup and
whetherhewouldgivehisstatementafterreflectingoverhisdecisionto
make a confession. The accused understood it. Lastly, the DCP Shri
Bodkhe,PW11,informedtheaccusedthathewasgivinghimacoolingoff
139
139
periodtoreflectoverhisdecisiontill09/01/2006.Theaccusedunderstood
it.
148]
Bodkhe,PW11,recordedthatallthequestionswereaskedtotheaccused
inHindiandtheaccusedrepliedthequestionsinHindi.Thequestionsand
answerswrotedownbyhiminhisownhandwritingwerereadoverand
explainedtotheaccused.Thisisthesumandsubstanceofthefirstpartof
the Confession of accused Mehendi Hasan, which is in the form of
PreliminaryProceedingconductedbytheCompetentOfficertoadminister
thestatutorywarningtotheaccusedtomakeaconfessionandtocometo
aconclusionthattheaccusedismakingtheconfessionvoluntarilyandnot
underanythreat,promise,coercionorilltreatment. Themostobjected
partofthisproceedingisquestionNo.7andmoreparticularlythefirst
partofquestionNo.7i.e.(TumheBayanDenekiJabardastiNahinHai).
ThequestioninHindiisasfollows; (rqEgs c;ku nsus dh tcjnLrh ugh gS A ). English
translationofthispartofquestionis:Youarenotundercompulsionto
makeastatement.Thenextpartofthequestionisthat,ifyoumakea
statement,thenthisstatementcanbeusedagainstyouintheCourtof
law. TheDCPPW11ShriBodkhefurtheraskedhim,Didheknowthis
fact?Theaccusedhasansweredthispartofthequestionstating,Yes,he
knows this fact. In the submission of the learned Advocate for the
accusedbyusingthewordJabardastiinthefirstpartoftheconfession,
theDCPPW11ShriBodkhehasnotgiventhestatutorywarningtothe
accusedascontemplatedu/sec.15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act.It
140
140
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytoseewhatisthemeaning
141
thewordJabardasti(compulsion)andwordBandhankarak(binding).In
ordertofindouttheliteralmeaningof wordJabardasti(compulsion)
and word Bandhankarak(binding), I have referred Vidhi
Shabdakosh (Concise Law Dictionary, MarathiEnglishEnglish) Second
Edition2005 byVivekD.Joshi. TheEnglishmeaningofMarathiword
Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd )atPageNo.331oftheDictionaryisBinding,
Restrictive, Obligatory, coercive. The English meaning of Marathi
wordJabardasti(tcjnLrh) atPageNo.169oftheDictionaryis,Coercion,
theapplicationofphysicalormoralforcetoconstrainsomebodytodo
againsthiswillsomethinghewouldnototherwisehavedone.Oneofthe
EnglishmeaningsofwordBandhankarak(binding)is,coercive. Itis,
therefore,necessarytofindoutthemeaningofwordCoercion.Ihave
referredConciseOxfordEnglishDictionary,TwelfthEdition2011.The
meaning of word Coercion at Page No. 278 of the Dictionary is
Persuade(anunwillingperson)todosomethingbyusingforceorthreats.
TheDerivativesofthiswordarecoercible,coercive.Itisseenthatthe
words bound, binding, compulsion, coercion / coercive are
synonymofeachother.
150]
AfterconsideringtheDictionarymeaningofthewords
Jabardasti(compulsion)andBandhankarak(binding),asstatedherein
above, the word Jabardasti (compulsion) is synonym of word
Bandhankarak(binding). Inthiscase,thequestionswereaskedtothe
accusedinHindilanguage.Therefore,whileaskingthequestionsinHindi
142
142
language,thewordJabardasti(compulsion)wasappropriatelyusedby
theOfficer while framing the questioninsteadofwordBandhankarak
(binding).EvenbyusingthewordJabardasti(compulsion),theOfficer
byallmeansconveyedtotheaccusedthathewasnotundercompulsionto
make astatement.So,the use of wordJabardasti(compulsion) being
found to be synonym of word Bandhankarak (binding) in Marathi
language,itcannotbegivenadifferentmeaningandreadthesameoutof
context. Therefore, merely because of use of the word Jabardasti, it
cannotbesaidthatthisstatutorywarningwasincompletewarning. On
thecontrarysincetheaccusedwasconversantwithHindilanguage,the
wordJabardasti,whichisnormallyusedwhilespeakingMarathiaswell
asHindi,wastheappropriateword.
151]
Onperusaloffirstpartoftheconfession,itis,therefore,
seen that the Officer informed the accused that he was the DCP. The
Officerfurtherinquiredtheaccusedaboutthelanguageinwhichhewas
conversant with. He also enquired with the accused whether he was
threatened,illtreatedorluredbytheOfficers,whohadarrestedhim.On
a question tohim,the accused answeredthathe wasreadytomake a
confession at his free will. I have already observed that the statutory
warningintermsofSection15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Actwas
given.TheOfficerhasalsogivensufficientreflectiontimetotheaccused
to think over his decision to make a confession. The Officer further
informedtheaccusedthathewasnotinthecustodyoftheATSOfficers
andhewouldbekeptoutoftheircustodyatBorivaliLockup.Itisseen
143
143
thatthispreliminaryenquirymadebytheOfficertoascertainthefreewill
ordesireoftheaccusedtoconfessthecrimewithoutanypressure,threat,
coercionorallurementwasinconformitywithlaw.
152]
Answertoaboveissuetakesmetosecondparaof
144
thathewasnotboundtomakeconfessionandifhedoesso,thenitcanbe
usedasaevidenceagainsthimintheCourtoflaw.Here,inthisquestion,
insteadofusingthewordBandhankarak(ca/kudkjd) theOfficerhasused
the word Jabardasti(tcjnLrh). I have already observed that the word
BandhankarakissynonymofwordJabardasti.Itis,therefore,seenthat
evenon09/01/2006thisstatutorywarningwasgiventotheaccused.Itis,
therefore,seenonthebasisoftheproceedingconductedbytheDCPShri
BodkhePW11beforestartingactualrecordingofconfession,hecompiled
withallthebasicmandatoryrequirementsofSection15oftheTADA(P)
Act.
153]
07/01/2006onfirstproductionoftheaccusedandtheenquirymadeon
09/01/2006onhissecondproductionaftercoolingoffperiodwouldreveal
thattheenquirywasmadebytheOfficertoascertainthataccusedwas
makingthestatementvoluntarilyandnotunderthreat,duress,coercion,
inducementorallurementoftheInvestigatingOfficer.Themainobjectof
suchanenquiryistogiveanassurancetotheaccusedthatheisnomorein
thecustodyofInvestigatingAgency.Itisnotthecaseofthedefencethat
PW11DCPShriBodkhewasatanytimeconcernedwiththeinvestigation
ofthiscase.Theobjectofthisenquiryistocreateafreeatmospherefor
theaccusedtotellcorrectfactsbeforetheindependentofficer,whoisnot
concernedwiththeinvestigationofthecase. ItappearsthatthisOfficer
hasensuredbymakingtheenquirythatfreeatmospherewascreatedand
theaccusedwasplacedinacomfortzonetogivesecondthoughttohis
145
145
decision. The DCP Shri Bodkhe PW11 on his own gave sufficient
reflectiontimetothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeaconfession.Onperusal
oftheproceedingsundertakenbytheDCPShriBodkhePW11onboththe
datesi.e.on07/01/2006and09/01/2006beforestartingactualrecording
ofconfession,itappearsthattheDCPShriBodkhePW11hascomplied
withthestatutoryrequirements.Similarly,hecreatedafreeandcongenial
atmospherefortheaccusedtothinkoverhisdecisionindependently.
154]
146
PW11DCPShriBodkhehasadmittedatPage194that
itwashisfirstoccasiontorecordtheconfessionofaccusedu/sec.15ofthe
TADA(P)Act.HehasbeencrossexaminedatPage195withregardtothe
contentsoftheletteroftheJointCommissionerofPolice,A.T.S.ShriK.P.
Raghuwanshi.Inhisletterwhilereferringthemattertohimdirectedhim
torecordtheconfessionalstatementoftheaccused.Theenquirymadeby
the witness to ascertain the free will and voluntariness of the accused
wouldsuggestthatthiswitnessdidnotblindlyfollowthecontentsofthe
letter. HehasadmittedthathedidnotaskACPShriShengalaboutthe
147
147
custodyperiodoftheaccused.Itmaybenotedthatthiswillnotmakeany
difference as this witness was not concerned with the investigation.
DespitelongorshortperiodofpolicecustodythisOfficerwassupposedto
ascertainfromtheaccusedhiswillingnesstoconfessthecrime. AtPage
196 he has stated that he did not make preparation for recording
confessionbetween06/01/2006and07/01/2006..Hehasadmittedthat
he did not write down the questions he was supposed to ask to the
accused.Hehasadmittedinallfairnessthatheaskedthequestionstothe
accused, which occurred to him and which he thought necessary for
satisfying himself about voluntariness of the confession at the time of
recording of his confession on 07/01/2006 and 09/01/2006. He has
admitted that he has faithfully recorded all the happenings which took
placeon07/01/2006and09/01/2006inthesequenceinwhichthesame
occurred.Hewasaskedthattheconfessionsarerequiredtoberecorded
expeditiously. Hehasansweredthattheconfessionsarerecordedasper
the convenience of the I.O., the police and the person recording the
confession. Thisquestionisoutofcontextinviewofthefactthatthis
Officertookappropriateprecautionfromthefirstdateoftheproductionof
theaccusedandbygivinghimsufficientcoolingofftimetothinkoverhis
decisiontomaketheconfession.AtPage198Para15hehasadmittedthat
tillcompletionoftheentireproceedingon07/01/2006hedidnotleave
hischamber. AtPage199certainquestionshavebeenaskedaboutthe
enquirytobemadewithregardtothelanguageknowntotheaccused.
Thewitnesshasstatedthathehadmadeenquiryandonhisenquiryit
transpiredthattheaccusedwasconversantwithHindilanguage.
148
156]
148
Thewitnesshasadmittedthatafterenquiryhestarted
recordingtheeventsoccurredbeforehim.Idonotthinkanythingwrong
onthepartoftheOfficer.TheOfficerhasnoteddowntheevents,which
tookplacebeforehim. Healsonoteddownthequestionsaskedbyhim
and the answers given by the accused to the said questions. He has
admittedthattheobjectofinformingtheaccusedabouthisdesignation
wasforhissatisfactionaswellasforthesatisfactionoftheaccused. He
hasadmittedthatitwasnecessarytoinformtheaccusedthathewasa
PoliceOfficeroftherankofSuperintendentofPoliceandwasempowered
to record his confession u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act. On being
questioned,hehasansweredthatatthattimehedidnotthinkitnecessary
to mention this fact in the confession. At Page 200 PW11 DCP Shri
Bodkhehasadmittedthatitwasnecessarytoinformtheaccusedthathe
was recording his confession u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act. He has
deposedthathehasinformedthisfacttotheaccusedon07/01/2006and
09/01/2006.Hehasfurtheransweredthathedidnotdeemitnecessaryto
recordthisfactintheconfession. Hehasadmittedthatbeforerecording
confessional statement of the accused, it is necessary to see that the
accusedbecomesfreefromallimpressionsonhismindabouttheofficerin
whose custody he was and he becomes relaxed to speak. A pointed
questionwasaskedtohimatPage201abouthandingoverofthecustody
oftheaccusedtotheInvestigatingOfficerafterrecordingofconfessionwas
over, irrespective of the fact whether accused had given confession or
declined to do so. He has stated that he would have handed over the
custodyoftheaccusedtotheInvestigatingOfficer.However,inthiscase
149
149
thisquestiondidnotariseatall.Itwassimplytotesttheknowledgeofthe
Officer. Theanswergivenbythewitnesstothenextquestionclarifies
everything.PW11DCPShriBodkhehasadmittedthathedidnotinform
the accused that he would hand over him in the custody of the
Investigating Officer, if he declines to give confession and produce him
beforetheCourt,ifhegivestheconfessionalstatement.Whatthewitness
hasactuallydoneispartofrecordinwriting. Theanswergivenbythe
witnessclearlysuggeststhathedidnotinformtheaccusedthathewould
begiveninthecustodyoftheInvestigatingOfficer,ifhedeclinestogive
confession. Onecannotignorethisadmission. Thecrossexaminerhas
taken the risk. The crossexaminer has either to sail or sink with the
admissiongivenbythewitness.Iftheadmissiongivenbythewitnessin
thecrossexaminationisunfavourable,thedefencecannotbeallowedto
saythatadmissionhasnosignificanceandhastobeignoredintoto.
157]
At201Para17PW11DCPShriBodkhehasadmitted
thatitwasnecessarytoinformtheaccusedthathewasnotconcernedwith
hisarrestorinvestigation.Hehasadmittedthatthisfactisimportantand
necessarytobeincorporatedintheconfession.Thiswitnesshasadmitted
thatthisfactwasinformedandhasbeenrecordedatPara5ofthefirstpart
oftheconfessionalstatementExhibit382.Hehasadmittedthattherewas
no intention on his part to extract the confession from the accused by
misleading him. He has stated that he did not deem it necessary to
mentionspecificallyintheconfessionthathewasneitherconcernedwith
hisarrestnorinvestigationinthematter.At202Para18hehasstatedthat
150
150
hedidnotdeemitnecessarytoknowfromtheaccusedastowhenhewas
arrestedandwherehewaskept.Hedidnottrytofindoutwhetherthe
accusedhadanopportunitytogetlegalassistancefromanAdvocate.He
hasstatedthaton7thand9thhedidnotsuggesttotheaccusedthathe
wasatlibertytocallhisadvocate. Asfarasproductionofthisaccused
beforeDCPShriRajeshKumarMorisconcerned,PW11DCPShriBodkhe
hasfranklystatedthathecametoknowaboutthisfactwhenhewasasked
forthefirsttimeinhiscrossexamination.
158]
Asfarasthereflectionperiodgrantedtotheaccused,he
(PW11)hasstatedthatthereisnospecificlegalprovisionaboutit. He
thoughtitpropertogive48hourstimetotheaccused.Hedidnotenquire
with the accused as to when first time a thought struck him to give
confessionandbeforewhomheexpressedhisdesiretomakeconfession.
He has admitted at Page 204 Para 22 that in the record of proceeding
dated 07/01/2006 he has nowhere used word Confession. He has
admittedthaton07/01/2006theaccusedwaswithhimforaboutanhour.
Hehasadmittedthatduringthisperiodhetookadecisiontokeepthe
accusedatBorivalilockupandforthatpurposehecalledpolicepersonnel
fromDahisarPoliceStation. HehasadmittedatPage204Para23that
duringtheperiodof7thto9thJanuary,2006hedidnotpersonallymeet
or see accused Mohd. Hasan Mehendi Hasan. Similarly, he did not
personallyverifytheLockupRegisterorStationDiarytoascertainwhere
thesaidaccusedwaskeptduringthisperiod.AtPage205Para24hehas
admittedthatbeforewritingthequestionsandanswers,hewasknowing
151
151
thelanguageinwhichtheaccusedwasconversantwith.Thisquestionhas
beenaskedtosuggestthatthequestionwithregardtothelanguagecame
afterabout4to5questions. Hehasgivenanswer,forrepetitionofthis
question,thatthisquestionwasrepeatedforhissatisfaction.
159]
HehasadmittedatPage205Para24thathehadasked
theaccusedastowhetherhewasthreatened,luredortorturedtogive
confessionalstatement.HehasadmittedatPage205thattheaccusedwas
taken to Medical Officer before keeping him in Borivali lockup on
07/01/2006andhehadseenthemedicalrecordofthatday.Atthisstage,
itisnecessarytomentionthatinaretractionapplicationforwardedtothis
Court by the accused, which has been pointed out to this Court, the
accusedhasadmittedthisfact.AtPage206Para25hehasansweredthat
his question to the accused to know whether he was promised, lured,
compelled or threatened to give confession is reflected in unnumbered
question. He has admitted that in this question either the word
StatementorConfessionarenotused. Hehasadmittedthathedid
notasktheaccusedwhetherhewaspromisedtomakeApproverorlured
toseethathewouldbegivenlesserpunishmentformakingconfession.At
Page207,hehasadmittedthathehadspecificallyinformedtheaccusedon
7thand9thJanuary2006thathewasnotboundtomakeanyconfession.
He has admitted in the next breath that, however this fact is not
mentionedintherecordofbothdaysproceedings.Hehasdeposedthathe
thought that it was not necessary to record this fact in the record of
confessionalstatement.Thisanswergivenbythewitnesscannotberead
152
152
inisolationwiththemeaningofwordJabardastiderivedbythisCourt.
Similarly,theOfficerseemstohavegiventhisanswereitherundersome
misconception or his understanding. The Certificate/ Memorandum
appendedtotheconfessionalstatementclearlymentionsthathegavea
specificstatutorywarningtotheaccusedthathewasnotboundtomake
confessionandifhedoessoitwouldbeusedagainsthimintheCourtof
law.
160]
AtPage207Para26hehasadmittedthathedidnot
On09/01/2006,aspertherecordofthePW11 DCP
ShriBodkhe,theaccusedwasorderedtobeproducedbeforehimat11.00
a.m.. However, the accused was produced before him at 5.30 p.m. A
suggestionisgiventothewitnessthatthisdelayedproductionwascaused
because the accused was not ready to sign the confession, which was
alreadypreparedbytheOfficersofATS.Inthefurthercrossexamination,
153
153
thiswitnesshasadmittedthatonthatdayhereachedhisofficeat5.30
p.m.becausehewasbusyintheimportantworkofmaintainingLaw&
Order.Onthebasisofthisdelayedproductionoftheaccused,inference
cannotbedrawnthattheaccusedwasnotreadyand,therefore,theOfficer
soughtproductionoftheaccusedat5.30p.m.,whenhebecameready.It
isnotthecaseofthedefencethatduringthisperiodeitherthisDCPvisited
BorivaliLockupor anyotherofficerofATSvisitedtheBorivaliLockup.
AtPage209the witnesshasadmittedthaton09/01/2006hehadasked
morequestionstotheaccusedbesidesthefivequestionsmentionedinthe
second part of confessional statement Exhibit382. But those other
questionshavenotbeenincorporatedintheconfessionalstatement. He
hasadmittedthatheaskedtheaccusedon09/01/2006whetheranybody
methimorharassedhimbetween7thto9thJanuary,2006. Thisfactis
notmentionedintheconfession.Hehasansweredthathedidnotthinkit
necessary to mention about this fact in the record of confessional
statement.Hehasadmittedthathehadaskedtheaccusedwhetherhehad
sufficient sleep between 7th to 9th January 2006 and whether he was
harassed by anybody. On being confronted with the document
Exhibit382,hehasansweredthathedidnotmentionthisquestionand
answerintheconfessionalstatementashedidnotthinkitnecessaryto
mentionthisintherecordofconfessionalstatement.Whenthisfactwas
notmentionedintheconfessionalstatement,thispointcouldhavebeen
arguedbeforeCourt.Whatisnotthereisnotthere.Forthesaidpurpose
thewitnesscannotbemadetoanswerfirstandthenconfronthimwiththe
statement.
154
162]
154
HehasadmittedatPage210thaton09/01/2006hehas
specificallyinformedtheaccusedthathewasrecordinghisconfessional
statement.Ithasbeenfoundonperusalofsecondpartoftheconfession
dated09/01/2006thatinonequestionthewordConfessionhasbeen
used.Inmyopinion,thefailuretousespecificwordConfessionmaynot
affect the statement made by the witness. The question is what was
broughttothenoticeoftheaccusedandwhatheunderstood.So,inthe
secondpartoftheconfessiondated09/01/2006,thereisspecificmention
ofwordConfessioninonequestioni.e.questionNo.3. Iftheaccused
haddesiredonlytomakeastatementandnotaconfessionalstatement,
therehecouldhavegotanopportunity/wakeupcalltoinformPW11DCP
Shri Bodkhe that he is not ready to make a confessional statement.
Therefore,inmyview,thisentireexerciseinthecrossexaminationcannot
beusedasamaterialtodiscardtheevidenceanddiscardtheConfessional
Statement of the accused by treating it as a simple statement. So, in
respectofsomefacts,whicharenotstatedintheConfession,thecross
examinerhasaskedhim(PW11).ThewitnessPW11DCPShriBodkhehas
admitted that he did it but he either did not deem it necessary to
incorporateorforgottodoit.
163]
AtPage211Para29thewitnesswasquestionedabout
his enquiry with the accused on 7th and 9th January, 2006 about the
reasonwhyheismakingconfessionalstatement.Accordingtothewitness,
thiswasimportantquestiontobeaskedtotheaccused. Whenhewas
asked about the reason for not incorporating this question in the
155
155
confessionalstatement,thewitnesshasrepliedthattheaccusedhimself
wantedtomakeconfessionalstatementand,therefore,hedidnotdeemit
necessarytoincludethatquestionintherecordofconfessionExhibit382.
Itmaybenotedthatduringthecourseofcrossexamination,thiswitness
hasstatedaboutseveralquestionsaskedbyhimtotheaccused,butthe
fact remains that all the questions have not been incorporated in
Exhibit382.Apartfromthefactwhetherthesequestionswerenecessary
tobe incorporated or not,one cannot ignore the answers given bythe
witnessinthecrossexamination. Nowtheanswersgivenbythewitness
need to be considered in proper perspective and on undertaking this
exercise,itappearsthattheseanswersgivenbythiswitnessarerational.
Similarlytheexplanationfornotincorporatingsomeoftheinstructionsor
warnings given by the witness to the accused before recording his
confessionappearstobeprobable.
164]
ItmaybementionedthatCourthastoascertainfrom
theevidencethattheconfessionmadebytheaccusedisvoluntary.Once
Courtcomestotheconclusionthattheconfessionmadebytheaccusedis
voluntary,thenonecansafelypresumethattheconfessionofthecrimeby
theaccusedistheresultofremorse,repentanceandcontritionoverthe
involvement inandcommissionofheinouscrime. Itmaybenotedthat
wrong done by a person always dwells in his heart, soul and mind.
Sometimes it becomes unbearable. It may be due to nature and
psychologyofparticularaccused. Thereisnootherway,thantomakea
clean breastof thecrimeandrelieve oneselfofthe burden of the 'sin',
156
156
whichisdwellingintheheartandsoul.Therefore,Iamoftheviewthat
eveniftherewasfailureonthepartoftheOfficertoquestiontheaccused
aboutthereasontomakeconfession,itwouldnotmakemuchdifference.
Itissuggestedtothiswitnessthatbeforemakingconfession,thisaccused
wasbeatenblueandblackbytheATSOfficersandalsoafterrecordinghis
confession,soastodesisthimfrommakingacomplaintofilltreatment
beforeChiefMetropolitanMagistrateonhisproductionafterrecordingthe
confession.Hehasdeniedthissuggestion.Itis,therefore,seenonperusal
ofthecrossexaminationofthiswitnessinentiretythatthiswitnessdidnot
feignignoranceofcertainfacts. Thiswitnesshascomeforwardwiththe
facts known to him during searching crossexamination. The answers
giveninthecrossexaminationatthemostwouldshowthathehadasked
variousimportantquestionstotheaccusedbeforerecordinghisconfession,
buthedidnotincorporatethesameintheconfession. Atthisstagethe
mootquestioniswhetherallthesefactswerethemandatoryrequirements
to be complied with by PW11 DCP Shri Bodkin before recording
confessionoftheaccusedu/sec.15ofthe TADA(P)Act. Letmenow
considerthepointsraisedbythedefenceinthisperspective.
165]
Asfarasmandatory/statutorywarning u/sec.15sub
section(2)oftheTADA(P)Actisconcerned,Ihaveobservedthatonthe
basis of the evidence of PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe and perusal of the
Confessionof accusedMehendiHasanat Exhibit382,ithasbeenprima
facieestablishedthatmandatoryrequirementsofSection15subSection
(2)oftheTADA(P)Acthavebeencompliedwith. Itissubmittedthat
157
157
PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe failed to inform the accused that he was a
Competent Officer to record confession; that PW11 did not specifically
inform the accused that he had not arrested the accused nor he was
concernedwiththeinvestigationoftheaccused;thatPW11didnotask
theaccusedastowhenhewasarrestedandwherehewaskeptincustody;
that PW11 did not ask the accused whether he had an opportunity in
gettinglegalassistancenorofferedanylegalassistancetotheaccused;that
PW11 did not verify whether the accused was sent for medical
examinationnortooktroubletosendtheaccusedformedicalexamination;
that PW11 did not use the word Confession in the first part of
confession;thatPW11didnotbothertoverifywhetheranyofficervisited
BorivaliLockupduringreflectionperiodoftheaccusedandcheckedup
StationDiaryentries;thatPW11didnotbothertoasktheaccusedasto
whyhewantstomakeconfessionalstatement.
166]
ConfessionalStatementatExhibit382andthefacts,whichhavenotbeen
notedintheConfessionalStatement.PW11hasbeenexhaustivelycross
examinedonalmostalltherelevantaspects. PW11hasnotshiedaway
from answering the questions. The paramount question is whether the
answerswereprobableorthesamewerejustgivenforthesakeofanswers
tocoverupcertainfacts.Atthisstage,Imuststatethattheadmissions
givenbyPW11DCPShriBodkheinhiscrossexaminationappearstobe
straightforward.Hedidnotevenmakeanattempttohideanythingfrom
theCourt.Ifhehadnotdoneallthethings,whichhewassupposedtodo,
158
158
thenhewouldnothaveansweredthequestionsputbythedefencetohim.
But one thing is certain on the basis of his evidence that the basic
requirementsofSection15(2)oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15(3)(b)of
theTADARuleshavebeenfoundtobecompliedwith.
167]
159
theconfessionoftheaccused.TheaccusedMehendiHasanwasthensent
back to Borivali Police Station Lockup with instructions to the Police
OfficerPSIShriHardastoproducetheaccusedalongwiththeconfession
beforelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,Mumbai.
168]
On10/06/2006,aspertheordersofDCPShriBodkhe,
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatduringthe
courseofcrossexaminationofPW22,ACPShriKisanNarayan Shengal
hasadmittedthatduringthenightof10/01/2006hehadpaidnightvisit
toBorivaliLockupwheretheaccusedwaslodged. Onthebasisofthis
admission,whichiscontainedinhisevidenceatPage480FPara65,itis
160
160
submittedthathepaidvisittoBorivaliGeneralLockuponlywithaviewto
threatentheaccusedandpressurisetheaccusednottomakeacomplaint
of illtreatment before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the next day.
PW22ACPShriShengalhasadmittedthaton10/01/2006aftermidnight
hehadpaidvisittoBorivaliGeneralLockupduringthenightround.He
has admitted that he did not know that accused Mehendi Hasan was
lodgedintheGeneralLockupofBorivaliPoliceStation. Hehasdenied
thesuggestionaboutthethreatgiventotheaccused.Evenifitisassumed
thatthisvisitwaspaidwithaparticularintentioninmind,itwouldnot
havepreventedtheaccusedfrommakingastatementbeforethelearned
ChiefMetropolitanMagistrateonhisproduction.Atthisstageitmaybe
notedthatinhissocalledretractionapplicationtheaccusedhasadmitted
thatduetofearofhislifehetoldtheJudgethattheconfessiongivenwas
true.Itmayfurtherbenotedthatinhisretractionapplication,thenameof
Mr.ShengalbeingtheOfficer,whohadvisitedBorivaliGeneralLockup,
hasnotbeenmentioned.
170]
AccusedMehendiHasanhadonemoreopportunityto
161
Court.Theseadmissionsarecontrarytotherecordand,therefore,hasto
beignoredbeinggivenundermisconception. Itmaybenotedthatthe
police custody of the accused was expiring on 17/01/2006. Duringthe
courseofinterrogation,asstatedearlier,theconfessionoftheaccusedwas
recordedandhewasproducedbeforeChiefMetropolitanMagistrateon
10/01/2006. After production of the accused before this Court on
10/01/2006theInvestigatingOfficerwassupposedtomakeastatement
on the point of custody of the accused. The record reveals that the
Investigating Officer made an application through Special Public
ProsecutorwithaprayertothisCourttoremandtheaccusedtoJudicial
Custody. After taking note of the statements made in the application,
whichwasregisteredasM.A.No.3of2006,theaccusedwasremandedto
judicialcustodytill31/01/2006.Theimportantfactneedstobenotedis
thaton10/01/2006beforethisCourttheaccuseddidnotmakecomplaint
of illtreatment either by the ATS Officers during the course of
interrogationorbyDCPShriBodkhe(PW11)atthetimeofrecordinghis
confession.MainimportantfactthatneedstobenotedisthatthisCourt
tookNoteofafactthattheaccusedwasproducedbeforethisCourtbyPSI
HardasofDahisarPoliceStation.So,therecordofthisCourtwouldmake
twothingsveryclearthat,i)onthatdayi.e.on10/01/2006theaccused
didnotmakecomplaintofilltreatmentortortureatthehandsofpolice
and,ii)thattheaccusedwasproducedbeforethisCourtbyPSIHardasin
whosecustodytheaccusedwasgivenbyDCPShriBodkhe(PW11).Inmy
view, therefore, the admissions given by PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe and
PW22ACPShriShengalaboutobtainingthecustodyoftheaccusedbythe
162
162
ATSOfficersfromthelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,Mumbai,are
misconceived.
171]
On17/01/2006theaccusedwasnotproducedbefore
thisCourtashewasalreadyremandedtojudicialcustodyon10/01/2006.
On10/01/2006Advocateappearingfortheaccusedmadeanapplication
forprovidinghomefoodfacilitytoaccusedMehendiHasan.This Court
grantedhomefoodfacilitytotheaccused.Theimportantpointthatneeds
tobeborneinmindisthatinthisapplicationmadeon17/01/2006,when
the accused was in judicial custody, the accused did not make any
grievance about illtreatment, torture, threat at the hands of the Police
duringthecourseofinterrogationtocompelhimtomakeconfessionand
also against DCP Shri Bodkhe (PW11) while recording his confession.
Similarly,bythisapplication,hedidnotmakeanystatementtosuggest
that he was retracting the confession. On 17/01/2006, one more
applicationwasmadebyhisAdvocateseekingpermissionforallowingthe
familymembersoftheaccusedtomeethiminjail.On27/01/2006theso
calledretractionapplication,whichwasregisteredasM.A.No.14of2006
wasreceived. Itmaybementionedthatinthisapplicationtheaccused
narratedvariousfactsandultimatelyprayedthisCourttodischargehim
fromthiscase.So,itappearsonthebasisofthisrecordthatforthefirst
time on 27/01/2006 this Court received an application from accused
MehendiHasanmakingthegrievanceaboutilltreatment,tortureduring
thecourseofinvestigationatthehandsoftheATSOfficers.Itis,therefore,
apparent on the face of the record that the accused did not make a
163
163
complaintofilltreatmentortortureagainsttheATSOfficersorDCPShri
Bodkhe (PW11)before this Court as well as before the learned Chief
MetropolitanMagistrateonhisproductiononmorethanfouroccasions.
Allthesefactsareinfavouroftheprosecution. Someoftheadmissions
given by PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe, which have bearing with the
voluntariness and truthfulness of the confession needs to be read in
juxtapositionwiththeabovestatedundisputedfactsonrecord.
172]
Besides,presumingforthesakeofargumentthatPW11
DCPBodkhedidnotcomplycertainproceduralrequirementssoughttobe
broughtonrecordinthecrossexamination,then,thequestionneedstobe
addressediswhetheritwasmandatoryrequirementtobecompliedwith
and whether noncompliance of such requirement has prejudiced the
accusedinhisdefenceorotherwise.Now,itishightimetoconsiderthe
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on this point.
Accordingtome,firstlandmarkdecisiononthispointisinthecaseofS.N.
Dubev.N.B.Bhoirandothers reportedin (2000)2SupremeCourt
Cases254(NotcitedatBar).
173]
Inthiscasetheconfessionwasnotrecordedintwoparts
164
Onthepointofwritingthecertificate,ascontemplated
under Rule 15 subRule (3) of the TADA Rules, at the end of the
confession,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatcertificate/
memorandumneednotbewrittenbythepoliceofficerinthesameform
and terms. The object of writing the certificate and making the
memorandumaretoprovethattheaccusedwasexplainedthathewasnot
boundtomakeaconfessionandifhemadeititcanbeusedagainsthimas
evidence,thattheconfessionwasvoluntaryandthatitwastakendownby
the police officer fully and correctly. The requirement of the rule is
preparationofcontemporaneousrecordregardingthemannerofrecording
theconfessioninthepresenceofthepersonmakingit.
165
175]
165
OnthepointofcomplianceoftheBombayHighCourt
Guidelines for recording confession u/sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the
GuidelineslaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiain Kartar
Singh's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that while
recommendingthoseguidelinesitwasmadeclearbytheSupremeCourt
thatitisreallyfortheCourttryingtheoffencetodecidethequestionof
admissibility or reliability of a confession by using its judicial wisdom.
FromwhathasbeenobservedinKartarSingh'sdecisionitdoesnotfollow
thatifthesuggestedguidelinesarenotfollowedthentheconfessionmust
bediscardedasinadmissibleorbadonthatscoreoronthegroundthatit
isnotinconformitywithSection15subSection(2)oftheTADAActand
Rule15oftheTADARules. ItisheldthatthePoliceOfficerrecordinga
confessionu/sec.15oftheTADAActisreallynotboundtofollowany
otherprocedure.TherulesortheguidelinesframedbytheBombayHigh
CourtforrecordingaconfessionbyaMagistrateu/sec.164ofCr.P.C.do
notbythemselvesapplytorecordingofaconfessionu/sec.15oftheTADA
Act. Itis,heldthattherefore,merelybecausesomeofthoseguidelines
werenotfollowedwhilerecordingtheconfessionsitcannotforthatreason
beheldthatthesaidconfessionshavelosttheirevidentiaryvalue. The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasobservedthatifwhilerecordingthe
confessionsthepoliceofficerhadfollowedallthoseguidelines,thenalso
that would have been a circumstance helpful in inferring that the
confessionsweremadeafterfullunderstandingandvoluntarily. Inthis
casetheconfessionswererecordedbytheofficerinthePoliceStation.A
grievance was made that the confessions were not recorded in a free
166
166
ImaynowrefertheJudgmentsrelieduponbythelearned
167
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasfurtherheldthattheconfessionshould
appeartohavebeenmadevoluntarilyandthepoliceofficerwhorecords
the confessions should satisfy himself that the same had been made
voluntarilybythemakerofthatstatement.Therecordedconfessionmust
indicate that these safeguards have been fully complied with. So, this
decisionrelieduponbythelearnedAdvocatefortheaccusedenunciates
thatallthemandatoryrequirementsofSection15oftheTADA(P)Actand
Rule15ofTADARulesmustbestrictlycompliedwith.Itisheldthatifall
therequirementsarenotfullycompliedwiththentheconfessionbecomes
inadmissible.
177]
reportedin2004ALLMR(Cri)3428(S.C.),thePoliceOfficerhadfailed
to write down the certificate and memorandum as contemplated under
Rule 15 subrule (3)(b) of the TADA Rules. In this case the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatRule15ismandatoryandviolation
ofthismandatoryruleparticularlyonthepointofwritingcertificateand
makingmemorandummakestheconfessioninadmissible.Rule15would
showthatthecertificateshallbeinwritingandsignedbythepersonwho
makesit.ThePoliceOfficershallalsocertifyunderhisownhandthatsuch
confessionwastakeninhispresence andrecordedbyhimandthatthe
record contains a full and true account of the confession made by the
personandsuchpoliceofficershallmakeamemorandumattheendofthe
confessionandtheproformaofsuchcertificatealsoisappendedtoRule
15. Thecertificateshouldspecificallystatethathehadexplainedtothe
168
168
person making the confession that he was not bound to make the
confessionandifhedoesso,theconfessionhemaymakemaybeused
againsthimandthathebelievedthatthisconfessionwasvoluntarilymade
anditwastakeninhispresenceandrecordedbyhimandwasreadoverto
thepersonmakingitandadmittedbyhimtobecorrectanditcontaineda
fullandtrueaccountofthestatementmadebyhim.
178]
ThedecisioninthecaseofLillialiasJagdeepSinghv.
169
169
StateofRajasthanreportedin2005SupremeCourtCases(Cri)822has
been relied upon by the learned defence Advocate in support of his
proposition that noncompliance of the provisions of Section 15 sub
section (2) of the TADA(P) Act makes the confession completely
inadmissibleinevidence.Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia
hasheldthattheprovisionsofSection15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)
Actaremandatoryandmustbestrictlycompliedwith. Inthiscase,the
SuperintendentofPolice,whorecordedtheconfessionalstatement,simply
statedintheconfessionthatitwasexplainedtotheaccusedthatstatement
could be used against him as evidence and that the accused made
statementconcerningthesequenceofeventscompletelyonhisownfree
willwithoutanypressure.
180]
TheSuperintendentofPoliceneitherrecordeditinthe
170
explaintothepersonmakingitthatheisnotboundtomakeaconfession
andthat,ifhedoesso,itmaybeusedagainsthimandsuchpoliceofficer
shallnotrecordanysuchconfessionunlessuponquestioningtheperson
makingit,hehasreasontobelievethatitisbeingmadevoluntarily.Ifthis
mandatoryrequirementisfulfilled,thenonlytheconfessioncouldbeheld
tobeadmissible.
181]
appendedtotheconfessionisinthelanguageandtheformprovidedunder
Rule15oftheTADARules.Similarly,theofficer,PW11DCPShriBodkhe,
before recording the confession of the accused on 07/01/2006 and
09/01/2006,administeredstatutorywarningtotheaccusedthathewas
notundercompulsiontomakeaconfessionandifhedoesso,thenitcan
beusedasevidenceagainsthimintheCourtoflaw.
182]
ThereisonemoreJudgmentinthecaseofMohd.Ayub
Darv.StateofJammu&Kashmirreportedin2010(3)SupremeCourt
Cases(Cri)1350. ThiscitationhasbeenrelieduponbylearnedSPPin
supportofhissubmissionthatmerelybecausetheguidelinesin Kartar
Singh(1994)3SupremeCourtCases569,werenotfullyfollowed,that
byitselfdoesnotwipeoutoftheconfessionrecoredu/sec.15oftheTADA
(P)Act.Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatthe
confession recorded u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act is admissible as
substantive piece of evidence and it can be made the basis for the
convictionofthemaker.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthat
171
171
merelybecausetheguidelinesinKartarSinghv.StateofPunjab(1994)
3SupremeCourtCases569, werenotfullyfollowedthatbyitselfdoes
notwipeouttheconfessionrecordedu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)Act. In
thiscasetheCompetentAuthorityhadadministeredthestatutorywarning
totheaccusedthathewasnotboundtomakeaconfessionandifhemade
it,itwouldbeusedagainsthimintheCourtoflaw.Inviewofthisfactual
position, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was a full compliance of
Section15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act.
183]
172
mandatoryrequirementsofSection15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act.
Hehasascertainedimportantandrelevantfactsfromtheaccusedbefore
recordingtheconfession. Hegaveoneandhalfday'scoolingofftimeto
think over his decision to make a confession. When the Officer was
satisfied that the accused was making the confession voluntarily, he
proceededtorecordthesame.Therefore,applyingthelawlaiddownby
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgments, cited supra, it
becomescrystalclearthatfailuretocomplytheguidelinesmadebythe
BombayHighCourtandtheguidelinesin KartarSingh's casedoesnot
wipe out the confession, which is complying with all the mandatory
requirements of Section 15 of the TADA (P) Act and Rule 15 of the
TADA(P)Rules. Onconsiderationoftheevidenceintotality,Iamofthe
viewthattheprosecutionhasprovedinthiscasethatconfessionmadeby
accusedMehendiHasanwasvoluntary. Theprosecutionhasprovedby
leading cogent and reliable evidence that the required mandatory
provisionsofSection15oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15oftheTADA
Ruleswerecompliedwith. IfthesubmissionsmadebylearnedAdvocate
Shri Pasbola on the point of noncompliance of various other
factors/conditions by PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe before recording the
confessionoftheaccusedareconsideredinjuxtapositionwiththelawlaid
downbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthecaseofS.N.Dubev.N.
B.Bhoirandothersreportedin(2000)2SupremeCourtCases254and
alsosomeoftheJudgmentsrelieduponbyhim,thenitbecomesclearthat
thesubmissionsmadebylearnedAdvocatecannotbeaccepted.Inviewof
thesettledlegalposition,thecompetentofficerwasrequiredtocomply
173
173
Inordertofindoutthetruthfulnessoftheconfession
madebyaccusedMehendiHasan,firstCourthastoseebroadspectrumof
theconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasanandsecondlythecorroborative
evidence tothe statementmadebythe accusedin his confession. The
broadspectrumoftheconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasanisasfollows.
174
174
185] BROADSPECTRUMOFCONFESSIONOFMEHENDIHASAN
i)
He(MehendiHasan)cameintocontactwithcoaccusedAbuSalem
throughhiscousinAbdulKalam. HeusedtogotoAbuSalem's
officesituatedin2ndHasanabadLane,Santacruz (West),Mumbai.
TherehecameincontactwithRiyaz Siddiqui,ShaukatMistry,
NaeemTR(ApproverPW1),VinuSharma(PW3),AliDadhi,
Dr.ArshadKamalShaikh(PW7)inthiscase.
ii)
iii)
iv)
AftercomingbacktoMumbai,heusedtogotoAndheriattheoffice
ofAbuSalem.IntheofficeofAbuSalemhewas informedbySamir
MoghalthatcoaccusedAbuSalemwassearchingforhimandalso
providedAbuSalem'sDubaiphonenumber009714226670.
v)
HecontactedAbuSalemonphoneandtoldAbuSalemthathewas
inneedofmoney.OntheinstructionsofaccusedAbuSalem,he
wenttohisofficeandobtainedRs.10,000/fromSheelaandatthe
175
175
sametimetookpossessionofAbuSalem'sMaruti800carfrom
NizamresidinginBehramBaugandwenttoChemburandstarted
residingthereinrentedhouse.
vi)
HeusedtomakephonecallstoAbuSaleminDubaifromSTD Booth
ofShabbirandalsousedtoreceiveAbuSalem'sphonecallsatthe
saidboothofShabbir.
vii)
HeusedtotakeMaruti800CartothegarageofSalimHaddiand
SalimHaddiintroducedhim(MehendiHasan)toSalimTukaram
Nazir Hateli, Brijesh Mishra, Uday Pawar, Rajesh Igwe, Shaukat
Kadia,SunilNair,SanjayKadam.
viii) Hestartedthreatingandextortingmoneyfrombuildersandwealthy
personsforAbuSalemthroughthesepersons.
ix)AbuSalemusedtopaymoneytohimthroughNaeemTRand Dr.
ArshadKamalShaikh.
x)
InAugust1994,hecametoknowthatMumbaiCrimeBranch Police
wassearchingforhimatPanjrapol,Chemburareaandhe(Mehendi
Hasan)informedthisfacttoAbuSalem. AttheinstanceofAbu
Salem,heprocuredticketforDubaithroughonetravelagent
RizwanatClairRoad,BycullaandwenttoDubaiinSeptember,1994
atthecostofAbuSalem.
176
xi)
176
AbuSalemreceivedhimatDubaiAirportandtookhimtohishouse
andthereafterhestartedworkingwithAbuSaleminhisofficeat
PearlBuilding,12thFloor,Deira,Dubai.RiyazSiddiquiusedtocome
inthisoffice.AneesKaskaralsoused tocomeinthisoffice.
xii)AbuSalemwasthreateningJuhubasedJainBuilderandhe(Abu
Salem)toldhimthathehadallottedthematterofJainBuilder
toRiyazSiddiqui.
xiii) InNovember,1995hewaspresentintheofficeofAbuSalemalong
withSalimHaddi,AbuSalem,AneesKaskar,VinuSharmaandat
thattimeRiyazSiddiquicametothesaidofficealongwithShaukat
Mistry.ShaukatMistryexplainedallthefactsaboutKolDongriplot
inthesaidmeetingandtoldinthemeetingthattheyallwouldget
croresofrupeesoutofthisproperty.
xiv)AfterAbuSalemandAneesKaskarrealizedandunderstoodthis
matter,itwasdecidedamongstthemthatifAshokJaindoesnot
obeyhiscommand,thenanyoneamongstfivebrotherswouldbe
killed.
xv)
In the said meeting, the role of each one was decided. It was
decidedinthesaidmeetingthatAneesKaskarandAbuSalem would
threatenAshokJainonphone,RiyazSiddiquiwouldfrightenAshok
JainbytalkingonphoneaboutAbuSalemandAneesKaskar.Itwas
177
177
decidedinthesaidmeetingthatbystayinginMumbaiShaukat
MistryalongwithNaeemKhanwouldconveyallthedevelopments
toAneesKaskarandAbuSalemanditwasfurtherdecidedinthe
saidmeetingthatifneededMehendiHasanalongwithSalimHaddi
andotherswouldattackanyofJainbrothers.
xvi) AbuSalemandAneesKaskarstartedmakingthreateningcallsto
AshokJainandNaeemKhanandShaukatMistrystartedholding
meetingswithAshokJaininMumbaiandinformingAneesKaskar
andAbuSalemonDubaiPhoneNo.009714226670and
009714242939accordingtotheplan.
xvii) Inthemeantime,SalimHaddiandVinuSharmawentbackto
MumbaiandMehendiHasanalsoreturnedtoMumbaiinJanuary,
1995aftercelebratinghisbirthdayon29thDecemberinDubaiand
wenttoKolhapurduetofearofpolice.
xviii) On2ndor3rdMarch,1995MehendiHasanmadephonecalltoAbu
Salem,whoabusedhimandinstructedhimtogotoMumbaiand
meetSalimHaddiandalsotoldhimthatPradeepJainwastobe
eliminatedinanycondition.
xix)ImmediatelyafterthismessagefromAbuSalem,MehendiHasan
cametoMumbaiandmetSalimHaddi,whotalkedwithAbuSalem.
xx)
AbuSalemalsoinstructedMehendiHasantogotoHotelMoti
Mahal,S.V.Raod,AndheriandmeetSunnyandtakemoneyfrom
178
178
him.AccordinglyhewenttherealongwithSalimHaddiat4.00p.m.
andtheremetNaeemTR(Approver).HealsointroducedSalim
HadditoNaeemTR.AtthattimeNaeemTR(Approver)gavehim
Rs.OnelakhinthesaidHotelandthereaftertheyalltalkedwith
AbuSalemfromSTDBoothandinformedhimaboutreceiptofthe
amountandfromthereheandSalimHaddiwenttoChembur.
fortakingdeliveryofweapons.Ontheverydayinthenoon,
MehendiHasanwenttoShalimarHotelandtookdeliveryof
weaponsfromonepersonoutsidehotelandinformedthisfactto
AbuSalem.MehendiHasantookthesaidweaponswhichwere
packedinpolythenebagandkeptinsweetboxanddeliveredthe
sametoSalimHaddinearRamdeoHotel,Sionatabout5.00p.m.
onthesameday.
xxiii) AtthattimehealsotoldSalimHaddithatAbuSalemwasenraged
andwantedtokillPradeepJaininanyconditionasPradeepJainhas
abusedAbuSalem.
xxiv) SalimHaddiaskedMehendiHasantoprovide personwhocould
identifyPradeepJainandheimmediatelymadeaphonecalltoAbu
179
179
SaleminDubai.AbuSalemdirectedhimtointroduceShaukat
KadiatoSalimHaddiandontheverysameday,MehendiHasan
arrangedthemeetingbetweenSalimHaddiandShaukatKadiaat
Andheri.
xxv)Afterthreetofourdaysofthis,RajeshIgve,SalimHaddiand
SunilNaircametoMehendiHasanat11.00a.m.andinformed
himthattheyhaveshootPradeepJaininhisoffice.He immediately
madeaphonecalltoAbuSalemandAbuSaleminstructedhimto
takeRajeshIgaveandSunilNairtoHotelMotiMahal,Andheriat
5.00p.m.andmeetNaeemTR.Accordingly,hemetNaeemTR
alongwithRajeshIgveandSunilNair.NaeemTRgavehimRs.
onelakh.HethereafterinformedAbuSalemaboutthereceiptof
theamount.HepaidRs.EightyThousandtoRajeshIgaveandSunil
Nairinstructingthemtodistributethesameamongstthemselves.
HekeptRs.20,000/withhimandwenttoKolhapur.
186]
TheessenceoftheconfessionoftheaccusedMehendi
Hasanextractedabovewouldestablishprominentlytheconspiracyhatched
atDubai,theroleplayedbyhimpursuanttotheobjectoftheconspiracy
andalsotheroleplayedbyotherswhowerepresentattheconspiratorial
meeting. This confession can conveniently be divided into three parts.
Thefirstpartofhisconfessionspeaksabouthisacquaintancewithaccused
AbuSalem,RiyazSiddiqui,ShaukatMistry,NaeemTR(Approver)(PW1)
VishnuSharma(PW3),AliDadhi, Dr.ArshadKamalShaikh(PW7). He
hasstatedabouthisindulgenceinthebusinessofsellinggoldwithAbu
180
180
SalemanddrivingAbuSalem'sMaruti800Car. Inthefirstpart,hehas
statedabouttheroleplayedbyhimintheabsenceofaccusedAbuSalem
whenAbuSalemabscondedafterBombayBombBlastsin1993whenhis
involvementwasrevealed.IntheabsenceofaccusedAbuSalem,hecould
attend the office of Abu Salem and drive his Maruti 800 Car. He has
furtherstatedthatheandhisassociatesthereafterstartedthreateningand
extortingmoneyfromthebuildersandwealthypersonsforAbuSalem.He
hasstatedthenamesofhisassociates.
187]
DubaionthesayofaccusedAbuSaleminSeptember,1994. Hetellsus
thatwhenheinformedAbuSalemabouthisdifficulties,AbuSalemcalled
himtoDubaiandAbuSalembornetheexpensesforhisjourneytoDubai.
HehasfurtherstatedthatAbuSalempersonallycametoreceivehimatthe
Airportandtookhimtohishouseandthereafterhestartedworkingwith
AbuSaleminhis PearlBuilding, 12th Floor Deira,Dubai. Hehasstated
thatAbuSalemwasthreateningJuhubasedJainbuilderandAbuSalem
toldhimthathehasallottedthematterofJainbrotherstoRiyazSiddiqui.
Hehasfurtherstatedabouttheconspiratorialmeetingheldinthemonth
ofNovember,1994intheofficeofAbuSalemalongwithAbuSalem,Salim
Haddi, Anees Ibrahim, Riyaz Siddiqui and Shaukat Mistry. He has
specificallystatedabouttheconspiracyandtheobjectoftheconspiracy.
Hehasstatedabouttheroleassignedtoeachoneofthepersonspresentin
themeeting.HehasstatedthatinthemeetingitwasdecidedthatifAshok
doesnotpaythemoney,thenoneofthefivebrotherswouldbekilled.He
181
181
has further stated that the persons present in the meeting immediately
thereafterstarteddoingthejobassignedtothemtotaketheconspiracyto
itslogicalend.AsfarastheApproverPW1NaeemKhanisconcerned,he
hasstatedthatinthemeetingitwasdecidedthatbystayinginMumbai
ShaukatMistryalongwithNaeemKhanwouldarrangemeetingswithJain
brothersandwouldconveyallthedevelopmentstoAneesIbrahimKaskar
andAbuSalem.Asfarashisroleisconcerned,hehasstatedthatitwas
decidedthatifneededhealongwithSalimHaddiandotherswouldattack
oneoftheJainbrothers. Hehasfurtherstatedthetelephonenumbers
usedbyAbuSalemandAneesIbrahimKaskarfromDubaiformakingthe
phonecallstoJainbrothers. So,thesecondpartrevealstheconspiracy
hatched,thepersonspresentintheconspiratorialmeeting,the decision
takeninthemeeting,theroleassignedtoeachonetoactpursuanttothe
objectoftheconspiracyandtotaketheconspiracytoitslogicalend.
188]
abouthisactivitiesinMumbaiaftercomingbacktoMumbaiinJanuary,
1995.Inthisthirdpart,hehasstatedabouttheexecutionofthemurder
ofPradeepJain.HehasstatedabouttheinstructionsgiventohimbyAbu
SalemtokillPradeepJainbecausePradeepJainhadabusedhimonphone,
themeetingwithNaeemTR(Approver)andcollectionofmoneyfromhim
beforemurder,takingthedeliveryofweaponsaspertheinstructionsof
AbuSalemnearShalimarHotel,BhendiBazarandhandingoverofthe
sametoSalimHaddinearRamdeoHotel,Sion,at5.00p.m.onthesame
dayandtheinstructionsgivenbyhimtoSalimHadditokillPradeepJain
182
182
asPradeepJainhadabusedtotheirmentorAbuSalem. Hehasfurther
statedthataspersayofAbuSalem,heintroducedShuakatKadiatoSalim
HadditopointouttheresidenceofJainbrothersorJainbrotherstohim.
Hehasfurtherstatedthatafterfourdaysofthis,RajeshIgve,SalimHaddi
andSunilNairmethimandinformedhimthattheyhaveshotPradeep
Jaininhisoffice.Thereafter,hemadeaphonecalltoAbuSalemandas
pertheinstructionsofAbuSalemmetNaeemTR(Approver)(PW1)and
took Rs. 1,00,000/(Rs. one lakh) from him and paid Rs. 80,000/(Rs.
EightyThousand)toRajeshIgave,SunilNairandkeptRs.20,000/(Rs.
TwentyThousand)withhimandwenttoKolhapur.
189]
Theconfessionmadebytheaccusedhastobereadasa
wholetofindoutitstruthfulnessandvoluntariness.Intheearlierpartof
theJudgment,Ihavestatedthatonthe basis ofthecomplianceofthe
mandatory provisions of law, PW11 ensured the compliance of the
mandatoryprovisionsofSection15oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15ofthe
TADA Rules. Perusal of the confession as a whole reveals that it is
inculpatory. The accused Mehendi Hasan has not shied away from
disclosinghisinvolvementintheconspiratorialmeetingandexecutionof
thejobassignedtohimtofulfilltheobjectofcriminalconspiracy.Perusal
ofhisconfessioninentiretywouldshowthatheistrustedsoldierofAbu
Salem. He was involved in certain illegal activities with accused Abu
Salem. He worked as a driver on Maruti800 car of Abu Salem. He
providedalmostallthedetailswithregardtoaccusedAbuSalembefore
andafterthecommissionofthecrime.Theconfessionalstatementmade
183
183
truthfulnessoftheconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasan,thepossibilityof
torture, coercion, threat, inducement, illtreatment, promise, allurement
mustbecompletelyruledout. Itisthedefenceoftheaccusedthatthe
confession was prepared by the ATS Officers and his signatures were
obtainedonthesaidconfessioninpresenceofPW11DCPShriBodkhe
underduress.Thisdefenceoftheaccusedneedstobeconsideredinthe
backdrop of various defects and lacuna's pointed out in the manner of
recordingofconfessionbyPW11DCPShriBodkhe. Itissubmittedon
behalf of the accused that before recording the confession, mandatory
provisionsoflawwerenotcompliedwith.Iftheconfessionoftheaccused
wasahandyworkand/orcreationoftheATSOfficers,thentheywould
havetakeneveryprecautionandensuredthatnolacunaordefectremains
in any part of the confession. It may be mentioned that some of the
lacunasultimatelyheldnottobegoingtotherootofthematternoticedin
184
184
the confession of the accused can lend assurance to the fact that the
confessionwasnotconcocted. ItwasrecordedbeforeDCPShriBodkhe
PW11.IfithadbeenacreationorhandyworkoftheATSOfficers,then
theywouldhavetakenutmostcarenottoleaveasinglelegalortechnical
lacunainanypartoftheconfession. Thisisoneofthecircumstancesto
cometoaconclusionthatthisconfessionwasnotpreparedordraftedby
theATSOfficers.ItwasrecordedbyPW11DCPShriBodkhe.
191]
IthasnotbeensuggestedtoPW11DCPShriBodkheor
anyotherofficerthatduringthisperiodaccusedMehendiHasanhadnot
gonetoDubai.Evenifitisassumedthattherewassuchsuggestion,then
185
185
suchfactcouldhavebeeneasilyestablishedbyproducingthePassportof
accusedMehendiHasan.HisPassportwouldhaveshownthathedidnot
visitDubaiatthe relevanttime. Itis alsonotthecaseofthe accused
anywhere that he did not possess the passport. The production of his
passport would have demolished the intrinsic value of certain facts
disclosedbyhimin his Confessional Statement. According tohim,the
criminalconspiracywashatchedinhispresenceatDubai. Hehasalso
stated about the role assigned to him in the said conspiracy, which,
therefore, indicates that accused Mehendi Hasan had knowledge that
production of his Passport or defence on that line would bring him in
trouble.Thisisoneofthecircumstancestoopineabouttruthfulnessofhe
contentsoftheconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasan.Thedetailnarration
ofthefactsmadebyaccusedMehendiHasaninhisConfessionalStatement
leave no manner of doubt in my mind about its voluntariness and
truthfulness. ItmayfurtherbenotedthathowwouldthePoliceOfficer
knowaboutcertainfacts,whichweresupposedtobewithinspecialand
exclusiveknowledgeofheaccused. ThisfactindicatesthattheOfficer,
DCP Shri Bodkhe PW11, recorded the facts narrated before him by
accusedMehendiHasan,whichwerewithininhisexclusiveknowledge.
193]
Onperusaloftheevidenceandonminutescrutinyof
theevidenceandtheConfessionalStatementandbyapplyingthelawlaid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I have no semblance of doubt to
concludethattheconfessionmadebyaccusedMehendiHasanisvoluntary
andtrue. Onthebasisofhisconfessionhehasadmittedtheconspiracy
186
186
hatched by accused Abu Salem with others including himself and the
objectoftheconspiracy.Hehasalsoadmittedtheroleplayedbyaccused
Abu Salem and the role played by him (Mehendi Hasan) in taking the
objectoftheconspiracytoitslogicalend.Theconspiracywastocompel
Jainbrotherstosettlethedispute ofKolDongriPropertyandtoextort
money from Jain brothers. He also admits the direct involvement of
accusedAbuSaleminthemurderofPradeepJain.Hehasalsoadmitted
hisownroleincommittingmurderofPradeepJain.Hehasalsoadmitted
theinvolvementofApproverNaeemKhan(PW1)inthecrime.Itisfound
thattheConfessionofaccusedMehendiHasan,whichhasbeenassertedby
thedefencetobeinvoluntary,isnotborneoutfromanymaterialplacedon
record.
194]
retractionoftheconfession. Itisthecaseoftheaccusedthatwithinten
daysfrommakingoftheconfession,heretractedtheconfessionbystating
thevalidreasons.Asfarasthepointofretractionisconcerned,Ipropose
to consider it along with the defence of accused Abu Salem about the
retractionofhisconfession.Withthis,itisnownecessarytoadverttothe
confessionofAccusedAbuSalem.
CONFESSIONOFACCCUSEDABUSALEM
195]
ProsecutionhasreliedupontheConfessionofaccused
AbuSalemtoestablishtheroleofaccusedAbuSalemasaprimeaccused
inhatchingtheconspiracy.Thedefencehasalsoraisedseveralfactualand
187
187
legalobjectionstoattackattheveryrootoftheconfessionofaccusedAbu
Salem. The learned Prosecutor and the learned defence Lawyer have
foughttheissueofadmissibilityandotherwiseoftheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalemtoothandnail.AccusedAbuSalemisnotanordinarycriminal.
AccusedAbuSalemisalsooneoftheaccusedfacingseriouschargesin
1993BombayBombBlastsCase.TheSpecialPublicProsecutorsubmitted
thattheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemisvoluntaryandtrue.Learned
Spl.P.P. submitted that on the basis of the evidence of PW12 DCP Shri
Dattatray Rajaram Karale, it has been proved that the mandatory
provisionsofSection15oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15oftheTADA
Ruleshavebeencompliedwithatthetimeofrecordingofconfessionof
accusedAbuSalem.LearnedSPPsubmittedthataccusedAbuSalemhad
engagedtheLawyerfromthefirstdateofhisproductionbeforethisCourt
i.e. from 24/11/2005 andeverystep and action of accused AbuSalem
fromdayoneofhiscustodywasunderlegalguidanceandadvice.Learned
SPPsubmittedthataccusedAbuSalemdidnotmakeagrievanceofill
treatment,torture,coercion,threat,inducement,promise,allurementor
beatingatthehandsoftheATSOfficersduringthecourseofinterrogation
beforethis CourtorbeforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistrate wherehe
was produced after recording his confession. In the submission of the
learnedSPPtheevidenceofPW12DCPShriDattatrayKarale,whohas
recorded the confession of accused Abu Salem has passed the test of
credibility and, therefore, the same has to be relied upon without
semblanceofanydoubt.
188
196]
188
189
ofalltheTestswasnegative. LearnedAdvocateShriPasbolasubmitted
thataccusedAbuSalemwasbroughtbacktoMumbaiinthemorningof
31/12/2005. LearnedAdvocate ShriPasbolasubmittedthatduringthe
course of Narco analysis, Brain Mapping and Lie Detector Test, certain
chemicalsanddrugsmusthavebeeninjectedinthebodyoftheaccused
and,therefore,theaccusedmustnotbeinafitstateofmindtotakea
decision.LearnedAdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatPW22ACPShri
KisanNarayanShengaltookovertheinvestigationon27/12/2005from
hispredecessorACPShriDhawaleandforthefirsttimeheinterrogated
accused Abu Salem in the afternoon of 31/12/2005 and therefore,
surprisingly,asperthecaseoftheprosecution,theaccusedexpressedhis
desiretoconfessthecrime. LearnedAdvocateShriPasbolainsubstance
submittedthattheaccusedwasputundertremendouspressureandstress
and due to continuous interrogation and other tests, the case of the
prosecution that accused Abu Salem volunteered to confess the crime
cannotbeaccepted.
197]
AdvocateShriPasbolaisonthepointofthefailureoftheDCPShriDatta
Karale PW12tocomplythe mandatoryprovisions of Section 15ofthe
TADA (P) Act and Rule 15 of the TADARules. Learned Advocate Shri
Pasbolasubmittedthatthewarning,ascontemplatedu/sec.15subsection
(2)oftheTADA(P)Act,wasnotadministeredtothisaccused,when,as
perthecaseoftheprosecution,thisaccusedwasproducedbeforetheDCP
ShriDatta KaralePW12,afterthe reflection periodwasover. Learned
190
190
AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatwhilewarningtheaccusedabouthis
righttheDCPShriKaralePW12usedthewordAniwaryaNahiHai(vfuok;Z
ugh gS A ) which means Not Compulsory and not used the word
BandhankarkNahiHai( ca/kudkjd ugh gS A )whichmeansNotbinding.
LearnedAdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatonvariousothermandatory
requirementsDCPShriDattaKaralePW12hascommittedgrossmistakes.
LearnedAdvocateShriPasbola,therefore,submittedthattheconfessionof
accusedAbuSalemisneithervoluntarynortrue.LearnedAdvocateShri
Pasbola submitted that DCP Shri Datta Karale PW12 reproduced the
confessiononthebasisofthedraftsubmittedtohimbytheATSOfficers
and obtained the signatures of the accused by force and made his
signaturesontheconfession.
198]
AccusedAbuSalemhasretractedhisconfession.Ihave
alreadymentionedthatasfarasretractionpartisconcerned,Iwoulddeal
withtheretractionsofaccusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalem
togethertoavoidrepetitionofcertainfactsandprovisionsoflaw.Asfaras
accusedAbuSalemisconcerned,atthisstage,Iamdecidingtheissueof
thevoluntaryandtruthfulnatureoftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.
Thejoboftheprosecutionisverydifficultascanbeseenfromthematerial
placed on record. The prosecution appears to have started from the
scratchtobuiltitscaseanddemonstratedthattheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalemisvoluntaryandtrue.ItisundisputedthataccusedAbuSalem
wasinthecustodyoftheATSOfficersfrom24/11/2005onwards.Asper
191
191
thecaseoftheprosecution,accusedAbuSalemfirsttimeexpressedhis
desire to confess the crime on 31/12/2005 during the course of
interrogationbyACPShriKisanNarayanShengalPW22.Itisthecaseof
the prosecution that when accused Abu Salem expressed the desire to
confessthecrime,ACPShriShengalPW22broughtthisfacttothenotice
of the Joint Commissioner of Police, A.T.S. Shri K.P. Rahguwanshi.
Exhibit446istheNotepreparedandputupbyACPShriShengalPW22
beforetheJointCommissionerofPolice,ATS,Mumbaifornominatinga
competentofficerforrecordingconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.Byorder
dated 31/12/2005, the Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P.
RaghuwanshinominatedPW12ShriDattatrayRajaramKaraletorecord
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)Act.TheJoint
Commissioner of Police wrote a letter at Exhibit385 to the DCP Shri
KaralePW12directinghimtorecordconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.
Exhibit386 is a letter written by DCP Shri Karale PW12 to the
Investigating Officer ACP Shri Shengal PW22 directing him to produce
accusedAbuSalembeforehimon02/01/2006at10.00a.m.forrecording
his confessional statement. It has come on record in the evidence of
PW22ACPShriShengalaswelltheevidenceofPW12DCPShriDattatray
Karale that accused Abu Salem was produced before PW12 DCP Shri
Karaleon02/01/2006at10.30p.m..
199]
Whetheraparticularconfessionisvoluntaryandtrueis
aquestionoffact. Therecannotbeanyhardandfastruleorastraight
jacket formula to arrive at a conclusion about the truthfulness and
192
192
voluntarynatureofaconfession.Inordertorecordafindingoffactabout
voluntaryandtruthfulnatureoftheconfession,theevidenceledbythe
prosecution, the admitted facts and all the relevant attending
circumstancesneedtobeborneinmind.Inordertofindoutthevoluntary
natureandtruthfulnessoftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem,according
tome,everythingboilsdowntotheevidenceofPW12DCPShriKarale
and the facts recorded in the confessional statement at Exhibit387. In
order to appreciate the submissions advanced by the learned Special
ProsecutorandthelearneddefenceAdvocateappearingfortheaccused,it
isnecessarytominutelyscrutinizetheevidenceoftheprosecutionandfind
outthecorrectfactualposition.Itmaybenotedatthisstagethatsincethe
accused from the day one of his custody made a statement before this
Courtthathedoesnotintendtomakeanyconfessionandifanyconfession
isproducedbefore Court,itwouldbeagainst his wish anddesireand,
therefore,extracareandcautionisrequiredwhileanalyzing,appreciating
andconsideringtheevidenceledbytheprosecutiontoestablishthatthe
confessionmadebyaccusedAbuSalemisvoluntaryandtrue.
200]
PW12DCPShriDattatrayRajaramKaraleunfoldedin
hisExaminationinChieftheaccountoftheeventsoccurredbeforehimin
connectionwiththerecordingoftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.In
hisevidencehehasdeposedthatonreceiptofthedirectionfromtheJoint
CommissionerofPolice,A.T.S.,ShriK.P.Raghuwanshi,he(PW12DCP
ShriKarale)directedACPShriShengal(PW22)toproduceaccusedAbu
Salembeforehimon02/01/2006.PW12DCPShriKaralehasnarratedin
193
193
hisevidencetheaccountoftheeventsoccurredonthefirstdateofthe
productionofaccusedAbuSalembeforehimandtherecordofthesame
preparedandmaintainedbyhim.Hehasdeposedthatinordertoascertain
thecorrectfactualpositionvisavisthedesireexpressedbyaccusedAbu
Salem to make a confession, he made preliminary enquiry with the
accusedandthenaskedvariousquestionstotheaccused.Hehasdeposed
thatbeforestartingenquirywiththeaccused,hedirectedtheInvestigating
Officerandotherofficerstoleavehischamberandtoldhispeontoclose
thedoorofhischamber.Hehasdeposedthatafterclosingthedoorofhis
chamberbytheconstable,heinformedtheaccusedthatheisnomorein
thecustodyoftheATSOfficersandwasinhiscustody.Inhisevidencehe
hasreiteratedalmostallthefactsrecordedbyhiminthefirstpartofthe
confessionandthepreliminarypartoftheactualconfessionrecorded,after
expiryofthereflectionperiodandproductionoftheaccusedAbuSalem
before him. It would, therefore, be convenient to go through the
confessionandfindoutwhetherthemandatoryrequirementsofSection15
oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15oftheTADARuleswerecompliedwithor
not and also his satisfaction that accused Abu Salem was making the
confession voluntarily and not under any torture, threat, coercion,
promise,allurement,inducement,illtreatment,beatingetc..
201]
Letmenowseethefirstpartofhisconfession.PW12
DCP Shri Karale has recorded that accused Abu Salem was produced
beforehimat10.30a.m.asperhisdirectionbyACPShriShengal(PW22).
Asperhisdirection,ACPShriShengalandotherconstableslefthisoffice.
194
194
HetooktheaccusedinhiscustodyanddirectedhisconstableShriDilip
Varaditoclosethedoorofhiscabinandinstructedthesaidconstablethat
nobody should be allowed to come inside his cabin. PW12 DCP Shri
KaralehasrecordedthatheinformedaccusedAbuSalemthatsincehewas
conversantwithHindi,hewouldbeaskinghimthequestionsinHindiand
writingdownthesameinHindi.ThefirstquestionaskedbyPW12DCP
ShriKaraleishisintroductionwithhisDesignationtoaccusedAbuSalem.
ThesecondquestioniswithregardtotheunderstandingtoaccusedAbu
SalemthatPW12 wasnotconcernedwiththe crimein whichhe was
arrested. Thethirdquestionpertainstotheinformationtotheaccused
thathewasnotinthecustodyofthePolice,whohadarrestedhim.The
fourthquestionpertainstotheenquirymadebyPW12DCPKaralewith
accusedAbuSalemaboutanymisbehaviourwithhimduringthecourseof
hispolicecustody.Thefifthquestionpertainstohisname,educationetc..
Thesixthquestionisveryimportant. TheDCPShriKaralePW12asked
accusedAbuSalemwhyhewasproducedbeforehim. TheaccusedAbu
Salemtoldhim(DCPShriKaralePW12)thathewantedtoconfessthe
crimeand,therefore,hewasproducedbeforePW12. Theseventhand
eighthquestionsaskedtoaccusedAbuSalemareintheformofstatutory
warning,ascontemplatedu/sec.15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act.
TheDCPShriKaralePW12informedtheaccusedthathewasnotbound
tomakeaconfessionanddespitethis,ifhemakesaconfession,itcanbe
usedasevidenceagainsthim.
202]
OnperusaloftheanswersgivenbyaccusedAbuSalem,
195
195
itappearsthatheunderstoodandconfirmedthisstatutorywarning.The
ninthquestioniswithregardtotheenquiryaboutanythreat,coercion,
tortureeitherbypoliceorbyanypersontomakeaconfession. Accused
AbuSalemdidnotmakeanygrievanceofthesame.Thetenthquestionis
withregardtotheenquiryaboutanyallurementgiventohimeitherby
police or by any person for making confession. The eleventh question
pertainstotheenquirywithregardtoanypromiseorassurancegivento
himtobecomeanapproversothathecouldeitherbereleasedorawarded
alesserpunishment.TheaccusedAbuSalem,onthebasisoftheanswers
givenbyhim,clearlyunderstoodallthequestionsandgaveanswerstothe
questions. The twelfth question pertains to a sort of warning to the
accusedbytheDCP.TheDCPShriKarale(PW12)askedAbuSalemthat
despiteapprisinghimaboutalltheabovestatedthings,stillheisdesirous
tomakeaconfession.AccusedAbuSalemansweredthesaidquestionin
the affirmative. The thirteen question asked by the DCP Shri Karale
(PW12)toaccusedAbuSalemistoensurethattheaccusedwasgiventhe
understandingthathecankeephisfriend,advocateoranyrelativepresent
while recording his confession. The accused declined this offer. The
fourteenthquestionpertainstotheinformationgiventotheaccusedby
PW12DCPShriKaraleabouthisdecisiontogivesomecoolingoffperiod
tohimtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeaconfessionandaskedhimabout
theperiodofreflection.AccusedAbuSalemtoldPW12DCPShriKarale
thathalfanhourtoonehourwouldbesufficientperiodtoreflectoverhis
decision to make a confession. PW12 DCP Shri Karale then informed
accused Abu Salem that he would like to give him some more time to
196
196
reflect over his decision to make a confession and at the same time
informed him that during night he would be produced before him for
recordinghisconfession.So,thesearethequestionsputbytheDCPShri
Karale PW12 to accused Abu Salem to know the state of mind of the
accusedandfindoutthattheaccusedwasmakingconfessionvoluntarily.
203]
recordedthatheaskedallthequestionstotheaccusedinHindi.Hewrote
downthequestionsandanswersinHindi.Hereadoverandexplainedthe
sametotheaccusedinHindi. Hehasfurtherrecordedthatheinformed
theaccusedthathewouldbeproducedbeforehimat22.00hoursinthe
night.Hehasalsorecordedthathefurtherinformedtheaccusedthathe
wastakeninhiscustodyfromtheATSOfficersandhewouldbekeptinhis
custody till 03/01/2006. This first part of the confession bear the
signaturesoftheaccusedoneverypageaswellasthesignaturesofPW12
DCPShriDattatrayKaraleoneverypage.
204]
Perusalofthisfirstpartoftheconfessioninjuxtapositionwith
theExaminationinChiefofPW12,itisseenthatPW12administeredthe
statutory warning to the accused that he was not bound to make a
confessionandifhedoesso,thensuchconfessioncouldbeusedagainst
himasevidence.Byaskingthesequestions,PW12DCPShriKaralemade
accused Abu Salem aware that he was in his custody and not in the
custodyoftheATSOfficers,whowereconductingtheinvestigationinthe
crime. PW12DCPShriKarale,byinformingaccusedAbuSalemthathe
197
197
was not concerned with the crime in which he was arrested, gave
sufficientwarningtotheaccusedtoensurethathe(PW12)wasnotthe
partoftheATSandconcernedwiththeinvestigationofthecrime.Itmay
benotedatthisstagethatbeforerecordingtheconfession,thecompetent
officer must create a congenial and free atmosphere. The competent
officer must ensure thatwhatever decision the accusedtakes aboutthe
confessionmustbetakeninafreeatmosphere.Inordertocreateafree
atmosphere and to assure the accused that the officer recording the
confession is nowhere concerned with the crime is the most important
aspect. Hemustaskcertainquestionstotheaccusedsoastocreatea
confidenceinthemindoftheaccusedthattheofficerbeforewhomheis
producedisanindependentofficer.Itmaybenotedthatevenahardcore
criminalduringthecourseofinvestigationandinterrogationisboundto
loose his confidence and feel the stress. In order to ascertain the
voluntarinessoftheaccused,thefirstthingthatthecompetentofficeris
requiredtodoistoerasethisstressandfearandbringbacktheconfidence
oftheaccusedbeforerecordingtheactualconfession.
205]
198
informationtotheaccusedthatifhedeclinestomakeaconfession,then
hewouldnotbesentbackinthecustodyoftheATSOfficers.TheCourt
hastoconsidertheeffectofthisonefailureonthepartofPW12DCP
Karale on the point of the voluntary nature and truthfulness of the
confession. PW12 DCP Shri Karale, in all fairness, in his cross
examinationhasadmittedthisfact.Exceptthisonewarning,thequestions
asked to accused Abu Salem on his first production in the morning of
02/01/2006wouldshowthataccusedAbuSalemwasmadetounderstand
thathewasnotboundtomakeaconfessionandifhemakesaconfession,
thenitcouldbeusedagainsthimasevidence.PW12DCPShriKaraleby
askingotherquestionscreatedafreeatmosphere.Itisseenonperusalof
thefirstpartoftheconfessionthatwhatevertheanswerstheaccusedgave
tothequestionswereinafreeatmosphere.Atthisstage,itisnecessaryto
mention that even when accused Abu Salem was produced before the
learnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateon03/01/2006,hedidnotdenythe
contentsofthefirstpartoftheconfession. Inviewofthisstandofthe
accusedbeforethelearnedMagistrateandtheevidenceadducedbythe
prosecution, I do not see any reason to discard the first part of the
confessionandtheevidenceledbyPW12DCPShriDattatrayKaraleon
thispartoftheconfession.
206]
preliminarypartoftheproceedingrecordedbytheDCPShriKaralePW12
before starting the actual confession and the objections raised by the
defencetodiscardtheconfessionintotoandtheevidenceofPW12DCP
199
199
ShriDattatrayRajaramKarale.
207]
PerusalofevidenceofPW12DCPShriKaraleandthe first
partoftheconfessionwouldrevealthatwhentheofficeraskedaccused
AbuSalemaboutthetimerequiredbyhimforreflectionoverhisdecision
tomakeaconfession,theaccusedtoldtheofficerthat halfhourtoone
hour time would be sufficient. The record further reveals that the
proceedingbeforetheofficerDCPShriKaralePW12inthemorningof
02/01/2006wasconcludedat11.00a.m. DCPShriKaralePW12gave
periodtotheaccusedtoreflectoverhisdecisiontomakeaconfessiontill
10.00 p.m.in the nighton 02/01/2006with an understanding that he
wouldbeinhiscustodyandnotinthecustodyoftheATSOfficers.Itis
submitted on behalf of the accused that the reflection time granted by
PW12DCPShriKaralewastooshortand,therefore,onthisgroundthe
confession has to be condemned as 'involuntary'. The learned defence
advocate submitted that the tearing hurry shown by PW12 DCP Shri
KaraleforrecordingconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemontheverysame
daybygiving inadequatereflectiontimeindicatesthatPW12DCPShri
KaralehadhandingloveswiththeInvestigatingOfficer.Beforeadverting
tothissubmission,itisnecessarytolookattherecordoftheproceeding
preparedbyPW12DCPShriKaralebeforestartingactualrecordingofthe
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemon02/01/2006at10.00p.m.. PW12
DCP Shri Karale has deposed in his evidence consistent with the facts
recordedbyhimbeingpreliminarypartoftheproceedingconductedby
him on 02/01/2006. PW12 DCP Shri Karale has deposed that after
200
200
productionoftheaccusedbeforehim,hetooktheaccusedinhiscustody
andtoldtheotherofficerstoleavehischamber. Heensuredthat,when
the accused and he himself were in his cabin, nobody was within the
hearingorseeingdistanceoutofhiscabin.Thereafterheascertainedthat
the accused was not under any pressure and after satisfying that the
accused was not under any pressure he started asking questions to the
accusedinHindi.
208]
Thesecondquestionasked DCPShriKaraletoaccusedAbu
Salemisveryimportantinthecontextoftheobjectionraisedonthepoint
ofinsufficienttimegrantedtotheaccusedtoreflectoverhisdecisionto
makeaconfession. PW12DCPShriKaraleenquiredwiththeaccused
thatwhetherhewouldliketohavesomemorereflectionperiod/timeto
thinkoverhisdecisiontomakeaconfession.AccusedAbuSalemreplied
inthenegativeandstatedthatthetimegrantedbyhim(DCPShriKarale
PW12)wassufficient.ThethirdquestionwasaskedbyPW12DCPShri
Karale to ensure whether during this period the accused was tortured,
beaten or threatened by anybody for making confession. The accused
answeredthisquestioninthenegativeandstatedthathewasconfessing
thecrimeathisfreewill.ByaskingthefourthquestiontheofficerDCP
ShriKaralePW12wantedtoknowwhetheranybodyhadpromisedhimof
lesserpunishmentortobecomeanapproverformakingtheconfession.
Theaccusedrepliedinthenegative. Whileansweringfifthquestionthe
accusedstatedthathewasnotluredbyanybodytoconfessthecrime.The
sixthquestionisveryimportantfromthepointofviewofthecompliance
201
201
ofthemandatoryprovisionsofSection15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)
Act.Byaskingthisquestion,PW12DCPShriDattaKaralewarnedaccused
AbuSalemthatitwasnotcompulsoryforhimtomakeaconfession.While
askingthisquestion,insteadofusingMarathiwordBandhankarakNahi
Hai,(notbound)(ca/kudkjd ugh gS),theofficerhasusedthewordAnivarya
NahinHai(notcompulsory)(vfuok;Z ugh gS ).TheCourtwouldberequired
tofindouttheliteralmeaningofMarathiwordsAnivarya(vfuok;Z )and
Bandhankarak (ca/kudkjd). PW12 DCP Shri Karale further warned the
accusedthatdespitethestatutorywarningifhemakesaconfession,thenit
could be used as evidence against him. The answer of the accused
indicatesthatheunderstoodthisstatutorywarning.ThequestionNos.8
and9wereaskedbyPW12DCPShriKaraletosatisfyhimselfthatthe
accusedwasmakingtheconfessionvoluntarilydespiteadministeringthe
statutorywarningandwithoutanypressurefromanybody. Theaccused
answered the questions in the affirmative and stated that he was
confessing the crime voluntarily. The tenth question, which is the last
questionaskedbyPW12DCPShriKaraletotheaccusedonthatday,is
very important. The officer PW12 DCP Shri Karale asked the accused
whetherhewouldliketokeephisfriend,advocate,orrelativepresentwith
him while making confession. The accused Abu Salem replied in the
negativeanddeclinedtheoffer.
209]
After asking all the questions, the officer DCP Shri Karale
PW12hasrecordedhissatisfactioninthenextparagraph.Theofficerhas
202
202
recordedthatonthebasisoftheanswersgiventohisquestionsbythe
accused, he was satisfied that the accused was making the confession
voluntarily and without any pressure from anybody and, therefore, he
decided to record his confession. After this, the accused Abu Salem
narratedthefactsandunfoldedhisinvolvementandtheinvolvementof
theothersinthecommissionofthecrime,thenatureoftheconspiracy,the
placeofconspiracy,thepersonspresentintheconspiratorialmeetingand
theobjectoftheconspiracy.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethatafter
ascertaining the voluntary nature of the confession on the basis of the
evidence led by PW12 DCP Shri Karale and preliminary part of the
proceedingrecordedbyPW12DCPShriKarale,itwouldbenecessaryto
readthe confession as a whole tofindoutwhetheritis voluntaryand
depictstrueaccountofthecrime.
210]
insteadofusingthewordBandhankarak(ca/kudkjd),thestatutorywarning
giventotheaccusedwasnotinconsonancewiththemandateofSection
15 subsection (2) of the TADA (P) Act. I have minutely perused the
evidenceofPW12DCPShriKarale.Inhisevidence,hehasdeposedthat
beforeascertainingthevoluntarinessoftheaccusedtomakeaconfession,
while recording the first part, he administered the warning, as
contemplated u/sec. 15 subsection (2) of the TADA (P) Act and also
beforestartingactualrecordingofhisconfession,aftercoolingoffperiod
grantedtotheaccusedwasover.Inhisevidencehehasdeposedthathe
toldtheaccusedthatitwasnotcompulsoryforhimtomakeaconfession
203
203
anddespitethiswarningifhemakesanyconfession,thenitcouldbeused
asevidenceagainsthim. Atboththeplaces,theansweroftheaccused
indicates thatthe accusedunderstoodthis warning andthen proceeded
furthertoanswerremainingquestions.Inthefirstpartoftheconfession,
while administering the statutory warning, the officer PW12 DCP Shri
Karale has used the word Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd). The officer has
warnedtheaccusedthathewasnotboundtomakeaconfession( bdckyh;k
c;ku nsuk vkids yh;s ca/kudkjd ugh gS). While administering same statutory
warningbeforestartingactualrecordingofconfession,theofficerPW12
DCPShriKaralehasinformedtheaccusedthatitwasnotcompulsoryfor
himtomakeaconfession(bdckyh;k c;ku ns u k vfuok;Z ugh g S ).Accused
Abu Salem was conversant with Hindi and Urdu languages. It is
undisputed fact that the accused came to Mumbai prior to 1990. The
question is whether the word Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd)(binding) and
Anivarya(vfuok;Z)(compulsory)connotessamemeaningornot.
211]
PW12DCPShriKaralehasbeensubjectedtosearching
204
Karale has admitted that this statutory warning is necessary when the
accusedisproducedbeforetheofficerforthefirsttimeandalsobefore
startingactualrecordingofconfessionaftercoolingoffperiodisover.At
PageNo.242Para32PW12DCPShriKaralehas admittedthatinthe
second part of the confession, he has not used the word
Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd). The witness, after answering this question,
made a voluntary statement and stated that he used the word
Anivarya(vfuok;Z) instead of the word Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd) and
accordingtohim,boththewordsconnotessamemeaning.Itissuggested
thatthemeaningofwordAnivaryaNahi(vfuok;Z ugh)isNotNecessary.
Thewitnesshasdeniedthissuggestion.Itis,therefore,necessarytofind
out whether the words Anivarya(vfuok;Z) and Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd)
connotessamemeaningornot. Itisalsonecessarytofindoutwhether
wordAnivarya(vfuok;Z)issynonymofwordBandhankarak(ca/kudkjd).
212]
First,itisnecessarytofindouttheDictionarymeaning
ofwordAnivarya(vfuok;Z)andwordBandhankaraka(ca/kudkjd).Forthis
purpose, I have referred the Concise Law Dictionary Vidhi
Shabdakosh(MarathiEnglighEnglish)byauthorShriVivekD.Joshi,2nd
Edition2005.ThewordAnivarya(vfuok;Z)isatPage18ofthedictionary.
The English meaning of the Marathi word Anivarya(vfuok;Z) is
compulsory,obligatory.TheMarathiwordBandhankarak(ca/kudkjd)is
atPage331ofthisDictionary.TheEnglishmeaningoftheMarathiword
205
205
Inhisevidence,theOfficerPW12DCPShriKaralehas
statedthatheinformedtheaccusedthatitwasnotcompulsoryforhimto
makeaconfession.Inthesecondpartoftheconfession,hehasusedthe
word Anivarya (vfuok;Z) instead of the word Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd).
I have undertaken the exercise, as stated above, to find out the literal
English meaning of the words Anivarya (vfuok;Z)
and
Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd). AfterconsideringtheEnglishmeaningofthe
MarathiwordsAnivarya(vfuok;Z)andBandhankarak(ca/kudkjd),asstated
206
206
above,IhavenodoubtinmymindthatthewordsAnivarya( vfuok;Z)and
Bandhankarak(ca/kudkjd)connotesthesamemeaningorratherboththe
words are synonym of each other. In my opinion, by using the word
Anivarya(vfuok;Z) insteadof wordBandhankarak(ca/kudkjd)the Officer
PW12DCPShriKaralehasnotcommittedanylegalerror. TheOfficer
PW12DCPShriKaralewaswellwithintheparametersoflaw. Itmay
furtherbementionedthatthewordsusedmaynotbeimportant.Whatis
importantistheunderstandingofthesamebytheaccused.Here,inthis
case,theOfficerPW12DCPShriKaralewassatisfiedthatevenbyusing
thewordAnivaryatheaccusedgotafullnoticethatitwasnot'obligatory'
or'compulsory'or'binding'onhimtomakeaconfession.Inmyopinion,
thewordAnivarya(vfuok;Z) cannotbegiventhemeaningsoughttobe
suggestedbythelearneddefenceAdvocatefortheaccusedinthecross
examination. I, therefore, hold that the word Anivarya(vfuok;Z) and
Bandhankarak (ca/kudkjd) connotes the same meaning. The word
Anivarya (vfuok;Z) is synonym for word Bandhankarak (ca/kudkjd) and
viceversa. Therefore,inmyviewtheobjectiononthiscountcannotbe
sustained.
214]
Thenextobjectionisaboutinsufficienttimegrantedto
207
takingtheadvantageofthisshortreflectionperiodgrantedbytheOfficer
PW12DCPShriKarale,submittedthatPW12wasinatearinghurryto
completetherecordingoftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalembecausehis
policecustodywasexpiringon03/01/2006andthePoliceOfficerswere
apprehensivethaton03/01/2006theCourtmightnotextendthepolice
custody of the accused and, therefore, this exercise was undertaken in
tearinghurry. Itissubmittedthatbecauseofthis,thedecisionmaking
process of the accused was severely affected and the accused was
immenselyprejudicedbythisact.
215]
decisioninthecaseof RanjitSinghaliasJitaandothersvs.Stateof
Punjabreportedin2004SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1253, submitted
that when the officer had decided to grant cooling off period to the
accusedtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeconfessionandoverthecrime,
heshouldhavegrantedhim24hourscoolingofftime.Itisnecessaryto
seethelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthiscase
anditsapplicabilitytothecaseonhand. InthiscasebeforetheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiatherecordingofficerhadgrantedonlyhalfanhour
to the accused to think over before recording confessional statement.
Whileaddressingthisissue,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
that in case the recording officer of the confessional statement on
administeringthestatutorywarningtotheaccusedformsabeliefthatthe
accusedshouldbegrantedsometimetothinkoverthematter,itbecomes
obligatoryonhimtograntreasonabletimeforthepurposetotheaccused.
208
208
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia hasheldthat,inotherwords,the
coolingtimethatisgrantedhastobereasonable. Whattimeshouldbe
grantedwouldofcoursedependuponthefactsandcircumstancesofeach
case.Itisfurtherheldthat,atthesametime,however,whenthetimeto
thinkoverisgrantedthatcannotbeamerefarceforthesakeofgranting
time. Inagivencase,dependingonfacts,therecordingofficerwithout
grantinganytimemaystraightawayproceedtorecordtheconfessional
statement but if he thinks it appropriate to grant time, it cannot be a
mechanicalexerciseforcompletingaformality.
216]
Advocatefortheaccusedtosubstantiatethepointofinadequacyofcooling
off time granted to the accused and prejudice caused to the accused
therebyisinthecaseofAdambhaiSulemanbhaiAjmeri&Ors.v.State
of Gujarat reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2627(S.C.). In this case
beforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia15minutesreflectionperiod
wasgrantedbytheofficertotheaccusedbeforerecordingtheconfession.
In Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri v. State of Gujarat the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasconsideredthedecisioninthecaseofStateof
Rajasthan vs. Ajit Singh and others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme
CourtCases601. InthecaseofStateofRajasthanvs.AjitSinghand
othersreportedin(2008)1SupremeCourtCases601,15to30minutes
cooling off period was granted to the accused before recording their
confessions.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthesaiddecisionhas
heldthatconsideringthelongperiodofpolicecustody,15to30minutes
209
209
periodwouldnotbesufficientcoolingoffperiod. Inviewofthisfactual
position,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaobservedinthecaseofState
ofRajasthanvs.AjitSinghandothers reportedin (2008)1Supreme
CourtCases601,thatsufficientcoolingofftimehadnotbeengiventothe
accusedinthebackgroundthattheyhadbeeninpolicecustodyforlong
periodoftime. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasconsideredthe
decisioninthecaseof RanjitSinghaliasJitaandothersvs.Stateof
Punjab reportedin 2004SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1253,citedsupra,
WhileconsideringthedecisioninthecaseofStateofRajasthanvs.Ajit
Singh and others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 601, a
referencehasalsobeenmadetothedecisioninthecaseofSarwanSingh
vs.StateofPunjab reportedin AIR1957SupremeCourt637. Inthe
caseofSarwanSinghvs.StateofPunjabreportedinAIR1957Supreme
Court637,theMagistratehadgrantedhalfanhourtimetotheaccusedto
thinkoverandsoonthereafterrecordedtheconfessionalstatement. The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthecaseofSarwanSinghvs.Stateof
Punjab reported in AIR 1957SupremeCourt 637, has observed that
whilegrantingreflectiontime,itisnecessarytobearinmindthatthemind
oftheaccusedshouldbecompletelyfreedfromanypossibleinfluenceof
thepoliceandtheeffectivewayofsecuringsuchfreedomfromfeartothe
accusedpersonistosendhimtojailcustodyandgivehimadequatetime
toconsiderwhetherheshouldmakeaconfessionatall.InSarwanSingh
vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 Supreme Court 637, the
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasfurtherheldthatitwouldnaturallybe
difficulttolaydownanyhardandfastruleastothetimewhichshouldbe
210
210
allowedtoanaccusedpersoninanygivencase.
217]
Itisnownecessarytoseewhetherthis10to12hours
cooling off period granted to accused Abu Salem was sufficient or not.
Neither the TADA (P) Act nor the Rules framed under the TADA Rules
provideforgrantofcoolingoffperiodtotheaccused.However,inorderto
erasetheimpressiononthemindoftheaccusedcreatedduringthecourse
ofpolicecustody,itisnecessarytogranttotheaccusedadequatecooling
offperiodtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeconfessionofthecrime.
218]
Inthiscase,afterpreliminaryenquiry,PW12DCPShri
KaraleinformedaccusedAbuSalemthathehadmadeuphismindtogrant
himcoolingoffperiodtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeconfession and
thecrime, andaskedhimabouttheperiodhewouldwantforreflection
over his decision to make a confession. The record reveals that the
accused stated before the officer that half an hour to one hour period
wouldbesufficienttothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeconfessionandthe
crime. It has to be presumed that considering the long period of the
custody of the accused, the officer PW12 DCP Shri Karale thought it
appropriatetogranttotheaccusedabitlongerperiodtothinkoverhis
decision to make confession and accordingly granted almost 10 to 12
hourscoolingofftime.Itmayfurtherbenotedthatbeforeconcludingthe
proceeding, the officer PW12 DCP Shri Karale specifically informed
him(AbuSalem)thathereinafterhewouldbeinhiscustodyandnotin
thecustodyoftheATSOfficers,whohadarrestedhim.Thefactsrecorded
211
211
inthefirstpartoftheconfessionandinthesecondpartoftheconfession
prima facie proved that PW12 DCP Shri Karale after production of
accused Abu Salem before him ensured that the accused is made
comfortableandfreeatmosphereiscreatedbeforeproceedingfurtherto
recordconfessionoftheaccused.Itisseenonperusalofallthequestions
askedtoaccusedAbuSalemduringthepreliminaryproceedingbyPW12
DCPShriKaralethathe(DCPShriKaralePW12)assuredtotheaccused
that he could think over his decision to make a confession without
botheringtheinvestigatingAgencyandthenatureofthecustody.Iftwo
hoursorthreehourshadbeengrantedinthiscase,thenwithcertainty,the
saidperiodcouldhavebeensaidtobeinadequateperiod.Butinthiscase
the officer has ensured that the accused is granted sufficient reflection
time.PW12DCPShriKaralegrantedalmost12hourstotheaccusedasa
coolingoffperiodtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeaconfession.Itmay
benotedthatduringthecourseofcrossexamination,thoroughenquiry
wasmadebytheAdvocate.Itisseenonperusaloftheanswersgivenby
thiswitnessatPageNo.233Para16andPage247Para43thatthewitness
withstoodthesearchingcrossexaminationandjustifiedbygivingrational
answersthat10to12hoursgrantedbyhimwasreasonableandsufficient
period.Inthebackdropoftheevidencebroughtonrecord,thefactsand
circumstancesofthiscaseandalsothefactthataccusedAbuSalemisa
hardcore criminal, 10 to 12 hours cooling off period was more than
sufficientforthisaccusedtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeconfessionand
overthecrime.
212
219]
212
213
Inviewofthefactsandcircumstancesandtheevidencebroughtonrecord,
inmyhumbleopinion,thepropositionoflawlaiddownintheJudgments
relied upon bythe learnedAdvocate for the accusedis of nohelp and
assistancetothecaseoftheaccused.
220]
Inordertocometoaappropriateconclusiononthispoint,itis
necessarytoseetheevidenceofPW12DCPShriKarale. Therelevant
214
214
crossexaminationisatPage235Para19. PW12DCPShriKaralehas
admittedthatthecertificateofscribeoftheconfessionalstatementshould
beimmediatelyatthefootoftheconfessionalstatementitself. Hehas
admittedthatmorethanhalfofthelastpageofconfessionalstatementat
Exhibit387isblank.Hehasadmittedinallfairnessthatitwaspossible
tocommencethewritingofcertificateonthepagewhichboresignatureof
accusedandhissignature. Thewitnessmadeavoluntarystatementand
placed the explanation on record for undertaking the exercise in this
manner. Hehasstatedthattheblankspaceonthelastpagewasnot
sufficienttocontaintheentirecertificatethereforethecertificateiswritten
ontheseparatepage.Hehasadmittedthatevenbackofthelastpageof
confessionalstatementofaccusedAbuSalemisblank.Itisseenthatthis
explanation given by the witness appears to be probable. Taking
advantageofthissituation,asuggestionhasbeenputtothiswitnessthat
this certificate is blindly copied by him from the proforma and other
already concocted documents and simply tagged to the papers of the
confessionalstatement.Thissuggestioncannotbeaccepted.
222]
IfPW12DCPShriKaraleintendedtocopythecertificate,he
could have done it on the backside of the last page of the confession.
However,accordingtothedefence,thewitnesshascopiedtheconfessional
statementonthebasisofthedraftpreparedbytheATSOfficers. There
wasnohurdleforhimtocopythecertificateonthebacksideofthelast
pageoftheconfession.Therefore,inmyview,thissuggestiondoesnotfit
properlyintheteethofthefactsandevidencebroughtonrecordandmore
215
215
particularlytheexplanationofferedbythewitness. Onthecontrary,this
vindicatesthestandoftheprosecutionthatnohankypankywasallowed
by PW12 DCP Shri Karale while recording confession of accused Abu
Salem. PW12hasnotcommittedanywrongormistakebywritingthe
certificate on a separate page. This fact would also vindicate the
contentionoftheprosecutionthattherecordwasnotmanipulated. Ifit
wasacaseofmanipulation,thenbyputtingmorethanoneheadstogether
theywouldhavegivenadeeperthoughttosuchaseparatecertificateona
separatepageandwouldhavemadePW12DCPShriKaraletowritethe
certificateatleastonthebacksideofthelastpageoftheconfessionof
accusedAbuSalem.Itmaybementionedthatmerelybecauseofthefact
thatthecertificateisonaseparatepage,thedoubt/objectionraisedbythe
defencecannotbeaccepted.
223]
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemisnotvoluntaryandwasnotrecordedin
afreeatmosphere,learnedAdvocateShriPasbolapointedoutcertainother
circumstances.Itispointedoutthatthisaccusedwasinthecustodyofthe
ATSOfficersfrom24/11/2005till31/12/2005. Asperthecaseofthe
prosecution, he did not express the desire to confess the crime till
31/12/2005.Itispointedoutthatbetween24/11/2005till31/12/2005
allsortsofmethodswereappliedtopressurizethisaccusedtosuccumbto
thedesireoftheATSOfficers.Itispointedoutthataspertheorderofthis
Court, accused Abu Salem was taken to Bengluru on 28/12/2005 for
conductingNarcoAnalysis,BrainMappingandLieDetectorTests.Allthe
216
216
217
Inthiscasethereisnoevidencetoshowthatthesenses
oftheaccusedwasaffectedbyinjectingthedrugsandchemicalsinhis
bodyduringthecourseofthosetests. Thedrugsandchemicalsinjected
duringthecourseofthosetestsareunderthesupervisionoftheexpert.It
iscommonknowledgethatoverdoseofchemicalsanddrugscanaffect
one'ssensesbuttheeffectofthesamesubsideswithin24hours.Inthis
case, the expert, who had conducted the tests on accused Abu Salem,
wouldnothaveadministeredextradoseofchemicalsanddrugstomake
theaccusedtolosehissensesandpushhimattheedgeofenteringina
'Coma'likesituation.Therefore,iftheaccusedhadexpressedhisdesireto
confessthecrimeon31/12/2005duringthecourseofhisinterrogation,
after coming back from Bengluru to Mumbai in the morning of
31/12/2005 could not be a ground to sustain the submission that the
accusedwasnotinhisfullsensestodecideortothinkrationally.
225]
Itmayfurtherbementionedthattheaccusedwasnot
218
two days to cause production of accused Abu Salem before him for
recordinghisconfession.PW12DCPShriKaralehasgivenaproperand
acceptable explanation. PW12 DCP Shri Karale has stated that on
31/12/2005andon01/01/2006onaccountofcelebrationofNewYear,he
wasbusyinbandobastdutyand,therefore,hecouldnotsparetimefor
recordingconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemeitheron31/12/2005oron
01/01/2006.Thisexplanationcannotbediscardedasexplanationforthe
sakeofexplanation.OnewhoresidesinMumbaiknowstheenthusiasmof
thepeopleandthenatureofcelebration ontheeveofNewYear. The
policehastokeeproundtheclockvigiltoavoidanyuntowardincident
eitheron31stDecemberor1stJanuaryofNewYear.IftheDCPShriKarale
PW12wasplayinginthehandsoftheATSOfficers,assubmittedbythe
defence,then,hecouldhavekeptallhisbandobastandotherassignments
asideandmadehimselfavailabletorecordconfessionoftheaccused.Itis
crystalclearthatthisfactindicatesthattheDCPShriKaralePW12was
not acting under the thumb of the ATS Officers. The accused was
produced before the DCP Shri Karale(PW12) on 02/01/2006 at 10.30
a.m..Itmaybenotedatthisstagethat,therefore,therewasnoquestion
ofsubsistenceoftheeffectsofthechemicalsanddrugsinjectedinthebody
of accusedAbuSalem toaffecthis senses. Theaccusedonproduction
beforeDCPShriKarale(PW12)couldhavestatedthaton31/12/2005
duringthecourseofinterrogationhecouldnotthinkrationallyduetohis
senses being affected as a result of administration of the drugs and
chemicalsinhisbodyduringthe tests. Theaccuseddidnotmakeany
grievancebeforePW12DCPShriKarale.Therefore,onthispointalsoI
219
219
Now,inordertoconsidersomeoftheadmissionsgiven
byPW12DCPShriKaraleinhiscrossexamination,itisnecessarytodwell
on those admissions in juxtaposition with the mandatory provisions of
Section15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15oftheTADA
Rules. It is submitted that the conclusion reached by PW12 DCP Shri
Karale that accused Abu Salem was making confession voluntarily is
factually incorrect. It is submitted that PW12 DCP Shri Karale did not
ascertaintheactualpolicecustodyperiodoftheaccused. TheDCPShri
Karale PW12 did not inform the accused that if he decline to make
confessionalstatement,hewouldnotbesentbackinthecustodyofthe
InvestigatingOfficer.TheDCPShriKaralePW12didnotaskaccusedAbu
Salemastowhyhewasmakingconfessionandtenoroftheletterdated
31/12/2005oftheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshi
addressedtoDCPShriKarale(PW12)indicatesthathedirectedtheDCP
ShriKarale(PW12)torecordtheconfessionleavingnooptionwiththe
DCPthantorecordtheconfessionbyhookorcrook.TheDCPShriKarale
did not inform the accused that he was the Officer of the rank of
Superintendent and empowered to record confession u/sec. 15 of the
TADA(P)Act.Itisnecessarytoseetheanswersandtheexplanationgiven
220
220
Itistruethatintheletterdated31/12/2005addressed
221
confessionalstatementoftheaccusedwithoutmakinganyenquirywith
himtoascertainhisdesiretoconfessthecrimevoluntarilyandwithout
giving him cooling off period to think over his decision, then, this
submission would have to be accepted. But the factual situation is
completelydifferentanditjustifiestheanswergivenbyPW12DCPShri
Karale that he did not record confession merely because of the word
'direction'usedintheletter. Hehasstatedthatbeforeundertakingthe
exerciseofrecordingconfessionoftheaccused,heonhisownsatisfied
himselfonthebasis ofhis enquirymadewiththeaccusedthathewas
makingconfessionvoluntarily.
228]
starting actual recording of the confession, PW12 DCP Shri Karale has
specificallystatedthataftermaking enquirywiththe accusedandafter
administeringthestatutorywarningtotheaccused,hewassatisfiedthat
theaccusedwasmakingconfessionvoluntarily.Therefore,inthefactsand
circumstances, much importance cannot be given to this aspect. While
dealingwiththeconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasan,Ihavediscussedin
detail the mandatory requirements the competent officer is required to
observe before recording confession. I have already considered the
decisionsoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaintheCasesonthispoint
i.e.
i)
S.N.Dubev.N.B.Bhoirandothers
(2002)2SupremeCourtCases254(notcitedatbar);
222
ii)
222
Ayyubv.StateofU.P.withAbdulJabbarv.StateofU.P.
2002SupremeCourtCases(Cri)673;
iii)
HardeepSinghv.StateofPunjab
2004ALLMR(Cri)3428(S.C.);
iv)
LillialiasJagdeepSinghv.StateofRajasthan
2005SupremeCourtCases(Cri)822;
v)
Mohd.AyubDarv.StateofJammu&Kashmir
2010(3)SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1350;
Itis,therefore,crystalclearthatbeforerecordingconfessiononthebasisof
his enquiry the officer must be satisfied that the accused is making
confessionvoluntarilywithoutanythreat,coercion,pressure,allurement,
illtreatment,inducement,promise. Inordertocometothatconclusion,
thecompetentofficerhastoadministerstatutorywarning,ascontemplated
u/sec. 15 subsection (2) of the TADA (P) Act. After recording the
confession, the competent officer has to append the
certificate/memorandum, as provided under Rule 15 subrule (3) sub
clause(b)oftheTADARules.Inthiscase,onthebasisoftheevidence,I
havealreadyobservedthatthislegalmandatoryrequirementshavebeen
compliedwithbyPW12DCPShriDattatrayKarale.
229]
AtPage240Para28PW12DCPShriKaralehas
admittedthathehadinformedtheaccusedthathewastheofficerofthe
rank of the Superintendent and empowered to record confession.
223
223
However,hehasansweredthathedidnotdeemitimportanttorecordthis
factintheconfession. AtPage241Para30,PW12DCPShriKaralehas
admittedinthecrossexaminationthathehimselftoldtheaccusedthathe
wasnolongerinthecustodyoftheATSOfficers.Hehasadmittedthathe
didnotasktheaccusedwhenhewasarrestedandwherehewaskept.At
Page243hehasadmittedthatitdidnotoccurtohimthatheshouldask
theaccusedastowhenthethoughtofconfessingthecrimeforthefirst
timeoccurredinhismind.AtPage244Para33PW12DCPShriKaralehas
admittedthathewouldhavehandedovercustodyoftheaccusedtothe
ATS irrespective of whether he had made confession or not. This is
importantadmission.But,thisadmissioncannotbereadoutofcontext.
FirstandforemostthequestiondidnotariseforPW12DCPShriKaraleto
handoverthecustodyoftheaccusedbacktotheATSOfficers.Hekeptthe
accused in his custody and after recording his confession ensured
productionoftheaccusedbeforeaMagistrateasrequiredbyRule15sub
rule(5)oftheTADARules. Thefactsrecordedintheconfessionwould
show that the officer specifically informed the accused that he was no
moreinthecustodyoftheATSOfficers,whohadarrestedhimandthathe
wouldbein his custody. Therecordfurtherrevealsthathe gavestrict
instructionstothe InchargeofBorivaliPoliceStationnottoallowany
thirdpersontomeettheaccusedduringthereflectionperiod.Ithasalso
comeonrecordthatinordertoensurethathisdirectionswerecomplied
withhepaidvisittoBorivaliPoliceStationLockupwheretheaccusedwas
kept. Therefore, in my view, these admissions have to be read in
juxtapositionwiththisfactualsituation.
224
230]
224
AtPage248certainquestionshavebeenaskedtoPW12
DCP Shri Karale to ascertain the precautions taken by him during the
coolingoffperiod. Hehasadmittedthathewasawarethattheaccused
shouldgetsufficientfood,restandsleepbeforerecordinghisconfession.
He has admitted that on the day of the confession the accused was
providedfoodbetween1.30p.m.to2.00p.m.and7.30p.m.to8.00p.m.
HehasadmittedthathegotthisinformationfromPIShriMathadhikari.
He has also admitted that he got this information verified from the
accused. Hehasalsoadmittedinallfairnessthathedidnotrecordthis
informationintheproceedingoftheconfessionbecausehedidnotdeemit
importantorrelevant. Whenthisfactwasnotapartoftherecord,the
crossexaminerwouldhavedecidedwhethertoaskitornot. Thecross
examiner has taken the risk of testing the knowledge and the factual
situationfromPW12DCPShriKarale.PW12DCPShriKaralehasgiven
theanswers.Nowthoseanswersaregivenonoathandassuchhastobe
treatedastheadmissionsinthecrossexamination.Merelybecauseofthe
failure to record the same, now cannot be made the bone of the
contention.
231]
was fully conscious of the seriousness of the matter and he took every
precautiontoensurethatfreeatmospherewascreatedandtheassurance
wasgiventotheaccusedthathewasbeforeanindependentofficer,whois
notconcernedwiththeinvestigationandwasboundtotakecareofallthe
things. This witness was recalled for further crossexamination. The
225
225
thesefactswererequiredtobeincorporatedintheconfessionandoughtto
havebeenrecordedintheconfession,thedecisioninthecaseof S.N.
Dubev. N.B.Bhoirandothers reportedin (2002)2SupremeCourt
Cases 254 (not cited at bar) would not permit me to accept the
submissionsmadeonbehalfoftheaccusedandacceptthatthiswasthe
violation of the mandatory provisions of law and on account of this
violationtheconfessionhastobediscardedintoto.Itis,therefore,seen
thatsatisfactionrecordedbytheofficercannotbedoubted. PW12DCP
ShriKaralewassubjectedtogruelingandsearchingcrossexaminationby
the Criminal Lawyers, who are the best in the profession. The cross
examinercouldnotelicitadmissionsonrecordinhiscrossexaminationto
createdoubtaboutthecredibilityofhisevidencevisavisthecompliance
of the mandatory provisions of law before recording the confession.
Similarly,thecrossexaminercouldnotdemonstratetosuggestthatPW12
DCPShriKaralewasplayinginthehandsofeithertheJointCommissioner
of Police, ATS, Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi or ACP Shri Shengal, the
226
226
AccusedAbuSalemwasa'wantedaccused'inBombay
BombBlastsCase1993.HewasarrestedinPortugal.TheGovernmentof
India was indulged in long drawn legal battle to seek extradition of
accusedAbuSalemtoIndia. AfterextraditionofAbuSalemtoIndia,he
wasshown arrestedinBombayBombBlastsCaseNo.01of1993. Abu
Salem was one of the wanted accused in this case. Therefore, the
InvestigatingOfficerbyadoptingdueprocessoflawprayedforthecustody
ofaccusedAbuSaleminC.R.No.144of1995registeredatD.N.Nagar
227
227
AbuSalemmadeawrittenapplicationandopposedthepolicecustody.It
wasstatedinthesaidapplicationthattherewaseverypossibilityofPolice
Authoritiesusingthirddegreetreatmentinordertoharasstheaccused.
On 24/11/2005 itself the Advocate appearing for the accused made a
second application stating inter alia that Abu Salem does not have
intention to confess the crime and if any such statement is produced
and/orrelieduponbytheprosecution,thesamemaybedeemedtohave
beenobtainedbyforce,andcontrarytothewishesofaccusedAbuSalem.
TheProsecutorfiledthesaytothesaidapplicationcontendingthatthe
Advocatefortheaccusedispresumingcertainthingsandmakingbaseless
allegations.Itis,therefore,apparentonthefaceoftherecordthatonthe
firstdateofhisproductionbeforethisCourton24/11/2005,throughhis
Advocate,accusedAbuSalemmadeitclearthathedidnotwanttoconfess
the crime. The accused was, therefore, acting even during his police
228
228
custodyundertheadviceofhisAdvocate.
236]
Thethirdapplicationmadeon24/11/2005wasmade
toallowtheaccusedtohaveHomefood,Bedding,Medicinesandother
daytoday items. This application was rejected by the Court on the
ground that the accused was in police custody. The last and the most
importantapplicationmadeon24/11/2005istoseekpermissionforthree
AdvocatesnamelyAdvocateMr.A.M.Saraogi,Mr.O.A.SiddiquiandMr.
RashidAnsaritomeetaccusedAbuSalemonceinadayduringhispolice
custody.TheProsecutoropposedthesaidapplicationonthegroundthatit
was an attempt to interfere in the investigation. Considering the
seriousnessofthematterandtheconditionsfortheextraditionofaccused
AbuSalem,thisCourtbyorderdated24/11/2005allowedthisapplication
andgrantedpermissiontooneoftheAdvocates,outofthreeAdvocates
namely Advocates Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Mr. O.A. Siddiqui and Mr. Rashid
Ansari,tovisitBhoiwadaPoliceStationinadaybetween8.00a.m.to8.30
a.m. to take instructions from accused Abu Salem. They were granted
permissiontotalkwiththeaccusedfor15minutes.Itisseenonperusalof
the contents of the application that all possible care was taken by the
AdvocateappearingforaccusedAbuSalemandbythisCourttoensure
thatalltherightsoftheaccusedaretakencareofandtheapprehension
expressedbyhimaboutthirddegreemethodandduresstocompelhimto
makeconfessionisputtorest.
237]
On25/11/2005,AdvocateMr.A.M.Saraogiforaccused
229
229
AbuSalemmadeanapplicationseekingproductionoftheaccusedbefore
this Court, which was registered as M.A. No. 8 of 2005. In this
application,itwasallegedthatatthetimeofvisitofAdvocateMr.Rashid
toaccusedAbuSalem,hefoundthattheaccusedwasseverelybeaten.The
accused was not allowed to sleep. He was not provided food. The
applicationwassupportedbytheAffidavitofAdvocateShriMohammed
Rashid.TheProsecutorfiledthereplytothesaidapplicationanddenied
thecontentsmadeintheapplicationandatthesametimeattachedthe
photocopiesoftherecordofmedicalexaminationoftheaccused.Inorder
toensurethattheaccusedisnotsubjectedtoanyilltreatmentandtorture
duringthecourseofinterrogationandtoverifythecorrectfactualposition,
thisCourtbyorderdated25/11/2005directedtheInvestigatingOfficerto
produceaccusedAbuSalembeforetheCourton29/11/2005at4.00p.m..
The Investigating Officer in compliance with the directions produced
accusedAbuSalembeforethisCourton29/11/2005at4.00p.m.Special
Prosecutor, IO, ACP Shri Dhawale, Advocate Shri Saraogi and Advocate
ShriSiddiquiwerepresentbeforetheCourt. TheroznamaofthisCourt
dated 29/11/2005 would reveal that this Court made enquiry with the
accusedtoverifythecorrectnessofthestatementsmadeintheapplication.
TheaccusedmadeastatementbeforethisCourtthathehasnocomplaint
abouttheeatableprovidedbypoliceandtheplacewherehewasputfor
interrogation.Theroznamafurtherrevealsthatfromthedemeanorofthe
accused,mypredecessorfoundthattheaccusedwantedtotellsomething
to the Court in the absence of the police and the Advocates. My
predecessor,therefore,directedproductionoftheaccusedinthechamber.
230
230
On30/11/2005AdvocateforaccusedAbuSalemmade
231
falseallegationsweremadeintheapplicationwithaviewtochangethe
natureofthecustodyoftheaccused. On02/12/2005theaccusedwas
producedbeforethisCourtat4.10p.m..Theroznamadated02/12/2005
revealsthatthisCourtmadeenquirywiththeaccusedonhisproduction.
Atthattimetheaccuseddidnotmakeanycomplaintofilltreatmentor
tortureatthehandsofpolice.Theapplicationsweredecidedbypassinga
detailorderbythisCourton02/12/2005. ThisCourtdidnotfindany
substanceintheallegationsmadeintheapplicationdated30/11/2005.
This Court taking note of all the facts, granted police custody to the
accusedtill17/12/2005.Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatthe
Advocate appearing for the accused was extra and over cautious. He
placedonrecordallthefactsincludingsomeofthefactscontrarytothe
factualsituation.Italsoindicatesthatintheformofthreelawyersaccused
AbuSalemhadaprotectivecoverandoneverydayfor15minutesoneof
theAdvocateswouldmeethim.ItappearsthattheAdvocateshadcreated
a picture before the Court that the accused was subjected to merciless
beating,illtreatmentandtorture.However,whentheCourtverifiedthis
fact from accused Abu Salem, he did not make any complaint of ill
treatmentortortureatthehandsoftheATSOfficers.
239]
232
09/12/2005,AdvocateShriSaraogimoveddraftbailapplicationandmade
astatementbeforethisCourtthattheaccusedhadinstructedhimtofile
bailapplicationandfurtherrequestedtheCourttodeputeanyofficerof
thisCourttomeetAbuSalemandverifyastowhetherhehasinstructed
hisAdvocatetofilesuchbailapplicationornot. ThisCourtaccordingly
deputed Registrar (Sessions) with the draft bail application to meet
accused Abu Salem and verify whether the accused had instructed the
Advocate to file Bail Application and obtain his signature on the Bail
Application,iftheaccusedispreparedtosignit.TheRegistrar(Sessions)
filedhisreportstatingthatAbuSalemtoldhimthathehadnotinstructed
his Advocate to file bail application and refused to sign the draft bail
application.
240]
On17/12/2005theaccusedwasproducedbeforethis
Courtashispolicecustodywasexpiring. On17/12/2005theAdvocate
appearingfortheaccusedwaspresentintheCourt.On17/12/2005the
accuseddidnotmakeanycomplaintofilltreatment,beatingortortureat
thehandsoftheATSOfficersduringpolicecustody.Afterconsideringthe
prayermadebytheInvestigatingOfficer,theCourtextendedthepolice
custodytill03/01/2006.On17/12/2005hispolicecustodywasexpiring.
Iftheaccusedhadbeenthreatened,illtreated,beatenortorturedatthe
handsoftheATSOfficersduringthecourseofinvestigation,theaccused
couldhavemadeagrievancebeforethisCourt.
241]
233
before the Investigating Officer. The accused Abu Salem was not an
ordinary criminal. Accused Abu Salem took every precaution at every
stage to ensure that he is not deprived of the legal advice. On
23/12/2005theprosecutormadeanapplicationbeforethisCourtseeking
permission of the Court to allow the prosecution to conduct Narco
Analysis, Brain Mapping and Lie Detector Test on accused Abu Salem.
Accused Abu Salem on 22/12/2005 itself had informed this Court
regardinghisconsentforthetestsproposedbytheInvestigatingOfficer.
Byorderdated23/12/2005thisCourtgrantedpermissiontoInvestigating
Agency to take accused Abu Salem either to Pune or to Bengluru for
conducting NarcoAnalysis,BrainMappingandLieDetectorTests. The
accusedAbuSalemwastakentoBengluruon28/12/2005forconducting
thetests.Allthethreetests,accordingtotheprosecution,wereconducted.
However,theresultofthetestswasnegative,inthesensethattheaccused
did not admit his involvement in the crime. Accused Abu Salem was
broughtbacktoMumbaiinthemorningof31/12/2005.
242]
Theaccused,asperthecaseoftheprosecution,during
thecourseofinterrogationintheafternoonbyACPShriShengal(PW22),
expressedhisdesiretoconfessthecrime. ACPShriShengal,therefore,
submittedanotetotheJointCommissionerofPolice,ATS,MumbaiShri
K.P.RaghuwanshiandrequestedfornominationofDCPrankPoliceOfficer
torecordconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem. TheDCPShriKaralePW12
wasnominatedby theJointCommissionerofPolice,ATS,MumbaiShri
K.P. Raghuwanshi to record confession on 31/12/2005. The DCP Shri
234
234
Aftercompletionoftheproceedingbeforethelearned
235
dated03/01/2006wouldrevealthatonhisproductiontheCourtmade
enquiry with accused Abu Salem. The accused did not make any
complaint of illtreatment or torture at the hands of the ATS Officers
duringthecourseofinterrogationaswellasacomplaintofilltreatmentor
torture by DCP Shri Karale PW12 at the time of recording of his
confessionalstatement.Theaccusedwasremandedtojudicialcustodytill
31/01/2006.
244]
noted atthisstage.On10/01/2006,theInvestigatingOfficerACPShri
Shengal(PW22)madeanapplicationbeforethisCourtforgrantingpolice
custodytoaccusedAbuSalemtill22/01/2006.Theaccusedfiledhissayto
this application on 10/01/2006 and opposed the prayer made in the
application by the prosecution. Various contentions were raised in the
reply including the torture and illtreatment meted out to the accused
during the course of interrogation by the Investigating Officer. The
InvestigatingOfficerhadstatedthereasonsintheapplicationforseeking
further police custody of the accused, though accused Abu Salem was
remanded to judicial custody on 03/01/2006. My predecessor, after
hearing the arguments of the learned Prosecutor and the Advocate
appearingfortheaccused,waspleasedtoallowtheapplicationmadeby
the prosecution and granted police custody to accused Abu Salem till
17/01/2006.Mylearnedpredecessorelaboratelydealtwiththeobjections
and the grievance made in the reply by accused Abu Salem. My
predecessordidnotfindsubstanceinthoseobjectionsandgrievancemade
236
236
inthereply. Theorderdated12/01/2006wouldspeakforitselfonthis
issue.On17/01/2006accusedAbuSalemwasproducedagainbeforethis
Courtandhewasremandedtojudicialcustodytill31/01/2006. From
31/01/2006judicialcustodyoftheaccusedwasextendedfromtimeto
time till filing of the supplementary chargesheet on 28/04/2006. It,
therefore,appearsonrecordthatbeforefilingchargesheet,accusedAbu
Salemdidnotmakeanygrievanceaboutilltreatmentandtortureeitherat
thehandsoftheATSOfficersduringthecourseofinterrogationoratthe
handsofDCPShriKarale(PW12)whilerecordinghisconfession. The
abovestatedfactsareveryrelevantandgototherootoftheaspectofthe
voluntaryandtruenatureoftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.
245]
Alltheabovestatedadmittedfactscoupledwiththe
consistent and cogent evidence of PW12 DCP Shri Karale indicate that
accused Abu Salem was not forced, illtreated, tortured, pressurized,
coerced, lured, promised, beaten etc. to confess the crime. It may be
mentionedatthisstagethateverystepandactionofaccusedAbuSalem
duringthecourseofhisinterrogationbytheATSOfficerswasunderthe
legaladviceand,therefore,itwasverycarefulandmeasured.Duringthe
course of his police custody, every day for 15 minutes in the morning
between8.00a.m.to8.30a.m.oneAdvocatewasallowedtomeetaccused
AbuSalem.Itisseenonperusaloftherecordandundisputedfactsthat
theenthusiasmandtheconcernaboutaccusedAbuSalemexpressedby
theAdvocatewasmorethantheoneexpressedbyaccusedAbuSalemfor
himself. Therecordrevealsthatwheneversuchgrievanceorallegation
237
237
wasmadebytheAdvocateforaccusedAbuSalembeforethisCourt,this
CourtcountercheckeditbysummoningaccusedAbuSalembeforethis
Court. But the accused did not stand by the grievance made by his
Advocateaboutilltreatment,tortureandbeatingtohimatthehandsof
theATSOfficers.Itmaybementionedthatwiththiskindoflegaladvice
andtosomeextentassurancecreatedinthemindoftheaccusedbythis
Court by ensuring his safety, this accused would not have hesitated to
makeagrievanceofilltreatment,torture,coercion,pressure,allurement
etc.bytheATSOfficersduringthecourseofinterrogation. Hehadan
opportunity to make a complaint/grievance of illtreatment, torture,
coercion, pressure, allurement, beating, inducement, promise etc.
wheneverhewasproducedbeforethisCourt.Buttherecordrevealsthat
hedidnotdoso.
246]
Itmayfurtherbenotedatthisstagethatevenlateron
whenhestartedmakingthegrievance,hefailedtoexplainastowhyhe
did not feel it appropriate and comfortable to make a grievance of ill
treatment, torture, coercion, pressure, allurement, beating, inducement,
promise etc. by the Investigating Officer during the course of his
interrogation.Itmaybementionedthatwiththiskindoflegaladviceon
everydaytheaccusedwasplacedinaadvantageousposition. Whenthe
accusedwasbroughtbackfromBanglurutoMumbai,hehadameeting
withhislawyerinthemorning. Ithastobepresumedthattheaccused
andhislawyerwouldhavedeliberatedontheeventsoccurredbetween
28/12/2005 to 31/12/2005. It may be noted that despite this legal
238
238
advice,accusedAbuSalemdecidedtoconfessthecrime. Inthisfactual
background, wecangettheanswerforthechangeofmindbyaccused
AbuSalemtoconfessthecrime.Alltheabovestatedfactswouldsuggest
that the accused desired to confess the crime due to sheer remorse,
repentance and contrition. It may be noted that ghost of the crime
committedbyaccusedalwaysdwellinhisheartandmind. Ahardened
criminalisnotademon. Heisahumanbeing.Suchacrimecommitted
evenbyahardenedcriminalbecomesaburdentocarryonforalongtime.
In this case, the crime was not a simple murder by any standard. By
committingmurder,theentirefamilyanditsdreamswereshatteredand
destroyed.Theaccusedduringthecourseofhispolicecustodycouldhave
visualizedthe plightof the widowofPradeepJainandbrutalityof the
crimecommittedbyhim.ThelossofPradeepJainwaspermanentlossto
thefamily. Thiscouldbetheonlyreasonablejudicialinferenceforthis
accusedtoexpresshisdesiretoconfessthecrimedespitehavingthebest
possible legaladvice on daytodaybasis. Therefore,Ido not see any
admissiononthepartofPW12DCPShriKaraletocreatedoubtaboutthe
voluntarynatureoftheconfession.Similarly,PW12DCPShriKaralewhile
recording the confession complied with all the mandatory provisions of
Section15oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15oftheTADARules.Thereare
certainthingswhichhecouldhaveplacedonrecord,but,inthebackdrop
ofthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainCaseS.N.
Dubev.N.B.Bhoirandothers reportedin (2002)2SupremeCourt
Cases254(notcitedatbar),thiscannotgototherootofthematterand
vitiatetheentireproceeding.
239
247]
239
Thereisonemorecircumstancetodrawaconclusion
thattheconfessionofAbuSalemisvoluntaryandtrue.Itisthedefenceof
the accused that the Investigating Officer had brought the text of the
confessionandPW12DCPShriKaralesimplycopiedthecontentsinhis
handwritingonpapersandthesamewassignedbyaccusedAbuSalem
and he himself put his signature on the same. Learned Advocate Shri
Pasbola,onthebasisofsomeoftheadmissionsgivenbyPW12DCPShri
Karale, drew my attention towards some of the lacunas and the non
compliance of certain requirements during the course of recording of
confessionbyPW12DCPShriKarale.Thisdefenceintheteethoflacunas
anddefectspointedoutfallsflat.Iftheconfessionwasalreadyprepared
bytheATSOfficers,thentheywouldhavetakeneverycarenottoleavea
singlelacunaordefectintheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.Therefore,
on the basis of the evidence and the facts obtained on record, the
possibility of the defence of the accused being acceptable has been
completelyruledout.Onperusalofthecrossexamination,itisseenthat
theanswersgiveninthecrossexaminationbyPW12DCPShriKaraleare
consistent. PW12 DCP Shri Karale weathered the storm of searching
crossexamination.Ifthecasewasassuggested,thenatsomeplace,the
crossexaminerwouldhavecaughtPW12DCPShriKaraleunaware.The
answersgivenbyPW12DCPShriKaraleinhiscrossexaminationarevery
straightforward. The admissions given by him in his crossexamination
clearlyspeakaboutPW12DCPShriKaraleactingindependentlywithout
havinghandingloveswiththeInvestigatingOfficer.Ifthecasehadbeen,
assuggestedbythedefence,thenPW12DCPShriKaralewouldhavebeen
240
240
definitelycaughtsomewhereonsomepointstouchingtherecordingofthe
confessionofaccusedAbuSalembyhim.Independentappreciationand
assessmentofevidenceofPW12DCPShriKarale,certainundisputedfacts
notedaboveandrelevantpartoftheconfessionat Exhibit387 indicate
that the accused made the confession voluntarily without any threat,
coercion, illtreatment, undue influence, promise, inducement, pressure,
allurement,torture,beatingetc.
248]
241
factswasdisclosedbyPW9JyotiJainforthefirsttimeinherstatement.
This is one more factor to negative the defence of the accused about
concoctionordraftingofhis(AbuSalem)confessionbytheATSOfficers
onthebasisofthematerialandevidencecollectedduringthecourseof
investigation.Itmaybementionedthatthisimportantfactwouldgoto
therootoftheaspectofthevoluntarynatureoftheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalem.Inthebackdropoftheabovestatedfacts,onecanpositively
saythattheevidenceofDCPShriDattaKarale(PW12)isworthcredible
andacceptableonthepointofthedisclosureofallthefactsbeforehimby
accusedAbuSalemvisavisvoluntarynatureoftheconfession.
249]
Beforeproceedingtoconsidertheactualconfessionof
accusedAbuSalem,itisnecessarytobrieflyseetheevidenceofPW22
ACPShriShengalandcompletelyruleoutthepossibilityofanytorture,
inducement, threat, pressure, coercion, illtreatment, undue influence,
promise, allurement, beating etc. being applied by PW22 ACP Shri
Shengalandasaresultthereof,accusedAbuSalemconfessedthecrime.
PW22 ACP Shri Shengal has admitted at Page 462 that no important
evidencecouldbediscoveredbyconductingthosetests.Hehasadmittedat
Page465thathedidnotproducetheaccusedbeforeMagistratetorecord
theconfessionbecauseunderTADA(P)Acttheconfessionisrecordedby
DCP.Ihaveminutelyperusedhiscrossexaminationtouchingtheaspectof
the confession of accused Abu Salem. On going through his cross
examination, I do not see any material being elicited in his cross
examination tosubstantiate the case of the defence that the confession
242
242
madebyaccusedAbuSalemwasnotvoluntaryanditwasthenetresultof
torture, inducement, threat, pressure, coercion, illtreatment, undue
influence, promise, allurement, beating etc. at the hands of the
InvestigatingOfficer.Inviewoftheabovesaidappreciationandanalysis
oftheevidence,Iamoftheopinionthattheprosecutionhasprovedthat
accusedAbuSalemmadetheconfessionvoluntarilywithoutanytorture,
inducement, threat, pressure, coercion, illtreatment, undue influence,
promise,allurement,beatingeitherbytheInvestigatingOfficerorbyDCP
ShriKaralePW12. Itisnownecessarytoseetheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalemtofindoutthetruthfulnessandalsovoluntarynatureofthe
same.Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatlateronaccusedAbu
Salembymakingaseparateapplicationretractedhisconfession.Whether
theretractionisafterthoughtornotisanimportantissueandthatwillbe
dealtwithlateronasstatedabove.
250]
confession made by accused Abu Salem and the facts disclosed by the
accused relating tothis crime. Accused Abu Salem is the main master
mindinthiscrime.AccusedAbuSalemwasabsconding.Hewasawanted
accusedinBombayBombBlastsCase01of1993.Attherelevanttimehe
wasabscondingandhadsettledinDubai. Onthebasisoftheevidence
broughtonrecorditappearsthatDubaiappearstobetheheavenandthe
safe place for the hardcore criminals, who are absconding in major
TerroristsCasesinIndia.DespiteabscondingandhavingbasedinDubai,
accusedAbuSalemdidnotstophisactivities.Itmaybementionedatthis
243
243
stagethatMumbaiisacommercialcapitalofIndia.AccusedAbuSalem,a
onetimevillageboy,lefthisvillageinsearchofsomepettyjobinthis
wonderfulMetropolis.Itcanbeseenthatafterlandinghisfootonthesoil
ofMumbaiandaftergettingthefeelofglitteraty,itappearsthathestarted
dreaminghighandmighty.Withthepassingmonthandyears,itappears
that brick by brick he established his 'Empire' as a 'Underworld Don'.
Cuttingthisdiscussionshort,itisnecessarytoseethebroadspectrumof
his confessional statement. The broad spectrum of the confession of
accusedAbuSalemcanbesummarizedasfollows.
251]BROADSPECTRUMOFCONFESSIONOFABUSALEM
i)
Since1990,hecameincontactwithAzizBilakia,whowas
engagedinsmugglingofgoldandHawalaracketandstarted
sellinggoldandgotinvolvedinpassportandVisawork.He
alsocameincontactwithoneAbuKalamandthroughhim,he
becameveryclosetoaccusedMohd.Hasan@Sunny,who
lateronstartedworkingashisdriveronMaruti800car.
ii)
HestartedhisofficeinHasnabadLaneinSantacruz,where
Ali Dadhi, Riyaz Siddiqui,accusedMohd.Hasan@Sunny,
NaeemT.R.(Approverinthiscase)andShaukatKadia would
frequentthere.Hewouldreceivephonecallsinthis
office
fromAneesIbrahimandAzizBilakia.
iii)
InMarch,1993afterserialbombblastinMumbai,asperthe
244
244
informationreceivedfromAzizBilakiaonphone,heranaway
from Mumbai alongwith his wife Samira Jumani and first
went tohisnativetownandfromnativetown,wenttoDubai
inNovember,1993.
iv)
AftergoingtoDubai,hestartedresidingatthehouseofAziz
BilakiaandwasvisitingAneesKaskar'sofficesituatedinPearl
Building, 12th floor, Deira, Dubai. He and Anees were
threateningpeopleinMumbaiandusedtoextortmoneyfrom
themandSunny@MehendiHasanandhiscompanionswere
assistinghiminthesecrimes. Hisofficewasequippedwith
twotelephoneconnections,havingNo.009714242939and
009714226670.
v)
vi)
HewasgivingdescriptionofaccusedSunnytothepersons
deliveringgoods.SalimHaddiandHasanAli@Sunnyused
tomakephonecallstohimfromChembur.Heusedtokillthe
245
245
personswhowouldfailtopaymoneytohimbyfiringthrough
hismen. NaeemT.R.(Approver)wassendingtheextorted
moneytooneAbdullaofDunccanRoadthroughDr.Arshad
andthesaidAbdullausedtosendthismoneyinDubaitohim
and Anees. He used to collect the said Hawala money in
DubaialongwithVinuVerma,witnessinthiscase(PWNo.3).
vii)
Hehasadmittedthathehascausedkillingofseveralpersons
inMumbaithroughhisshooters.
viii)
ix)
ThecoaccusedRiyazSiddiquiwasstayinginDubaiandused
tocometohisofficeandnarratethedisputeaboutKolDongri
plot and had also provided to him the telephone number
(6201996)ofAshokJain,brotherofthedeceasedPradeep
Jain.OnbeinginformedaboutthisdisputebyRiyazSiddiqui,
hetoldRiyazSiddiquitocallShaukatKadiatoDubai.
x)
InNovember,1994SalimHaddicametoDubaiandstarted
residingwithhimandSunnyandheintroducedSalimHaddi
toRiyazSiddiquiandShaukatKadia.
xi)
ShaukatMistryusedtotellhimthataplotofSubedarsingh
246
246
YadavatKolDongriwaspurchasedbyAshokJain,ownerof
KamlaConstructionsbymakingmeagerpaymenttomilkmen
andhaveconstructed3to4buildingsandwasalsoinsisting
allthosemilkmentovacateremaininglandwithoutpaying
anyconsiderationtothem.ShaukatMistryalsoinformedhim
that,ifthesaidlandwastakeninpossessionandsoldtosome
other builder, the accused Abu Salem would get profit of
croresofrupees.
xii)
xiii)
Inthemeetingadecisionwasaccordinglytakenandthejobof
eachonewaschalkedout.ItwasdecidedthatAbuSalemand
AneeswillthreatenJainbrothersonphone.RiyazSiddiqui,
coaccusedwillcreateterrorinthemindofJainbrothersby
makingphonecallstothemandtellingthemhowdangerous
Abu Salem is and advising Jain brothers to follow his
instructions.
xix)
ItwasdecidedinthemeetingthatShaukatMistrywouldmeet
JainbrothersalongwithNaeemKhan(Approver)inMumbai
and would convey all the details and information to Abu
Salem.Itwasalsodecidedthatincaseofanyneed,accused
247
247
personswillattackanyoftheJainbrothers.
xv)
xvi)
Aspertheirplan,hestartedthreateningAshokJainandhis
brothersonphone.RiyazSiddiquiwasmakingphonecallsto
JainbrothersandwaskeepingAbuSaleminformedaboutit
and was advising Jain brothers to follow Abu Salem's
commands.
xvii)
xviii)
InthelastweekofJanuary,1995,he(AbuSalem)madea
phonecalltoNaeemi.eApproverandinformedhimabouthis
talkwithAshokJainandinstructedNaeemtocollectRs.10
lakhs per month from Ashok Jain. Pursuant to this
information, Naeem T.R. (Approver) collected Rs.10 lakhs
fromAshokJainandinformedAbuSalemaboutthereceiptof
thisamount.
xix)
AbuSalemadvisedNaeemT.R.tokeepRs.2lakhsandsend
remainingRs.8lakhsbyHawalathroughoneAbdullaat
DunccanRoad.
248
xx)
248
InJanuary,AshokJainpaidRs.10lakhs,buthedidnotpay
furtherinstallmentsand,therefore,heandAneeswere
repeatedlymakingphonecallstoAshokJain.StillAshokJain
wasavoidingtopaymoneyononepretextortheother.Inthe
lastweekofFebruary,1995,hemadeaphonecalltoAshok
Jainathisresidence,whichwaspickedupbyawoman
andlateronitwastransferredtoPradeepJainand,
thereafter, PradeepJainabusedAbuSalem.WhenPradeep
JainabusedAbuSalemonphone,AbuSalemalsothreatened
andabused him.Whenthisincidenttookplaceinhisoffice,
RiyazSiddiquiwasalsopresentthere.
xxi)
Afterthisincidentofphonecall,heandAneesdecidedtokill
PradeepJainsothattheremainingamountwouldbe
recoveredaswellastheirterrorwillbecreatedinthemindsof
thepersonsfromfilmandbuildingconstructionlineandtheir
tradeofextortingmoneywouldbecomeeasy.
xxii)
On1stor2ndMarch,hesendmessageonpagerofNaeemTR.
andwhenNaeemT.R.contactedhim,hemadeaninquiry
withNaeemastowhoPradeepJainwasandwhenNaeem
T.R.explainedhimaboutPradeepJain,heimmediatelysent
pagermessagetoSunny.WhenSunnymadeaphonecallto
himfromKolpahur,heinstructedSunnytocometoMumbai
andcontactSalimHaddiandthencontacthiminDubai.
249
xxiii)
249
HeinformedMehendiHasan@SunnythatAshokJain's
brotherPradeepJainwastobekilled.OnthenextdaySunny
andSalimHaddimadeaphonecalltohimandheinstructed
bothofthemthatPradeepJainwastobeeliminatedasper
theplanandinstructedthemtomakeapreparationforthat.
xxiv)
HeinstructedSunnytogotoHotelMotiMahal,S.V.Road,
AndheriandmeetNaeemT.R.(Approver)andtakemoney
fromhim.HealsosimultaneouslyinformedNaeemT.R.to
meetSunnyinHotelMotiMahalat4.00p.m.andgivehim
money.
xxv)
Asperhisinstructions,NaeemT.R.(Approver)paidRs.1lakh
toSunnyandconfirmeditbymakingaphonecall.Onthe
nextday,MehendiHasan@Sunnycalledhimandhe
instructedSunnytotakethedeliveryofweaponsfrom
ShalimarHotel,BhendiBazar.Sunnydiditaccordinglyand
informedhimaboutthereceiptoftheweaponsonphone.
xxvi)
HetheninstructedMehendiHasan@SunnytogotoRamdev
HotelatSionandhandovertheweaponstoSalimHaddi.He
alsoinformedSalimHadditogotoRamdevHotel,Sionto
collecttheweaponsfromMehendiHasan@Sunny.Inthe
eveningofthesameday,MehendiHasan@Sunnyagain
madeaphonecalltoAbuSalemandaskedforapersonwho
wouldassistSalimHaddiinidentifyingPradeepJain.
250
xxvii)
250
AbuSaleminstructedMehendiHasan@Sunnytocallhim
aftersometimeandinthemeanwhileheinstructedRiyaz
SiddiquionphonetoaskShaukatKadiatomeetSalimHaddi
inAndheriandpointoutPradeepJain.RiyazSiddiqui
conveyedthismessageofAbuSalemtoShaukatKadia.
xxviii)
On7thMarch,1995,SalimHaddimadeaphonecallto Abu
SalemlatenightandinformedAbuSalemthatalongwithhis
aideshavekilledPradeepJaininhisoffice.Ongettingthis
information,heinstructedSalimHadditocallhimagainon
nextdayalongwithSunny.
xxix)
OnthenextdayofmurderofPradeepJain,MehendiHasan
@ Sunny, coaccused called him again and he instructed
SunnytogotoHotelMotiMahalalongwithSunilNairand
RajeshIgawe(whohadpumpednearabout17bulletsinthe
bodyofPradeepJain)andmeetNaeemT.R.(Approver).On
the other hand, he also made a phone call to Naeem TR.
(Approver) andinstructedhimtogiveRs.1lakhtoSunnyat
HotelMoti Mahal and after some time both the persons
informedAbuSalemonphoneaboutreceiptofmoney.
xxx)
AfterthedeathofPradeepJain,heagainstartedthreatening
Ashok Jain on phone for making the payment of the
remainingamount.AshokJainusedtotellhimthathehad
251
251
nomoneyandwouldpaywheneveritwaspossible.AsAshok
Jainbecamesick,hisbrotherSunilJain(PWNo.13)started
interactingwithhimandhestartedaskingSunilJaintopay
money. Sunil Jain was not able to make arrangement of
moneyinspiteofrepeateddemandsand,therefore,Abu
Salemtoldhimtosellwhateverpropertytheyhavethrough
hisnomineeandsendmoneytohim.
xxxi)
InMarch/April,1996,SunilJaininformedAbuSalemthat
theyhaveabuildingnamelyMamtaCooperativeSocietyin
SherEPunjab Colony, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri, and
he would sell flat Nos.602, 605 and 606 and forward
moneytohimandalsoaskedhimtosendsomepersonstosee
andsellthoseflats.
xxxii)
Samruddhi,JVPDScheme,Juhuandinstructedhimaboutthe
transactionsoftheflats.
xxxiii)
HeinformedNaeemT.R.(Approver)onphonetotakesaid
V.K.JhambtotheofficeofSunilJainandalsoprovidedthe
address of Jhamb to Naeem T.R. Accordingly,Naeem T.R.
andJhamb metSunilJainandinspectedflatsandinformed
himthattheflatscouldfetchgoodprice,whereuponhetold
252
252
Jhambtoselltheflatsasearlyaspossible.Healsoinformed
Sunil Jain to sell the flats and immediately handover the
moneytoJhamb.
xxxiv)
xxxv)
252]
ItmaybenotedthattheconfessionofaccusedAbu
253
alsonarrateshisassociationwithmorethanonecriminalsincludingthe
accused involved in this case and his association with wanted accused
AneesIbrahimKaskarandhisbrotherDawoodIbrahim.Inthispartofthe
confession he specifically narrates his acquaintance with the Approver
NaeemKhan,accusedMehendiHasanandotherwantedaccusedandthe
accused,whohavealreadybeentriedinthiscrime.
253]
Inthesecondpartofhisconfession,whichiscovered
byPointNos.9to21,accusedAbuSalemadmittedtheconspiracyhatched,
theplaceofconspiracy,theobjectoftheconspiracy,thepersonsinvolved
andpresentintheconspiratorialmeetings,theroleassignedtoeachone
presentintheconspiratorialmeetingstotaketheobjectoftheconspiracy
to its logical end. Accused Abu Salem also admitted in his confession
abouttheroleassignedtoNaeemKhan(Approver)andcommunicationof
thesamepersonallybyaccusedAbuSalemtoNaeemKhan. Inthispart
accused Abu Salem also admitted the acts done by each one of them
pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting. Accused Abu Salem
admitted in this part about various meetings held by Naeem TR and
ShaukatMistrywithJainBrothersandcommunicationoftheresultofthe
sametohimonthephonenumbersmentionedatPointNo.17. Inthis
part,healsoadmittedthedealfinallysettledbetweenhimandAshokJain
and payment of Rs. ten lakhs by Ashok Jain through Approver PW1
NaeemKhan. Inthisparthealsoadmittedaboutthetransferofmoney
throughHawalabyaccusedNaeemKhantohim.Hefurtheradmittedin
thispartthedecisiontakenbyhimtokillPradeepJain.
254
254]
254
Inthethirdpartofhisconfession,whichiscoveredbyPoint
Nos.22to27,accusedAbuSalemadmittedthereason,preparationand
plantokillPradeepJain,.Healsoadmittedaboutthepersonsinvolvedin
theplanandactuallyparticipatedinthemissiontoeliminateofPradeep
Jain. InthispartoftheconfessionaccusedAbuSalemnarratesthathis
plantokillPradeepJainandthereasontokillPradeepJainwasmade
knownbyhimtoApproverNaeemKhan(PW1).Itmaybenotedatthis
stagethatPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)hasalsoadmittedthisfactinhis
evidence.
255]
Thefourthpartofhisconfession,whichiscoveredby
PointNos.28and29,accusedAbuSalemadmittedabouttheexecutionof
the plan and completion of the plan and mission successfully by his
henchmen.Inthisparthehasalsonarratedabouttherewardpaidbyhim
tohishenchmen/sharpshooters.
256]
Thefifthpartofhisconfession,whichiscoveredbyPointNos.
30 to 31, he has admitted the role played by him upto the murder of
PradeepJain.Thispartofhisconfessionreflectsheavilyonthesubsequent
conductofaccusedAbuSalem. Itisseenonperusalofthispartofthe
confessthatafter murder of Pradeep Jain, accused Abu Salem was not
satisfied. HedidnotstopthreateningJainbrothers. HewasafterJain
brotherstoextortmoneyfromthem.Hebecamemoregreedyandwentto
theextentoftellingJainbrotherstosellwhateverpropertytheyhaveand
arrangeformoney.Inthispartoftheconfession,accusedAbuSalemhas
255
255
admittedthelocationofthepropertyandtheflats,whichwereavailable
withJainbrothersandwhichtheyhadagreedtoselltomeetthedemands
ofaccusedAbuSalem.
257]
Inthesixthpartofhisconfession,whichiscoveredby
PointNos.32,33and34,headmittedtheinvolvementoftheaccusedNo.5
JhambBuildersforthesaleofthethreeflatsbelongingtoJainbrothersat
theinstanceofaccusedAbuSalem.Inthispartofhisconfession,accused
AbuSalemhasadmittedthatbeforetellingJhambBuilder,accusedNo.5,
hehadtoldallthefactstoJhambBuilders,accusedNo.5.Inthispartof
theconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasalsoadmittedtheroleplayedby
NaeemKhan,Approver,tointeractwithaccusedNo.5JhambBuilder. In
thispartoftheconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthetotalprice
receivedbyhimafterthesaleofthethreeflatsandthetransferofthesale
proceedsofthesaidthreeflatstoAbuSalemthroughHawalabyJhamb
Builder,accusedNo.5.
258]
Inthelastpartofhisconfession,whichiscoveredbyPointNo.
35accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedtheeventsoccurredatthetimeofthe
evidenceofSunilJainintheearlierpartofthetrial.Hehasadmittedin
thelastparaofhisconfessionthatherepeatedlythreatenedSunilJainnot
togotoCourtandgiveevidenceinthematterofPradeepJain'smurder.
Sunil Jain did not obey his commands to stay away from the Court
proceeding.AccusedAbuSalemfurtheradmittedthatthereafterheagain
startedthreateningSunilJaintopayRs.20lakhbeingtheamountwhich
256
256
hehadallegedlyspentforseekingacquittalofhismeninPradeepJain
murdercase.
259]
accusedAbuSalemandcompartmentalizationofthesame,itisestablished
thatDCPShriKaralePW12hasmadeacorrectstatementbeforetheCourt
that accused Abu Salem volunteered to confess the crime before him
without any threat, coercion, promise, undue influence, illtreatment,
torture, allurement, beating, force etc. from the ATS Officers. In his
confession, accused Abu Salem has unfolded the vivid details of the
conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy, the persons involved in the
conspiracy,theroleassignedtoeachoneofthepersonsinvolvedinthe
conspiracy, the role effectively done by those persons, the reason for
eliminatingPradeepJainandthepersonsinvolvedinthebrutalmurderof
PradeepJainbyhishenchmen/sharpshooters. Atthisstage,itmaybe
mentioned that one of the shooters Rajesh Igve was in service Police
Constable.ThisfactcanhighlightthecloutofaccusedAbuSalematthe
relevanttime.ThisfactwouldindicatethateventheConstable,whowas
aGovernmentservant,wasonhisPayRollandwaspreparedtofollowthe
commandsofaccusedAbuSalematthecostofhisfamilyandjob.After
goingthroughtheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem,onecanseethatDCP
ShriKaralePW12wouldnothavebeenknowingallthesefactstoconcoct
theconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.PW12DCPShriKaralewasnotpart
oftheinvestigationteamatanytime.Ihavenotacceptedthedefenceof
the accused that PW12 DCP Karale simply copied the confessional
257
257
statementofaccusedAbuSalemdraftedbytheATSOfficersandobtained
thesignaturesofaccusedAbuSalemonthesameandmadehissignatures
thereon. DCPShriKaralePW12wasnotsupposedtoknowallthevivid
detailsstuddedwithalmostallthefactsstartingfromtheyear1990till
arrestofaccusedAbuSalemon24/11/2005. Almostallthedisclosures
madeintheconfessionbyaccusedAbuSalemcouldnothavebeeninthe
personalknowledgeofDCPShriKaralePW12. ItisonlyaccusedAbu
Salem,whoissupposedtoknowallhispersonalactivitiesbeingknownto
himbecauseofhisparticipationinthecrime.
260]
PerusaloftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemfurther
revealsthathisinvolvementintheBombayBombBlastsCaseof1993was
revealedand,therefore,heabsconded.Firsthewenttohisnativeplacein
UttarPradeshandfromtherewithhiswifeSamiratoDubaiandsettled
there.AccusedAbuSalemhasprovidedallthedetailsincludingtheplace
wherehestayedandthepersonswithwhomhestayedinDubai.Hehas
provided his two telephone numbers, which according to him, were
installedinhisofficeorintheofficeofAneesIrabhimKaskar.DCPKarale
wasnotsupposedtoknowthesetelephonenumbersunlessdisclosedto
himbysomebodyelse. Inthiscasethesourceofdisclosurewasaccused
AbuSalem. AccusedAbuSalemwasabscondingtoavoidthearrestin
BombayBombBlastsCase1993. Itmaybenotedthatbetween1980to
1990thegangsterswereliterallyrulingthecommercialcapitalofIndia.
The cost of Real Estate and the stakes involved in real estate and film
industry are known to be sky high. These gangsters were, therefore,
258
258
Police.Wegenuinelyfeelproudwhensuchcomparisonisdrawn.Wehave
witnessedthesacrificebythePoliceOfficersnamelyShriHemantKarkare,
ShriAshokKamthe,ShriVijaySalaskar,ShriDombaleandotherstosave
livesofinnocentpeopleofthisTown,whenthisTownwasattackedbythe
terroristsfromPakistanon26thNovember,2008.Wehavealsowitnessed
theexemplarycourageofShriSadanandDate,ShriVishwasNangrePatil,
ShriRajwardhanSinhaandtheirteamtosavethelivesofthepeoplefrom
HotelTajandtofightbackwiththeterroristshidinginTajMahalHotelon
26/11/2008. Therecannotbeadearthoftheofficerswithimpeccable
integrity, devotion,efficiency and courage in Mumbai Police Force. We
have witnessed the exemplary skill of the investigation by Shri Rakesh
Mariaandhisteamin1993BombBlastsCase,tillitwashandedoverto
CBI,known foritsmagnitudeandenormity.Ourpastindicates thatwe
havenodearthofofficerswithimpeccableintegrity,courageandreadyto
sacrifice their lives. A village boy from Uttar Pradesh came with his
apparelstoMumbaiwithahopetoearnhislivelihood,grewtosucha
259
259
262]
confessionalstatement,bynostretchofimagination,couldbesaidtobea
figment of fertile imagination of DCP Shri Datta Karale PW12. In his
confessionaccusedAbuSalemhasadmittedinuncertainandclearterms
his involvement in the commission of crime. On the contrary, over all
perusal of his confession would show that after being apprised of the
disputed property of Jain brothers, accused Abu Salem and wanted
accusedAneesIbrahimtookaleadandwiththegreedtoearneasymoney,
theyhatchedtheconspiracy.AccusedAbuSalemhasinhisconfession,in
greatdetail,narratedtheroleplayedbyotheraccusedincludingaccused
260
260
Mehendi Hasan and Approver Naeem Khan PW1. With this kind of
revelation,whicharesupposedtobeknowntoaccusedAbuSalemand
withintheexclusiveknowledgeofaccusedAbuSalem,itcannotlieinthe
mouthofthedefencethatthisconfessionisaconcoctionandthecreation
oftheATSOfficerstofalselyimplicateaccusedAbuSaleminthiscrime.It
appearstobesheepish.Thefactsbroughtonrecordstuddedwithallthe
factsandcircumstancesof the crime leavesnomannerof doubtin my
mindaboutthevoluntaryandtruthfulnatureoftheconfessionmadeby
accusedAbuSalem. Hisconfessionisinculpatory. Thereisconsistency
betweenthedisclosuresmadebyaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionand
accused Mehendi Hasan in his confession. Accused Abu Salem and
accusedMehendiHasan,aspertheirconfessions,werepresentwhenthe
conspiracywashatchedinDubai.Theyhavealsosupportedeachotheron
the object of the conspiracy and the role played by each one of them.
Therefore, theevidenceledbytheprosecutiononthispointcannotbe
discarded.Inviewofmyabovesaidobservationsandconclusion,Idonot
see any substance in the submissions advanced by ld. Advocate Shri
Pasbola and ld. Advocate Shri Shivade on the point of voluntary and
truthful nature of the confession of accused Abu Salem. Ld. SPP Shri
Nikamonthebasisoftheevidencesubstantiatedhissubmissionthatthe
confessionoftheaccusedisvoluntaryandtrueandassuchthesubmission
deservesacceptance.
RETRACTIONOFACCUSEDMEHENDIHASAN
263]
FirstIwoulddealwiththeretractionofconfessionby
261
261
Whiledealingwiththeevidenceoftheprosecutionon
262
evidence.Onthebasisoftheevidenceplacedonrecord,Ihaveconcluded
thattheconfessionmadebyaccusedMehendiHasanisvoluntaryandtrue.
Onceitisheldthattheconfessionisvoluntaryandtrue,thenitbecomes
obligatory to see the effect and consequences of the retraction of the
confession by the accused and the stage at which the same has been
retracted.Itmaybenotedatthecostofrepetitionthatduringthecourse
of his police custody the accused was produced before this Court on
variousdates. Theaccuseddidnotmakeanycomplaintofilltreatment,
torture, coercion, threat, promise, allurement, beating, force, undue
influence,etc.atthehandsoftheATSOfficers. Whiledealingwiththe
evidenceoftheepisodeofproductionoftheaccusedbeforetheDCPShri
RajeshKumarMor,Ihaveconcludedthatthedefenceoftheaccusedthat
he was produced before the DCP Rajesh Kumar Mor for recording
confessionisnotacceptable. Inthiscase,admittedly,whentheaccused
wasproducedbeforethelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistratealongwith
hisconfessionalstatement,hedidnotmakeagrievanceofilltreatment,
torture, coercion, threat, promise, allurement, beating, force, undue
influenceetc.atthehandsoftheATSOfficersorbytheDCPShriBodkhe
PW11toextracttheconfession.AccusedMehendiHasanwasremanded
tojudicialcustodyon10/01/2006. Whenhewasproducedbeforethis
Courton10/01/2006fromtheCourtofthelearnedChiefMetropolitan
Magistrate,Mumbai,thisCourtmadeenquirywiththeaccusedaboutany
illtreatmentorharassmentatthehandsoftheATSOfficers. Therecord
revealsthattheaccuseddidnotmakecomplaintofilltreatmentortorture
atthehandsoftheATSOfficersduringthecourseofinterrogationandalso
263
263
atthehandsoftheDCPShriBodkhe,whorecordedhisconfession. The
applicationM.A.No.14of2006wasreceivedbythisCourtfromjailon
27/01/2006.Perusalofthisapplicationwouldrevealthatthisapplication
wasdraftedon20/01/2006.Itcan,therefore,beseenthatafterexpiryof
tendaysfromremandingthisaccusedtojudicialcustody,he,forthefirst
time,madesomegrievance.
265]
ItisnecessarytoseewhattranspiredbeforethisCourt
onproductionofaccusedMehendiHasanfromjailon31/01/2006.Inthe
264
264
backdropofthereceiptoftheapplicationbyaccusedMehendiHasanon
27/01/2006fromjailmakingcertaingrievancesagainsttheATSOfficers
and the Police Officers, my predecessor deemed it appropriate to make
enquirywiththeaccused. OnenquiryandquestioningaccusedMehendi
Hasanonthecontentsoftheapplication,accusedMehendiHasanstated
thathedoesnotunderstandEnglishandtheapplicationwaswrittenby
otherperson,whoispresentlylodgedinjail.TheAdvocateappearingfor
theaccusedwaspresentbeforeCourton17/01/2006.On17/1/2006this
CourtallowedaccusedMehendiHasantohavehomefood.Onthesecond
application,thisCourthadcalledreportoftheSuperintendentofCentral
Prison,ArthurRoad,Mumbai. TheRoznamadated31/01/2006reveals
that this application was written by the jail inmate of the accused. It
furtherrevealsthattheaccuseddoesnotunderstandEnglish. Perusalof
theapplicationrevealsthatitwasdraftedbythejailinmate,whowaswell
versedwiththerudimentaryprovisionsoflaw.Perusalofthisapplication,
which is numbered as M.A. No. 14 of 2006, would show that accused
Mehendi Hasan did not make any statement that he has not made a
confessionatall. Onthecontrary,theapplicationwouldshowthatthe
accusedhadadmittedthatwhenhewasproducedbeforetheJudge,he
statedthathisconfessionwasatrueconfession.Thisadmissioniswitha
rider that he stated before Judge about truthfulness of the confession
becauseofthethreatsextendedtohimbytheATSOfficers.Itisseenon
perusaloftheapplicationthatinthestrictsense,thisapplicationM.A.No.
14of2006couldnotbesaidtobearetractionapplication.
265
267]
265
representedbyAdvocate,hecouldhaveadvisedhisAdvocatetomakea
specific application retracting his confession. On 31/01/2006, when
accusedMehendiHasanwasproducedbeforethisCourt,hisAdvocatewas
presentbeforethisCourt. OnthatdatealsotheAdvocateappearingfor
theaccuseddidnotmakeanyapplicationspecificallystatingthataccused
MehendiHasanwasretractingtheconfession.Oncetheconfessionisfound
to be voluntary and truthful, much importance cannot be given to the
delayedretraction ofthe confession. Itiscommon knowledge thatthe
confessions are always retracted by the accused before Court. After
satisfying the voluntary nature and truthfulness of the confessions, the
Courthastoweighthestatementsmadebytheaccusedintheretraction
application.Thedecisiontakenbytheaccusedtomakeaconfessionishis
own decision. Once it is found that the accused made the confession
voluntarily and before recording the confession, all the mandatory
requirementsoflawhavebeencompliedwith,thesubsequentretraction
cannotbegivenmuchweightage.
268]
Itis,therefore,apparentonthefaceoftherecordthat
IncaseofaccusedMehendiHasan,itcanbeseenthat
266
266
forthefirsttimehemadeastatementaboutretractionofhisconfession
beforethisCourtwhilerecordinghisstatementu/sec.313oftheCr.P.C..
Inhisstatementu/sec.313oftheCr.P.C.whileanswering questionNo.
160,accusedMehendiHasanhasstatedthathehasbeeninvolvedinthis
falsecase.Hewasthreatenedtobekilledinanencounter.Hissonwas
kidnapped by the ATS Officers from Mumbra to compel him to give a
confession.Hewasbeatenbadly.Hewaslodgedinlockupandwasnot
allowed to speak anything to anybody. In his application, which was
receivedbythisCourton27/01/2006,andwhichisnumberedas14of
2006,hedidnotmakeagrievancethathissonwaskidnappedbytheATS
Officers from Mumbra, to compel him to give a confession. In his
statementu/sec.313oftheCr.P.C.accusedMehendiHasanhascomeout
beforethisCourtwiththisnewstory.Inthebackdropofmyfindingthat
hisconfessionisvoluntaryandtrue,hisbelatedretractiondoesnotappear
tobetrue.Itappearstobeafterthoughtandunderlegaladvice.
270]
Ld.SPPShriUjjwalNikamrelyinguponthedecisionin
267
discussedbymehereinabove,thepropositionoflawlaiddowninthis
Judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. Accused Mehendi
Hasandidnotmakeanygrievanceofilltreatmentortortureatthehands
ofthepoliceatanytimeduringhispolicecustodyaswellaswhenhewas
producedbeforethelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateafterrecording
his confession and before this Court when he was produced after
completion of the proceeding before the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate,Mumbai. Inthefactsandcircumstancesandparticularlyin
viewofthefactthattheconfessionoftheaccusedhasbeenfoundtobe
voluntaryandtrueandsubsequentretractionmadebyaccusedMehendi
Hasanisafterthoughtandunderlegaladvice.Therefore,thesubmissions
advancedonbehalfoftheaccusedbyhisAdvocatecannotbeaccepted.
ThesubmissionsadvancedbyLd.SPP,therefore,deservesacceptance.
RETRACTIONOFACCUSEDABUSALEM
271]
Iwouldnowdealwiththeretractionoftheconfession
byaccusedAbuSalem.Ld.SPPShriUjjwalNikamsubmittedthatoncethe
confessionoftheaccusedisfoundvoluntaryandtrue,muchimportance
cannotbegiventothesubsequentretraction.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatwhen
this accused was produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate,afterrecordinghisconfession,hedidnotmakeacomplaintof
illtreatment,torture,force,promise,beating,coercion,undueinfluence,
inducement,allurementetc.atthehandsoftheATSOfficersduringthe
courseofhisinterrogationandbyDCPShriKaralePW22whilerecording
his confession. Ld.SPP submitted that the procedure adopted by the
268
268
learnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,Mumbai,onproductionofaccused
AbuSalembeforehimwascontrarytothespiritofRule15subrule(5)of
theTADARules.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatasperRule15subrule(5)ofthe
TADA(P)Rule,thelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,Mumbai,was
notempoweredtorerecordtheconfessionand/orthestatementofthe
accused.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatthelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate
shouldhaveconfinedhisenquirytoknowwhetheraccusedAbuSalemhad
any grievance of illtreatment, torture, coercion, threat, promise,
inducement, allurement etc. for making confession. If there was any
complaintofsuchanature,thentheMagistratewouldhavebeenunderan
obligationtofirstsendtheaccusedformedicalexaminationandprepare
therecordofthegrievancemadebytheaccused.Ld.SPPsubmittedthat
theexerciseundertakenbythelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateby
recordingthestatementofaccusedAbuSalembyreadingoverhisentire
confessiontohimiscontrarytolawand,therefore,cannotbeheldtobe
admissible record. Besides, Ld. SPP submitted that while denying the
contents of the confession, accused Abu Salem was selective. Ld.SPP
submitted that he did not state before the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistratethathedidnotmakeaconfessionatall.Ld.SPPpointedout
thataccusedAbuSalemhasadmittedsomepartofhisconfessionandhas
deniedsomepartofhisconfession.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatthisfactwould
showthataccusedAbuSalemwasunderlegaladviceand,therefore,on
thebasisofthislegaladvice,hetookthisopportunitytocreateadoubt
about recording of his confession and its voluntary nature. Ld.SPP
submittedthattheretractionoftheconfessionbyaccusedAbuSalemis
269
269
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatconfessionof
accusedAbuSalemwasrecordedundersuspiciouscircumstancesandthe
saidcircumstanceshavebeenexplainedinretractionapplicationmadeby
accused Abu Salem. Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that when
accusedAbuSalemwasproducedbeforethelearnedChiefMetropolitan
Magistrate,Mumbai,he retracted his confession andstatedthat he has
signed the statement blindly. In the submission of learned Advocate
accused Abu Salem first and foremost stated before the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate that he did not make any confession. Ld.
AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatinthesubsequentapplicationmade
for retraction bythe accused before this Court, he has narrated all the
relevantfacts. Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthaton12/01/2006
when accused Abu Salem was produced before this Court, he made a
complaintbeforethisCourtthathisconfessionwasobtainedagainsthis
wish. HehasfurtherstatedbeforethisCourtthathehasnotmadeany
confession,buthewasforcedtosignoncertainpapers.On12/01/2006
accused Abu Salem on his production before this Court has specifically
stated that his socalled confession was not voluntary confession. Ld.
270
270
Advocatesubmittedthatintheretractionapplicationmadebytheaccused
on13/02/1006,hehasnarratedallthefactsandeventsoccurredleading
toobtaininghissignaturesontheconfessionalstatement. Ld.Advocate,
therefore,submittedthattheretractionoftheconfessionbyaccusedAbu
Salemistruthful.InthesubmissionoftheLd.AdvocateforaccusedAbu
SalemnoreliancecanbeplacedontheretractedconfessionofAbuSalem.
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolafurthersubmittedthatinviewoftheguideline
No.3laiddowninParaNo.263oftheJudgmentin'KartrarSinghv.State
ofPunjab' reportedin 1994SupremeCourtCases(Cri)899,theChief
Metropolitan Magistrate has not committed any mistake. Ld. Advocate
ShriPasbolasubmittedthatthecontentionofthelearnedProsecutorthat
thelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateissimplyrequiredtoactasa
postmancannotbeacceptedinthebackdropoftheguidelineslaiddownin
thecaseof KartarSinghv.Stateof Pubjab reportedin 1994Supreme
CourtCases(Cri)899.
273]
Inordertoappreciatethesubmissions,itisnecessaryto
advert to the facts and also discuss the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in various decisions. First and foremost, it is
necessary to see what is the role of the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate,as contemplatedunderRule 15
subrule(5)oftheTADARules. Inthecaseof KartarSinghv.Stateof
Pubjab, a Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has laid down certain guidelines to ensure that the confession
obtainedinthepreindictmentinterrogationbyapoliceofficernotlower
271
271
inrankthanaSuperintendentofPolicewasnottaintedwithanyvicebut
wasinstrictconformitywiththewellrecognisedandestablishedaesthetic
principlesoffundamentalfairness. Myattentionhasbeendrawntothe
guidelineNo.3fromPara263ofthesaiddecision. Itmaybementioned
thatinthesubsequentdecisions,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas
consideredthescopeofenquirybyChiefMetropolitanMagistrateorChief
Judicial Magistrate, as contemplated under Rule 15 subrule (5) of the
TADARules. ThefirstJudgmentonthepointisinthecaseof Stateof
Maharashtrav.BharatChhaganlalRagani reportedin 2002Supreme
Court Cases (Cri) 377. At this stage, before considering the law laid
downinthisdecision,itisnecessarytomentionthatthisdecisionhasbeen
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the appeal against
someoftheaccusedinCrimeNo.144of1995registeredatD.N.Nagar
PoliceStation(inthiscase).ThisCourthadacquittedalltheaccused,who
weretriedintheearlierpartofthetrial.Theorderoftheacquittalofthis
CourtwascarriedinAppealbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiasetasidetheJudgmentofacquittalof
thisCourtandconvictedthreeaccused. Twoconvictedaccusedwerethe
shooters,whohadkilledPradeepJainwhilegivingeffecttotheconspiracy
hatchedinDubai.Thesetwoaccusedhadconfessedtheircrime. Ascan
beseenfromthefactsofthecase,thosetwoaccusedandtheirconfessions
wereforwardedtothelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate.Thelearned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without recording any statement of the
accused, simply made enquiry about illtreatment, torture, promise,
allurement,inducement,coercion,undueinfluence,beating,forceetc.at
272
272
thehandsofthepoliceandforwardedtheconfessionstotheDesignated
Court. Mypredecessordidnotapprovethiscourseofactionadoptedby
thelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateholdingthatitwascontraryto
thespiritofRule15subrule(5)oftheTADARules. Thisfindingofmy
learnedpredecessorwassetasidebytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia.
In case of State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Ragani reported in 2002
SupremeCourt Cases(Cri)377, therelevantdiscussion is coveredin
paraNo.33topara40.
274]
ChaganlalRaghaniandothers,reportedin 2003SupremeCourtCases
(Cri)377theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasconsideredthescopeof
Guideline No.3 from Para 263 in the case of Kartar Singh v.Stateof
Punjab reported in 1994 CRI. L.J. 3139. In this case, the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatRule15subrule(5)oftheTADA(P)
Rule does not oblige such Magistrate either to open the envelope
containingtheconfessionalstatementrecordedbythepoliceofficerorto
satisfy himself regarding the voluntary nature of the confession. The
Magistrate,atthemost,canrecordthestatementoftheaccusedifmade
regardingallegedharassment,tortureorthelike.Itisfurtherheldthatif
theMagistrate,referredtoinsubrule(5)ofRule15hastoascertainthe
voluntarynatureoftheconfessionalstatement,thepurposeofSection15
authorisingapoliceofficertorecordtheconfessionalstatementshallstand
frustrated. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatguideline
No.3 mandated the Magistrate concerned to scrupulously record the
273
273
statement,ifany,madebytheaccusedsoproducedandgethissignature.
Intheeventofanycomplaintoftorture,thepersonshouldbedirectedto
beproducedformedicalexaminationbeforeamedicalofficernotlowerin
rank than of an Assistant Civil Surgeon. But no duty is cast upon the
Magistrate concerned to record the confessional statement afresh or
himself/herselfascertainthenatureofandthecircumstancesunderwhich
theconfessionalstatementwasmadeunlessacomplaintismadebythe
accusedregardingtortureetc..
275]
Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiafound
thatinviewoftheprovisionsascontainedinSection15oftheTADA(P)
ActandRule15oftheTADARulesandthelawlaiddownbythisCourtin
KartarSingh'scase,theDesignatedJudgecommittedamistakeoflawin
not relying upon the confession on the ground that Chief Judicial
Magistrate had not given a separate certificate and had not herself
enquiredaboutthevoluntarynatureoftheconfessionalstatement.
276]
NextJudgmentwherethispointhasbeenconsideredis
inthecaseof JameelAhmedv.StateofRajasthanreportedin2003
SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1853. Inthiscase,theconfessionrecorded
bythecompetentPoliceOfficerwasdirectlyforwardedtotheDesignated
Courtinsteadof forwarding ittothe Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate. While considering this issue, the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthattheprovisionofRule15subrule(5)
ofTADARulesisonlydirectoryandnotmandatory.Itisobservedthatthe
274
274
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above stated two
decisions,itisnecessarytoadverttothecertainfactsobtainedonrecordin
thiscase. Exhibit387(colly.) compriseoftheletterofthelearnedChief
Metropolitan Magistrate addressed to this Court stating interalia the
natureoftheproceedingconductedbyhimandthefactsnarratedbefore
himbyaccusedAbuSalem,thestatementofaccusedAbuSalemsignedby
accusedAbuSalemandthelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateandthe
275
275
envelopeinwhichthedocumentswereforwardedtotheDesignatedCourt
bythelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate.Itisseenonperusalofthe
letter of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which is part of
Exhibit387A(colly.) dated 03/01/2006, that on production of accused
AbuSalembeforehim,hefirstopenedthesealedpacketcontainingthe
envelope. He told the officer, who had produced accused Abu Salem
beforehimtogooutofhischamber. Hethencausedtheproductionof
accused Abu Salem before him. He then opened the sealed envelope
containing the confession of accused Abu Salem. The learned Chief
MetropolitanMagistratehasfurtherstatedthathereadoverthecontents
ofthefirstpartoftheconfessiontoaccusedAbuSalem. AccusedAbu
Salemadmittedthesame.ThelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistratehas
furtherstatedthathethenreadoverthecontentsofthesecondpartofthe
ConfessionalStatementofaccusedAbuSalemrecordedbytheDCPShri
DattaKarale(PW12).ItfurtherrevealsthatthelearnedChiefMetropolitan
Magistratereadoverandexplainedeachandeverystatementrecordedby
the DCP Shri Karale (PW12) to accused Abu Salem and recorded the
commentsmadebyaccusedAbuSalemonthesame.
278]
Itisseenthatthisexerciseundertakenbythelearned
276
279]
Eveniftheaccusedmakesagrievanceorcomplaintof
illtreatment,tortureorbeatingatthehandsofthepolice,rule15sub
rule(5)oftheTADARulesdoesnotempowertheMagistratetorecordthe
statementorconfessionoftheaccusedafresh.Rule15subrule(5)ofthe
TADARulesprovidesacompletemechanismtoensurethattheconfession
madebytheaccusedisnotmadeasaresultofthreat,torture,beating,ill
treatment,promise,coercion,inducement,harassment,force,threatetc..
If the accused on production before the learned Chief Metropolitan
MagistrateorthelearnedChiefJudicialMagistratemakesacomplaintof
277
277
illtreatment,thenMagistrateatthemostcanrecordthestatementofthe
accused made regarding the alleged harassment, torture etc.. The
Magistratecanfurtherdirectthe production of theaccusedformedical
examinationbeforeaMedicalOfficer.Saveandexcept,thisroleassigned
to the Magistrate, the Magistrate cannot record the statement of the
accusedorhisconfessionseparately.Inthiscase,asperthelawlaiddown
bytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,theMagistratewasnotempowered
to open the envelope containing the confession. The Magistrate was
simply required by law to make enquiry with the accused about ill
treatment, torture, inducement, threat, coercion, allurement, promise,
undueinfluenceetc.bythepoliceformakingconfession.Inthiscase,the
Magistratehascategoricallystatedinhisreportthattheaccuseddidnot
make a complaint of illtreatment, torture, beating, coercion, threat,
allurementeitheratthehandsoftheATSOfficersorbytheDCPShriDatta
Karale(PW12),whorecordedtheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.
280]
278
avalidexercisevestinganyrighteitherinfavouroftheprosecutionorin
favouroftheaccused. Inthiscaseonthisgroundalonethestatement
made before the learnedChief Metropolitan Magistrate byaccusedAbu
Salem and recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by
offeringtheaccusedanopportunitytoexplaineachandeverysentence
fromhisconfessionisanillegalexercise.Theonlythingthatcanbetaken
notefromthisrecord,whichisat Exhibit387(colly.), isthatwhenthe
accusedwasproducedbeforethelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,
he did not make grievance or utter a single word about illtreatment,
torture,threat,inducement,coercion,allurementetc.tomakeaconfession
eitherbytheATSOfficersortheDCPShriDattaKarale(PW12).
281]
279
AdvocateShriPasbolafortheaccusedhasplacedrelianceonthedecision
in the case of Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri v. State of Gujarat
reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2627 and submitted that the exercise
undertakenbythelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateinthiscasewas
justifiedasperthemandateofRule15subrule(5)oftheTADARules.In
this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was considering the
confessionsoftheaccusedrecordedunderthePreventionofTerrorismAct,
2002(hereinafterreferredtoas'thePOTA').POTAmakesaprovisionfor
recording of a confession of the accused. Section 32 of the POTAlaid
down a procedure and provide a mandate to police officer and the
Magistrate.Section32ofthePOTAprovidesforrecordingofconfessionof
the accused, the precaution to be taken at the time of recording of
confession,productionoftheaccusedbeforeChiefMetropolitanMagistrate
orChiefJudicialMagistrateandtheprovisionsforrecordingofstatement
oftheaccused,ifany,madebyhiminthebackdropofthemandateof
Section32ofthePOTA.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthiscase
hasheldthatconsideringtheproceduralsafeguardstherein,thesearenot
mechanicalformalities.ThelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt
ofIndiaincaseof AdambhaiSulemanbhaiAjmeriv.StateofGujarat
280
280
undertheTADA(P)Act.InthecaseofStateofMaharashtrav.Bharat
Raganireportedin2002SupremeCourtCases(Cri)377and Jameel
Ahmedv. State of Rajasthan reportedin 2003 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri)1853, theHon'bleSupremeCourthasconsideredtheprovisionsof
Rule15subrule(5)oftheTADARulesandlaiddownlaw.Thedecisionin
thecaseof StateofMaharashtrav.BharatRagani reportedin 2002
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 377 and Jameel Ahmed v. State of
Rajasthan reported in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1853 are the
directJudgmentsdealingwiththeprovisionsofRule15subrule(5)ofthe
TADARulesand,therefore,squarelyapplytothefactsofthiscase.
284]
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola,relyinguponthedecisionin
thecaseof DevenderPalSinghv.StateofNCTofDelhiandanother
reportedin2002SupremeCourtCases(Cri)978,submittedthatexercise
undertakingbythelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistratewaswellwithin
hispowersandaccordingtothelawlaiddowninthiscase.Imaybriefly
mentiontherelevantfactsinthecaseof DevenderPalSingh. TheDCP
recordedtheconfessionalstatementoftheaccusedon23/01/1995asper
theprovisionsofSection15oftheTADA(P)Act. On24/01/1995the
accusedalongwiththecopyoftheconfessionalstatementwasproduced
beforetheCourtofACMM. TheACMMaskedonlyonequestiontothe
281
281
285]
exerciseundertakenbytheMagistratewascorrectandlegal,eveninthat
case also the true and voluntary nature of the confession made by the
accusedcannotbewipedout.AccusedAbuSalemdidnotmakecomplaint
ofilltreatment,torture,inducement,threat,allurement,coercion,promise
etc.eitherbytheATSOfficersortheDCPformakingconfession. Itcan,
therefore,besaidpositivelythatthisconfessionmadebytheaccusedwas
notcausedbyinducement,threat,torture,beating,allurement,coercion,
promise, illtreatment. While dealing with the undisputed facts in this
case,IhaveobservedthatfromthedateofthearrestofaccusedAbuSalem
inthiscaseon24/11/2005till10/01/2006,accusedAbuSalemhadan
282
282
286]
ItisnecessarytomentionthatevenbeforelearnedChief
283
accusedAbuSalemcannotbeaccepted.Ihavealreadyobservedthatthe
DCPShriDattaKarale(PW12)wasnotinanywayconcernedwiththe
investigationinthiscrime. Thefactsstatedintheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalemcouldnotbesaidtobeafigmentoffertileimaginationofthe
DCP Shri Datta Karale (PW12). On perusal of the confession of the
accused in entirety, it satisfies the conscience of this Court. The facts
statedintheconfessionwerefromtheexclusiveknowledgeofaccusedAbu
Salem.DCPShriDattaKarale(PW12)couldnothaveevenimaginedsuch
a story. Besides, all the facts narrated by accused Abu Salem in his
confessionhavebeencorroboratedbytheconfessionofaccusedMehendi
Hasan. So, while considering the plea of accusedAbu Salem thathis
confessionwasnotvoluntaryand,therefore,hehadretractedthesame,all
theabovestatedfactscannotbeignored.
287]
284
learned predecessor did not accept those allegations for the reasons
recorded in the order dated 12/01/2006. Rejecting all the objections
raisedbytheaccusedinhisreply,accusedAbuSalemwasremandedto
policecustodytill17/01/2006.
288]
AccusedAbuSalemwasremandedtojudicialcustody
on17/01/2006.Inthiscase,fromtimetotimejudicialcustodyofaccused
AbuSalemwasextended.Afterinvestigation,theInvestigatingOfficerfiled
supplementarychargesheeton28/04/2006.LearnedAdvocateappearing
forthe accuseddrewmyattention towards Misc.ApplicationNo.13of
2006 and submitted that this is the retraction application made by the
accusedtowhichtheInvestigatingOfficerhasnotfiledthereply.Itmay
be noted that this application for retraction was made after five to six
months from the date of making confession. Before this application
accused Abu Salem did not state positively that he was retracting the
confessionortheallegedconfessionalstatementmadebyhim.Itmaybe
mentioned that, when accused Abu Salem was having the legal advice
fromdayoneofhiscustodyandthefactofconfessionofcrimebythe
accusedwasknowntothelawyer,Idonotfathomthedelayoffivetosix
moths to make an application for retraction of the confession by the
Advocate.Inthefactsandcircumstances,thisdelayofsixmonthssquarely
fits in the submission of the learned SPP that this retraction is after
thought and after due deliberation and under legal advice. I have
minutelyperusedM.A.No.13of2006. Inthisapplication,accusedAbu
Salemhasraisedvariouscontentions.Inhisapplication,hehasstatedthat
285
285
hehadplacedonrecordbeforethisCourtthathewasnotconcernedwith
the commission of this crime and there was no question of giving any
confessionalstatementbyhim.Ifthisstatementhastobeappreciatedand
consideredin the backdropofcertainevents occurredduring hispolice
custodyandduringhisjudicialcustody,itwouldindicatethattheaccused
wasplayinghotandcoldfromthesamepipe. Inhisapplicationhehas
made serious allegation of illtreatment, torture, coercion, threat at the
handsofthepoliceduringthecourseofinterrogation.Presumingforthe
sake of argument that this statement of illtreatment and torture is
acceptedatitsfacevalue,thennextimportantquestionthisCourthasto
addressastowhythisaccuseddidnotutterasinglewordaboutthesame
whenhewasproducedbeforethisCourtfromtimetotime.
289]
286
withtheaccusedinthechamberintheabsenceoftheadvocateforthe
accusedandtheInvestigatingOfficer.AtthattimeaccusedAbuSalemdid
notmakeagrievanceaboutanyilltreatment,torture,beating,promise,
harassment,undueinfluence,coercion,threat,allurementatthehandsof
theInvestigatingOfficer. Itmaybementionedthattherecouldnotbea
better example of creating a free and comfortable atmosphere for the
accusedtoventilatethegrievance.Iftheaccusedfailstomakeagrievance
in such a free and comfortable atmosphere, then I do not see any
substance in this belated grievance of illtreatment, torture, coercion,
threat,allurementtoextortconfessionfromhim. AccusedAbuSalemis
not an ordinary criminal. He is a selfproclaimed Don. He ruled this
Metropoliswiththemightandmoneyathiscommand.APoliceConstable,
whowasinservice,wasonhisPayRollandactuallyparticipatedinthe
shooting of Pradeep Jain, is the best example of the influence of this
accused and magic of his money. Accused Abu Salem is a hardcore
criminal. He is very intelligent. He could not have missed this
opportunity to ventilate his grievance against ATS Officers when his
productionwascausedinthechamberofmylearnedpredecessorinthe
circumstancesobservedbymylearnedpredecessor.
290]
Therefore,ifthisbelatedallegationisconsideredinthe
teethoftheundisputedfactsandtheevidencebroughtonrecord, Isee
serious doubt in the allegation. Before the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate accused Abu Salem did not state that he has not made any
confession. He became choosy. He tried to exculpate himself. In my
287
287
opinion, with this kind and caliber of accused, no other thing can be
expected. Para 6 of his retraction application makes a very interesting
reading.IfPara6ofhisapplicationisreadinproperperspective,thenit
would indicate that even he has not spared the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate. HehasstatedthatthoughhehadstatedbeforetheHon'ble
ChiefMetropolitanMagistrateaboutallthethingsstatedinParaNos.3,4
and5,heisnotawareastowhetherthesamehavebeenrecordedbythe
Hon'bleChiefMetropolitanMagistrateornot.Hehasfurtherstatedthat
whenhewasremandedtojudicialcustody,hehadbroughtallthesefacts
tothenoticeofthisCourtandwhichhavebeenrecordedbythisCourtin
roznama.Itmaybenotedthatthisfacthasbeenreflectedintheorderof
theCourtdated12/01/2006,whenthisaccusedwasagainremandedto
judicialcustody. Ihavealreadyobservedthatmylearnedpredecessorin
his orderdated12/01/2006hasconsideredallthestatementsmadeby
accusedAbuSaleminhisreply.Theorderdated12/01/2006wouldspeak
foritself.Mylearnedpredecessordidnotacceptasinglesubmissionmade
in that application being factually correct statement. Therefore, this
belatedretractionmustbeheldtobeafterthoughtandunderlegaladvice.
When Court comes to the conclusion that the confession made by the
accused is voluntary and true, then the weightage to be given to the
subsequentretractionisacontentiousissue.
291]
Itwould,therefore,benecessaryatthisstagetoadvert
tothelegalposition.Itisalsoequallyimportantandnecessarytolookat
theotherevidencetofindoutthetruthfulnessofthestatementsmadein
288
288
theconfessionbyaccusedAbuSalem.Itisnownecessarytoconsiderthe
citationsrelieduponbylearnedSPPShriUjjwalNikamonthepointofthe
evidentiaryvalueoftheconfession,admissibilityoftheconfessionagainst
the accused and coaccused, value of the retracted confession and the
natureofthecorroborationrequiredincaseofretractedconfession.
292]
InthecaseofMohd.AyubDarvs.StateofJammu&
reportedinA.I.R.1954SupremeCourt462,theHon'bleSupremeCourt
of India has held that detail confession made by the accused before
competent authority cannot be condemned as a tutored confession. In
such a situation, inference has to be drawn that person recording the
confessionwouldnotbeinapositiontoknowallthedetailswhichcould
otherwisebeknowntotheaccused.
289
294]
289
Inthecasebeforeme,theconfessionsmadebyaccused
Madrasreportedin1958CRI.L.J.238(VOL59,C.N.79)(1),theHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthattheconfessioncannotberejected
outrightlyonthegroundoftheretraction.Itisobservedthatacriminal
makes a confession out of repentance, remorse and contrition and,
therefore,innormalcircumstancesthesameisthebestevidenceagainst
theaccused. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasfurtherheldthat
whenaconfessionisretracted,then,asamatterofprudenceandcaution,
whichhassanctifieditselfintoaruleoflaw,aretractedconfessioncannot
bemadesolelythebasisforconvictionunlessthesameiscorroborated.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthatsuchcorroborationcanbeof
generalnature.Thestandardofcorroborationtotheevidenceofapprover
and to the retracted confession are quite different. In the case of the
person confessing who has resiled from his statement, general
corroboration is sufficient while an accomplice's evidence should be
corroboratedinmaterialparticulars.InadditiontheCourtmustfeelthat
thereasonsgivenfortheretractioninthecaseofaconfessionareuntrue.
290
296]
290
Inthiscasebeforeme,whileappreciatingthereasons
givenbytheaccusedintheirretractionapplications,Ihaveobservedthat
theretractionsmadebyboththeaccusedareafterthoughtandunderlegal
advice.Ihaverecordedthereasonsinsupportofthisfindingaftertaking
thenoteoftheevidenceonrecordandundisputedfacts. Similarly,the
confessionoftheaccusedonceprovedtobeavoluntaryconfessionisa
substantivepieceofevidenceand,therefore,itisadmissibleagainstthe
accusedtobaseaconvictiononthesameaswellasitispermissibleagainst
thecoaccusedsubjecttogeneralcorroboration.Inthiscasetheconfession
ofaccusedAbuSalemcorroboratesthefactsstatedintheconfessionby
accused Mehendi Hasan and viceversa. In view of the facts and the
evidenceobtainedonrecord,thepropositionoflawlaiddowninthiscase
squarelyappliestothefactsofthiscase.
297]
1971(3)SupremeCourtCases950,theHon'bleApexCourthaslaiddown
the law on the point of value of retracted confession. The Hon'ble
SupremeCourthasheldthatconfessionscanbeacteduponiftheCourtis
satisfiedthattheyarevoluntaryandtrue. Thevoluntarynatureofthe
confessiondependsupon,whethertherewasanythreat,inducementor
promise andits truthisjudgedinthecontextoftheentireprosecution
case.Theconfessionmustfitintotheprovedfactsandnotruncounterto
them. Whenthevoluntarycharacteroftheconfessionanditstruthare
accepted,itissafetorelyonit.Itisfurtherheldthatindeedaconfession,
ifitisvoluntaryandtrueandnotmadeunderanyinducementorthreator
291
291
promise,isthemostpotentpieceofevidenceagainstthemaker.Asfaras
theretractedconfessionisconcerned,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasheld
thatitstandsonaslightlydifferentfooting.ItisheldthatCourtmaytake
intoaccounttheretractedconfession,butitmustlookforthereasonsfor
themakingoftheconfessionaswellasforitsretraction,andmustweigh
thetwotodeterminewhethertheretractionaffectsthevoluntarynatureof
theconfessionornot.IftheCourtissatisfiedthatitwasretractedbecause
ofanafterthoughtoradvice,theretractionmaynotweighwiththecourt
ifthegeneralfactsprovedinthecaseandthetenoroftheconfessionas
madeandthecircumstancesofitsmakingandwithdrawalwarrantitsuser.
But before acting upon the retracted confession, the Courts must find
assurancefromothersourcesastotheguiltoftheaccused. Aretracted
confessionrequiresthegeneralassurancethattheretractionwasanafter
thoughtandthattheearlierstatementwastrue.
298]
accusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanarevoluntaryandtrue
andtheconfessionshavenotbeencausedbyanythreat,inducementor
promise.Therefore, thepropositionoflawlaiddowninthisJudgment
squarelyappliestofactsofthiscase.Inthiscase,thereisotherevidenceto
corroboratetheconfessions.
299]
292
293
becomeunreliablemerelybecauseitisretractedbytheaccused.Insuch
situation,Courthastoascertainwhethertheconfessionisvoluntaryand
trueandisnotvitiatedbyanyotherreasonandifso,courtcannotrefuse
butactonit.
302]
Inviewofthefactsprovedonrecordinthiscase,the
propositionofthisJudgmentsquarelyappliestothefactsofthiscase.
303]
Onthepointofeffectofnotmakingthecomplaintbyan
accusedofilltreatmentbeforeMagistrateafterhisproductionimmediately
after recording the confession, Ld. SPP has placed reliance upon the
decision in the case of Mohmed Amin & Anr. v. C.B.I. through its
DirectorreportedinAIR2008SupremeCourt(Supp)938. Inthiscase,
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasobservedthatiftheaccuseddoes
not make a complaint of illtreatment or torture at the hands of the
Investigating Officer or by competent officer while recording the
confessionbeforeMagistrateonproduction,thensubsequentcomplaintof
suchanaturemadebyanaccusedloosesitssignificance.Suchconductof
theaccusedinthegivensetoffactsreflectsuponthesubsequentdefence
oftheaccusedthathewasforcedandilltreatedtoconfessthecrime.
304]
MehendiHasanmadeacomplaintofilltreatmentortortureatthehands
oftheInvestigatingOfficerorbycompetentofficerswhilerecordingtheir
confessions before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on their
294
294
production.Therefore,thesubsequentcomplaintofsuchanaturemade
bytheaccusedlosesitssignificance. Inviewofthefacts,circumstances
and evidence brought on record in this case, the proposition in this
decisionsquarelyappliestothefactsofthiscase.
305]
InthecaseofAhmedHusseinValiMohammedSaiyed
andAnr.v.StateofGujaratreportedin2010AIRSCW2548,theHon'ble
SupremeCourtwasdealingwithacasewherethecompetentRecording
Officer had not appended Memorandum to the confession, as required
underRule15subRule(3)subclause(b)oftheTADARules.Inthecase
oftheConfessionsoftheremainingcoaccused,theRecordingOfficershad
appended the Memorandum to the Confessions of the remaining co
accused.Inthisfactualposition,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas
heldthatsuchdefect,ifany,presentinsaidconfessionalstatementsgets
cured through reliable and trustworthy deposition made by respective
RecordingOfficersintrialbeforeDesignatedCourtandsuchdefect,ifany,
gets cured by corroboration from the confessions of coaccused whose
confessionsareappendedwiththememorandumasrequiredunderRule
15(3)(b)oftheTADARules.ItisheldthatnoncomplianceofRule15of
the TADA Rules may not be the ground to discard the confession in
entirety. Inthiscaseonappreciationoftheevidence,Ihaverecordeda
findingthatthereiscogentandreliableevidencetoprovethecompliance
ofthemandatoryprovisionsofSection15oftheTADA(P)ActandRule15
subrule(3)subclause(b)oftheTADA(P)Rules.Whileconsideringthe
evidence,Ididnotfindanymajordefectwhilerecordingtheconfessionby
295
295
IwouldnowdealwiththeJudgmentsrelieduponby
the learned Advocate Shri Pasbola for the accused in support of his
submission.InthecaseofJameelAhmedv.StateofRajasthanreported
in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1853, while considering the
applicability of the proposition, I must make it clear that Ld.SPP also
concededthatbeforeplacingtherelianceontheconfessionoftheaccused
againstcoaccused,ruleofprudencerequiresthattheCourtshouldlook
forsomegeneralcorroboration.
307]
decisioninthecaseof AbdulvahabAbdulMajidShaikhandothersv.
State of Gujrat with State of Gujarat v. Abdulvahab Abdul Majid
Shaikh and others with State of Gujarat vs. Salim Noormahammad
Haveliwala and another reported in (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri.) 126 and submitted that Court has to ascertain first that the
confessionisvoluntaryandtrue. Inthiscase,itisheldthatsubsequent
retractionisnotthegroundtorejecttheconfession.Thecrucialquestion
iswhetheratthetimewhentheaccusedwasgivingthestatementhewas
subjectedtocoercion,threatoranyundueinfluenceorwasofferedany
inducement to give any confession. If these facts are present, then
296
296
297
insteadofextendingahelpinghandtotheaccused,itsupportsthecaseof
theprosecutioninthebackdropofthefactsprovedinthiscase. Ihave
consideredindetailthefactualaspectsquatheconfessionsofaccusedAbu
SalemandaccusedMehendiHasanandevidenceofPW11Shri Bodkhe
andPW12ShriKarale.
309]
298
corroboratetheconfessionoftheaccused,whichisalsoadentedpieceof
evidencerequirescorroboration.
310]
ThepointraisedbytheLd.AdvocateShriPasbolaneeds
299
questionhereiswhethertheconfessionofoneaccused,whichhasbeen
provedtobevoluntaryandtrueandthesamebeingasubstantivepieceof
evidence,canbeusedtocorroboratetheconfessionofthecoaccusedtried
together.Imustmentionedthatanswertothisquestioncanbefoundfrom
thedecisioninthecaseofJameelAhmedv.StateofRajasthanreported
in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1853. This Judgment has been
reliedupon tosubstantiate some other submissions byld.Advocate Shri
Pasbola.
311]
held that Section 15 of the TADA (P) Act has statutorily made the
confessionalstatementofanaccusedasaevidenceadmissibleagainstaco
accused and, therefore, it is futile to contend that if a corroboration is
necessarytoaccept the confessional statementofan accused,the same
cannot be found in another confession of coaccused in the same trial,
unlessofcourse,theCourtonfactsandcircumstancesofacaseconsidersit
necessarytoseekcorroborationfromanindependentsource.TheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatifboththeconfessionsareofsuch
qualitythattheCourtdoesnotconsideritsafetoactonsuchconfessions,
thenlikeanyotherpieceofevidence,theconfessionsofcoaccusedcannot
beusedevenforcorroboratinganotherconfessionofanotheraccusedon
theprinciplethatonedoubtfulpieceofevidencecannotbecorroborated
by another doubtful piece of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Indiahasheldthat,therefore,anacceptableconfessionsofacoaccused
canbeusedasacorroborativepieceofevidenceinatrialundertheTADA
300
300
(P)Acteventocorroborateaconfessionofanotheraccusedinthesame
trial.ThepropositionoflawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
Indiainthisdecisionisafittingreplyandanswertotheobjectionraised
on behalf of the learned Advocate for the accused. In this case, on
appreciation of the evidence, I have concluded that the confessions of
accusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalemhavebeenprovedtobe
voluntaryandtrue. TheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemandaccused
Mehendi Hasan have not been caused by promise, threat, inducement,
allurement, torture, threat, coercion, undue influence, beating etc.
Therefore,byapplyingthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India,inthiscaseIdonotseeanydifficultytomakeuseoftheconfessions
ofaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanagainsteachother.In
view of this legal position, the controversy on the point of use of
confession of one accused against coaccused for the purpose of
corroborationgetsfullyresolved.
312]
AfterdealingwiththeevidenceoftheApproverPW1
NaeemKhan,theconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemandtheconfessionof
accusedMehendiHasan,itwouldnowbenecessarytofindouttheother
independentevidenceandtoembarkupon the taskof appreciating the
other independent evidence led by the prosecution on the charge of
conspiracy,murder,extortionetc. Atthisstage,Iwouldliketomention
thatbeforeembarkinguponthetaskofappreciatingtheevidenceofother
witnesses, one more point raised by the learned Advocate Shri Pasbola
needsconsideration.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatthecaseof
301
301
theprosecutionplacedbeforethisCourtinthesupplementarychargesheet
aswellassoughttobeprovedbytheevidenceincludingtheconfessionsof
theaccusediscontrarytoitsearliercasebasedonthesameFIR. Ld.
Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that the period of conspiracy and the
objectoftheconspiracymateriallydiffersagainsttheseaccusedthanthe
onewhichwaspropoundedintheearlierpartofthistrial.Ld.Advocate
ShriPasbola,therefore,submittedthattheevidenceledinthistrialbythe
prosecution ofApprovePW1NaeemKhan,confessionalstatementsand
otherwitnessesiscontrarytoitsowncase,whichwasinitiallyconcluded
againstthe six accused. Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola,therefore,submitted
thatthestatementsmadeintheconfessionsbyaccusedAbuSalemand
accusedMehendiHasanonthepointofperiodofconspiracy,theroleof
someoftheaccusedandtheobjectoftheconspiracyistotallydifferent.
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthattheprosecutionhascompletely
deviatedfromthefactsofitscaseintheearlierpartofthetrial.
313]
InreplytothissubmissionofthelearnedAdvocateShri
Pasbola, Ld.SPP Shri Ujjwal Nikam submitted that the crux of the
prosecution case has not been changed. Ld. SPP submitted that the
Judgmentdeliveredbythe Hon'ble Supreme CourtofIndia in Stateof
Maharashtrav.BharatRaganireportedin2002SupremeCourtCases
(Cri)377,arisingoutofthedecisiongiveninthesameCrimeNo.144of
1995isselfexplanatorytoanswerthesubmissionsadvancedonbehalfof
theaccused.Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthatincaseofconspiracyand
thefactthatthemainactors(accused)wereabscondingforquitealong
302
302
time,itwasnotpossiblefortheprosecutiontoknowtheactualconspiracy,
whichwasknowntotheseactors(accused).Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmitted
thatifthecaseoftheprosecutionhadtobemanipulatedagainstthese
accused, then the Investigating Officer would have taken abundant
precautiontocollectevidenceorcreateevidenceconsistentwithsomeof
thefactsoftheearliertrial.InthesubmissionofLd.SPPsomedeviationin
thefactualbackgroundispossibleandsuchdeviationclearlyindicatesthat
theprosecutionhascomebeforeCourtwiththetruefactsdisclosedduring
thecourseofinterrogationfromthemouthofaccusedAbuSalemandhis
associates,whoplayedpivotalroleinhatchingtheconspiracy.Theyknew
theobjectoftheconspiracy. Therefore,itissubmittedbyLd.Prosecutor
thatthesubmissionadvancedonbehalfoftheaccusedthatprosecution
hascompletelydeviatedfromitsearliercasecannotbeaccepted.
314]
Pasbolafortheaccusedisveryimportantand,therefore,itneedstobe
examined carefully. Before adverting to the facts and evidence on this
point,onecannotbeobliviousofthefactthatpursuanttotheconspiracy
hatchedinDubai,PradeepJainwasbrutallymurdered. Itmaybenoted
thatutmostsecrecyandconfidentialityisthehallmarkoftheoffenceof
conspiracy. Ordinarily it is very difficult to get direct evidence of the
conspiracy.Incaseofconspiracy,inthemajorityofthecases,theevidence
placedbeforeCourtismainlyacircumstantialevidence.Courthastofind
outthetruthonthebasisofthecircumstantialevidencequatheconspiracy
andsometimesCourthastodrawinferenceonthebasisofthefactsand
303
303
circumstancesestablishedbytheprosecution.Atthisstage,itisnecessary
tomentionthatinearlierpartofthetrial,whichwasTADASpecialCase
No. 22 of 1995, six accused were put on trial. All the accused were
acquittedbythisCourt.TheorderofacquittalpassedbythisCourtwasset
asidebytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaquaaccusedSubhedarsingh
Yadav,SubhashBindandShekharKadamandtheywereconvicted. The
punishment awarded to Subhedarsingh Yadav was minor. However,
SubhashBindandShekharKadamhavebeensentencedtosufferRigorous
Imprisonment for Life. Subhash Bind and Shekhar Kadam were found
guiltyofcommittingmurderofPradeepJainpursuanttotheconspiracy
hatchedinDubaibyaccusedAbuSalemandAneesIbrahim.Itmayfurther
be mentioned that accused Naeem Khan (now Approver), accused Abu
Salem andotherswereshown as the abscondingaccusedin the earlier
chargesheet. ThenameofaccusedMehendiHasanwasdisclosedforthe
firsttimeafterthearrestofaccusedAbuSalemandduringthecourseof
hisinterrogationandinterrogationofaccusedNaeemKhan(Approver).It
maybenotedatthisstagethat,therefore,intheearlierpartofthetrial,
thepersons,whohadactuallyparticipatedintheconspiratorialmeetings,
were not before this Court. The Court had no benefit of any direct
evidenceoftheconspiracyandallthefactsculminatedinthemurderof
PradeepJainon07/03/1995.
315]
AfterthearrestofaccusedAbuSalem,accusedNaeem
Khan, accused Riyaz Siddiqui and accused Mehendi Hasan, the true
conspiracy, the people involved in the conspiracy and the object of the
304
304
conspiracy and further the object of the conspiracy moulded with the
changed situation from time to time has come to fore. In this case,
accused Abu Salem, accused Mehendi Hasan, accused Naeem Khan
(Approver) and accused Riyaz Siddiqui confessed their crime. In the
confessions, accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan disclosed
about the conspiratorial meetings held in the office of Anees Ibrahim
Kaskar and accused Abu Salem at Dubai, the persons present in the
meeting,theplanhatchedinthemeeting,theroleassignedtoeachoneof
them and to the Approver Naeem Khan in the said conspiracy. It is,
therefore,apparentonthefaceoftherecordthatnowinthiscaseallthe
relevantfactsquatheconspiracyhavebeenunfoldedbeforethiscourtby
accusedAbuSalem,accusedMehendiHasanandApproverNaeemKhan.
Therefore,whiledecidingthisissue,allthesefactscannotbelostsightof.
316]
IhavegonethroughtheChargeframedintheearlier
trialon16/04/2007. Perusalofthechargerevealedthattheperiodof
conspiracy was between September 1994 to 07/03/1995. As per the
Chargeframedinthiscase,whichisbasedonthefactsplacedbeforethe
Court by the prosecution, the period of the conspiracy is between
November,1994to 07/03/1995. As far as this period of conspiracyis
concerned, the same has been gathered from the facts and prima facie
evidence placed before the Court by the prosecution. I have already
observedthatutmostsecrecyandconfidentialityishallmarkoftheoffence
ofconspiracy.Inthiscase,theInvestigatingOfficerhasplacedonrecord
some direct evidence of the conspiracy. As per the prosecution, in the
305
305
earliertrialaccusedNo.3SubhedarSinghYadavhadclaimedtherightover
theproperty,whichwasinpossessionofM/s.KamlaConstruction.Hehad
agreed to transfer his right qua the said property to M/s. Labh
ConstructionforpriceofRs.10.93crores. Aspertheagreement,hehad
taken the responsibility to obtain release, transfer or assignment of the
claimofM/s.KamlaConstructioninrespectofthesaidproperty.Inorder
tomakeM/s.KamlaConstruction(PartnershipFirmofJainbrothers)to
giveuptheirright,hestarteddealingwithJainbrotherswithaccusedNo.4
ShaukatMistry,anEstateagent.WhenJainbrothersdidnotsuccumbto
thepressure,thenaccusedNo.3SubhedarsinghYadavthoughtoftaking
thehelpoftheUnderworldgangsterstoforceJainbrotherstoreleasethe
propertystrucktoaccusedNo.3SubhedarsinghYadav.Asperthecaseof
theprosecution,severalmeetingswereheldthereafterwithJainbrothers.
But Jain brothers did not succumb to threats and pressure from the
Underworldpeoplecontendingthattheypossessthevalidtitleinrespect
ofthe'KolDongriProperty'.ThefailureofJainbrothers,accordingtothe
case of the prosecution, to succumb to the pressure and threats of the
UnderworldDonAbuSalemculminatedintothemurderofPradeepJain.
317]
differenceinthecaseoftheprosecutionintheearlierpartoftrialandthis
trialonthepointoftheconspiracy,theobjectoftheconspiracyandthe
personsinvolvedintheconspiracy.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethat
withslightvariationinthefacts,someimportantfactsarecommon.The
commonthingsare, i) thedisputeovertheKolDongriPropertyofM/s.
306
306
KamlaConstruction(Jainbrothers),ii)Jainbrothersandiii)thethreatsto
JainbrotherstosurrendertheKolDongriProperty.Itisnotthecaseofthe
prosecution that atanypoint of time, either accused Abu Salem or his
associateswantedJainbrotherstotransfertheKolDongriPropertytotheir
name. The common thread in the conspiracyis that they wanted Jain
brotherstosurrenderthepropertytothirdpartyandthesaidthirdparty,
asperthecaseoftheprosecutionintheearlierpartofthetrial,wasM/s.
LabhConstructions.Allthesethingshavenotchanged.Allthesethingsare
apparentlycommon.Itmustbementionedthatallthesecommonthings
arethefoundationofthecaseoftheprosecution. SubhedarsinghYadav,
accusedNo.3,intheearliertrialandShaukatMistry,accusedNo.4,inthe
earliertrial,whenrealizedthatJainbrotherswouldnotpayheedtothem,
theytookresorttotheextrajudicialforumintheformoftheUnderworld
topressurizeJainbrotherstosuccumbtotheirdesire. Thebasiccaseof
theprosecutiononthepointoftheconspiracyistoforceJainbrothersto
surrendertheKolDongriPropertytosomebuilderandtherebyearnprofit
bysettlingthedealforthesaidbuilder.
318]
Besides,thiscaseofconspiracystatedabove,whichis
commonintheearlierpartofthetrialandthistrial,someotherfactshave
cometolightduringthecourseofinvestigationinthiscase.Thesaidfact
iswithregardtothethreatsbyaccusedAbuSalemtoJainbrotherstopay
Rs.twocroresasaransomtoforcetheotherpartytoleaveitsclaimover
thesaidproperty. Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,thesaiddealwas
settledforRs.onecroreandoutofRs.onecrore,thefirstinstallmentof
307
307
Rs.tenlakhswaspaidbyJainbrotherstoAbuSalemthroughNaeemKhan
(Approver). It must be mentioned that this could not be said to be a
deviationfromtheearliercaseoftheconspiracybytheprosecution.Onthe
contrary,itcouldbesaidtobeonemoreadditionalfacetoftheconspiracy
cametolightduringthefurtherinvestigation,afterarrestofaccusedAbu
Salem, Naeem Khan, Mehendi Hasan and Riyaz Siddiqui. Accused Abu
Salem,accusedMehendiHasanandaccusedRiyazSiddiquiwerepartyto
theconspiratorialmeeting,whichtookplaceintheofficeofAneesIbrahim
KaskarandAbu salematDubai. ShaukatMistry,whowastriedinthe
earlierpartofthetrialanddiedduringthe pendencyof appeal,wasthe
onlyperson present,when the conspiracywas hatchedin Dubai. Itis,
therefore,apparentonthefaceoftherecordthattheprosecutioninthe
earlierpartofthetrialhadnobenefitofanydirectevidenceaboutthe
conspiracy.
319]
Itmaybementionedthathavinggotanaccesstothe
directevidenceontheconspiracycertainnewfactshavecometolight.It
maybementionedthatbecauseofthedisclosureofcertainnewfactsfor
thefirsttimecouldnotbesaidtobeasomersaultbytheprosecutiontoits
earlier case. It is, therefore, seen that the core of the conspiracy, the
persons involved in the conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy, the
propertyinvolvedbeingsubjectmatterofthedisputeintheconspiracyand
Jain brothers are all common. It may be mentioned that case of the
conspiracyrevealed atthetimeoftheearliertrialwasquatheaccused
arrested and put on trial in TADA Special Case No. 22 of 1995. The
308
308
accusedarrestedandputontrialinTADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995were
notmain actorsintheconspiracy. Itmaybenotedthatalmostallthe
accusedtriedinTADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995weretriedfortheirrole
in the conspiracy namely to follow the commands and dictates of Abu
Salem and see that the conspiracy is taken to its logical end. All the
accused in the earlier trial i.e. TADA Special Case No.22 of 1995 were
almostthe stoogestofollowthecommandsanddictatesofAbuSalem.
ThemainobjectoftheconspiracyasfarasAbuSalemisconcernedwasto
earn money by hook or crook. It is seen on perusal of the evidence
adducedbytheprosecutioninthiscasethataccusedAbuSalemwenton
changingormouldinghisstrategydependingonthedevelopmentsand/or
changeinthecircumstances.ItcanbeseenthatwhenAbuSalemrealized
thatsurrenderofthepropertycouldnotbematerialized,heseemstohave
changedhisplanandobjectandtriedtosettleadealwithJainbrothersto
extortRs.twocroresfromthemasaransomtodoawaywiththeother
party.
320]
Itmaybenotedthatthemainaccused,whoplayeda
pivotalroleintheconspiracy,werearrestedaftertenyearsandontheir
arrest,certainintrinsicfactsoftheconspiracyandtheroleplayedbyeach
oneofthemcamebeforeCourtintheformofvividdetails.Inviewofthis
position,Iamoftheopinionthatthecoreoftheconspiracyhatchedand
theobjectoftheconspiracyhasnotbeenchanged.Theperiodaspointed
outbylearnedAdvocatefortheaccusedofconspiracyisdifferent. But
thereisnomuchdifferencebetweentheperiod.Ihavealreadydiscussed
309
309
theevidenceoftheApproverandtheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalem
and accused Mehendi Hasan. I have found that the evidence of the
Approver PW1 Naeem Khan is reliable and credible. As far as the
confessionsareconcerned,Ihavefoundthattheconfessionsofaccused
Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan are voluntary and true. The
confessions have not been caused by inducement, threat, promise,
coercion,illtreatment,beating,force,undueinfluence,allurement,torture
etc. Even in his confession accused Abu Salem has stated that in the
monthofOctober,1994RiyazSiddiquicametotheirofficeandapprised
himandAneesabouttheKolDongriPropertyofJainbrothersandgavea
telephoneNumberofAshokJain.So,thereisnomuchdifferencebetween
theperiodofconspiracy.AccordingtoAbuSalem,hewasmadeawareof
the dispute of the Kol Dongri Property and the stakes involved in the
property and likely profit they could make out of transaction, if it is
handledcarefully. TheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemfurtherreveals
thataftergettingtheinformationofthisdisputeoftheKolDongriProperty,
heputthewheelsofhisganginmotiontofindoutthetruthandtoexplore
thepossibilityoftheprofit,whichcouldbemadeoutofthetransaction.
Therefore, factually there is no difference between the period of the
conspiracystatedintheearliertrialandinthistrial.
321]
Initially,asperthecaseoftheprosecution,Jainbrothers
310
brotherstotransfertheKolDongriPropertytoAbuSalemorhisassociates.
ItcanbeseenthatwhentheyrealizedthatJainbrotherswerenotready
even by applying threats to surrender the property, accused Abu Salem
foundoutsomenewwaytoearneasymoneyfromJainbrothers.Allthese
facts have been admitted by accused Abu Salem in his confession.
Similarly, PW1 Naeem Khan, Approver, who was acting as per the
instructionsofAbuSalemandfollowinghisinstructionsscrupulously,has
deposedaboutthechangeofastanceandastrategy,whentheirattempts
to pressurize and threaten Jain brothers to surrender the property in
favourof'M/s.LabhConstruction'werefrustrated.
322]
ItisseenonperusalofevidenceofPW9JyotiJainand
PW13SunilJainthattheyappearstohavemadeaincompletedisclosure
ofcertainfactsknowntothem.AsfarasevidenceofSunilJainandJyoti
Jainisconcerned,Imaydealwiththesameseparately.Iwouldoffermy
commentsonalltheaspectsandcircumstancestouchingtheevidenceof
JyotiJainandSunilJainattheappropriatestage.Itis,therefore,seenthat
there isnomaterial difference between the case of a conspiracyin the
earlierpartofthetrialandthistrial.Theobjectoftheconspiracyhasnot
beenchanged.Theaddedobjectoftheconspiracyhassurfacedafterarrest
ofthemainactorsintheconspiracy. Inthecontextoftheabovestated
point,itisnecessarytodealwiththedefenceoftheaccusedatthisstage.
Asperthedefenceoftheaccusedthatbychangingtheprosecutioncase,
theInvestigatingOfficerhasplantedtheevidenceagainsttheaccused.If
thisdefenceisweighedproperly,thencertainlythebalancetiltsinfovour
311
311
oftheprosecution.Inthiscasefromdayoneoftakingcustodyofaccused
Abu Salem, the Special Prosecutor started appearing before Court. The
InvestigatingOfficerandtheProsecutorcouldnotbesaidtobeoblivious
of the case of the prosecution qua conspiracy and the object of the
conspiracyintheearlierpartofthetrial. Inthiscase,theinvestigation
wasentrustedtotheAntiTerrorismSquad,aSpecialBranchcreatedto
deal with serious crimes. The Officer of a rank of of Assistant
CommissionerofPolicewasmadetheinchargeoftheInvestigationTeam.
Iftheprosecutionwantedtoplantfalsewitnesses,thentheywouldhave
madethosewitnessestospeakintonewiththecaseoftheprosecutionin
theearliertrial.Butitappearsthatpolicedidnotdoit.Evenbytakingthe
riskofplacingcertainfactsonrecord,which,tosomeextent,deviatefrom
earlier case of the prosecution, they have come before Court with the
evidencecollectedduringthecourseofinterrogation.Thisattemptonthe
partoftheInvestigatingOfficerclearlyindicatesthat,hehasnotconcealed
anyevidencefromthisCourt.Whateverevidencehehadcollectedduring
thecourseoftheinvestigation,thoughitmayruncountertothecaseof
theprosecutiononcertainfacts,hasbeenplacedonrecord.
323]
decidedtoconcoctacasebyplantingtheevidenceofhischoice,hecould
have done it. But the material placedon recordvindicates the sincere
attemptoftheInvestigatingOfficer.TheInvestigatingOfficerbytakingthe
riskofplacingalltheevidenceonrecord,thoughitiscontrarytosome
facets of the case of the prosecution in earlier trial, has justified his
312
312
bonafides. Itmustbementionedthatthissincereattemptonthepartof
the Investigating Officer to place on record all evidence and material
collected vindicates the stand of the prosecution and on the basis of
material placed on record, the theory propounded by the defence that
certainevidencehasbeenplantedandconcoctedtoinvolvetheseaccused
inthiscasecannotbeaccepted.Itis,therefore,seenthatbasiccoreofthe
caseoftheprosecutionhasnotbeenchanged.Theobjectoftheconspiracy
issame.Thepersonsinvolvedintheconspiracyaresame.Jainbrothers
andtheirKolDongriPropertyisthecommonthreadoftheconspiracy.The
object of conspiracy was to threaten and pressurize Jain brothers to
surrender the property and in case of their failure to succumb to the
threatsandpressure,tokilloneoftheJainbrothers.Theevidenceplaced
onrecordwouldshowthatJainbrothersdidnotbudgetothethreatsand
pressure.AccusedAbuSalem,whoisthemastermindinthisconspiracy,
befittingwiththesituation,mouldedandchangedhisstanceandmade
Jainbrotherstopayransom,toforcetheotherpartytodoawaywiththe
propertyofJainbrothers.Itmustbementionedthatthisnewfactrevealed
duringfurtherinvestigationcouldnotbesaidtobecontrarytothecaseof
prosecutiononthepointofconspiracy.Onthecontrary,ithastobesaidto
be an act in continuation with the object of the conspiracy, which was
hatchedinDubaiintheyear1994.Itmayfurtherbementionedthatsome
variance/ deviation is bound to happen in such a serious matter. If
varianceinthecaseoftheprosecutionissuch,thatitattacksatthevery
coreandrootoftheprosecution,thenithastobetakenseriousnoteand
viewedwithsuspicion.Ifdeviationorvarianceisminorandwhichisthe
313
313
netresultofthedisclosureofcertainnewevidenceormaterial,then, it
cannotbegivenmuchimportance.
324]
Inthecontextofthisissue,itisnecessarytodealwith
onemoresubmissionmadebyld.AdvocateMr.Pasbola.Ld.AdvocateShri
Pasbola submitted that accused Abu Salem can neither be charged nor
triedfortheoffencepunishableu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCode,
inasmuchasthischargeisbeyondthescopeoftheorderofextradition
passedbythePortugueseGovernmentandthePortugueseJudicialForums.
Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that without any material being
placedonrecord,itcannotbeassumedorpresumedthatthechargeu/sec.
120BoftheIndianPenalCode,whichhasbeenframedagainstaccused
AbuSalem,wasincludedintherequestmadeforextraditionaswellasin
theorderofextradition.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatthetrial
ofaccusedAbu Salem for the offence u/sec.120B of the Indian Penal
CodeisagainstthelawofextraditioninIndiaandmoreparticularlyin
breachoftheRuleofSpecialty.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthat
thefactsdisclosedbeforethePortugueseAuthoritiesdidnotmentionthe
offenceu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeagainstaccusedAbuSalem
in Crime No. 144 of 1995 registered at D.N. Nagar Police Station and,
therefore,itcannotbesaidthatthisaccusedwasextraditedtoIndiatoface
thechargeu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeinC.R.No.144of1995
registeredatD.N.NagarPoliceStation.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolafurther
submitted that after extradition of accused Abu Salem to India, certain
additional facts have been placed before this Court, which in the
314
314
submissionoflearnedAdvocateShriPasbolaarecontrarytotheorderof
extradition.Onthispoint,learnedSPPShriUjjwalNikamsubmittedthat
thissubmissionadvancedonbehalfofaccusedAbuSalemiswithoutany
substanceandmerit.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatthesubmissionsarefactually
incorrect. Ld.SPP submitted that time and again it has been held by
JudicialpronouncementsthatthisaccusedhasbeenextraditedtoIndiato
facethechargeofconspiracyu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodein
CrimeNo.144of1995registeredatD.N.NagarPoliceStation. Ld.SPP
submittedthatthisissuewasdecidedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
IndiavideJudgmentandOrderdated10/09/2010reportedinJudgment's
Today2010(10)SupremeCourt202.Ld.SPPShriNikampointedoutthat
this Court by order dated 13th and 15th January, 2014 rejected the
contentionraisedonbehalfoftheaccusedsimilartotheoneraisedbefore
thisCourtnow.
325]
Attheoutset,itisnecessarytomentionthatthematter
arisingoutofinterimorderspassedbythisCourtwascarriedinappeal
beforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaonumpteentimes. Accused
AbuSalem,ascanbeseenfromtherecord,hasnotleftastoneunturned
tofrustratetheprosecutioncaseagainsthimforthechargeu/sec.120Bof
theIndianPenalCodeinC.R.No.144of1995registeredatD.N.Nagar
PoliceStation.Byorderdated13thand15thJanuary,2014,Ihavedecided
thisissue.However,inordertoavoidanymultiplicityofproceedingsin
future,Iproposetodealwiththisissuebriefly.Itisalsowarrantedinview
ofcertainfactsprimafacieestablishedbeforemeonthebasisofconcrete
315
315
andcogentevidence.AccusedAbuSalemwasoneofthewantedaccused
in C.R. No. 144 of 1995 registered at D.N. Nagar Police Station. The
GovernmentofIndiawasrequiredtofightlongdrawnlegalbattlebefore
thePortugueseAuthoritiesandtheJudicialForumstoseekextraditionof
accusedAbuSalemtoIndia.AccusedAbuSalemwasextraditedtoIndia
bytheGovernmentofPortugalontherequestoftheGovernmentofIndia
forfacingthechargesinvariousoffencesmentionedintheorderofthe
extraditiondated14/07/2004passedbytheCourtofAppealsofLisbon.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofJusticeofRepublicofPortugalbyitsorder
dated 27/01/2005 upheld the order dated 14/07/2004 passed by the
Court of Appeals of Lisbon and authorized extradition of accused Abu
Salem toUnion ofIndia for facing the charges/trial ofthe offences,as
disclosedbythePublicProsecutorofPortugaltotheCourtofAppealsof
Lisbon.Theorderofextraditionwasstuddedwithcertainconditions.In
viewoftheextraditionorder,accusedAbuSalemwasbroughttoIndiaon
11/11/2005.Asnotedabove,accusedAbuSalemwasshownarrestedin
C.R.No. 144 of 1995 registered at D.N. Nagar Police Station on
24/11/2005. Theinvestigationinthesaidcrimewastransferredtothe
AntiTerrorismSquad,Mumbai,andafterconductingtheinvestigation,the
ATS/Investigating Officer filed supplementary Charge sheet against
accused Abu Salem and others on 20/04/2006 for the offences u/sec.s
302,307,384,452,506readwithSection120BoftheIndianPenalCode
andSections5and27oftheArmsActandSections3(2),3(3),3(5)and
Section5oftheTADA(P)Act,1987.Atthisstage,itmaybementioned
thatbeforeframingthecharges,mylearnedpredecessorhadheardlearned
316
316
TheaccusedAbuSalemhasbeenchargedinthiscase
u/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeontheallegationthatinconspiracy
withtheotheraccused,betweenNovember,1994to7th March,1995at
DubaiandatGreaterBombay,agreedtostrikeaterrorinJainbrothersand
317
317
BuildercommunityandtocompelJainbrotherstopayextortionamountof
Rs.1croreandinpursuanceofthesaidagreement/conspiracyonorabout
07/03/1995,theaccusedSalimRashidShaikh,UdayPawar,SanjayKadam
and Rajesh Igave and wanted accused Sunil Nair, committed the house
tresspassbyenteringintotheofficeof'KamlaConstructionCompany'and
committedthemurderofPradeepJain.
328]
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatthesimilar
kindofobjectionwasraisedbyaccusedAbuSalemforframingcharges
againsthimintheBombayBombBlastsCaseof1993. Theorderpassed
rejectinghiscontentionthatthosechargeswerealsonotcoveredbythe
extradition order, was also challenged by filing a proceeding in the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was the main contention of the
accusedAbuSalembeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiathatthe
chargesframedinthiscaseaswellasthechargesframedagainsthimin
the Bombay Bomb Blasts Case, were not covered by the order of the
extradition and, therefore, the Union of India committed the breach of
Rule of Speciality. I have already mentioned that those Appeals were
decidedbytheorderdated10/09/2010bytheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India. In this Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after
considering the contentions of the accused Abu Salem and after
considering the relevant provisions of law, has held that there was no
breach of Rule of Speciality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
confirmed the order of my learned predecessor dated 16/04/2007
holding that the Union of India made it clear to the Government of
318
318
PortugalthatasfarasC.R.No.144of1995isconcerned,itwasacaseof
criminalconspiracyandtheGovernmentofPortugalhadacceptedthesaid
contention of the Union of India as it is. In substance, the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiaconfirmedtheorderofmylearnedpredecessor
holding that the accused in this case can be tried for the offence
punishable u/sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and the said charge
couldnotbesaidtobedehorstheorderoftheextraditionofaccusedAbu
Saleminthiscase.
329]
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthattheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiaintheJudgmentdated10/09/2010reproduced
thecontention/standofaccusedAbuSaleminParaNo.7/7.1.InParaNo.
29ofthe Judgment,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiawhiledealing
withthestandoftheaccusedAbuSaleminthiscase,hasobservedthat
''the Supreme Court of Justice, Portugal has granted extradition of
appellant Abu Salemforalltheoffencesmentionedin Para1ofthe
Orderdt.27/01/2005''. TherelevantobservationsareinParaNo.33of
the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasobservedthattheextraditiongrantedinthe
present case had due regard to the facts placed which could cover the
offenceswithwhichtheappellanthasbeencharged.TheHon'bleSupreme
Court of India has further observed that as rightly pointed out by the
learnedSolicitor General, the offences are disclosedbythe same setof
facts placed before the Government of Portugal. The Hon'ble Supreme
CourtofIndiahasfurtherobservedthatthesubmissionsofthelearned
319
319
SolicitorGeneralneedacceptanceandultimatelyconfirmedthedecisionof
theDesignatedCourtframingthechargeagainstaccusedAbuSalem.The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahascategoricallyheldthattherewasno
breachofRuleofSpeciality.AsfarasthiscaseagainstaccusedAbuSalem
isconcerned,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasconfirmedtheorder
of this Court framing the charge againstthe accusedAbu Salem u/sec.
120BofIndianPenalCodeandotheroffences.
330]
PortugueseAuthoritiesquachargeu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCode
in this case. One can locate the said material from the order dated
08/11/2005passedbytheCourtofAppealsofLisbon.Bythisorder,the
Courtof Appeals of Lisbon has noted down the material placedby the
UnionofIndiaconstitutingtheoffenceofcriminalconspiracy. Itcanbe
foundinParaNo.7oftheJudgment.Thefactsdisclosedareasfollows.
''Inshort,theseoffenceshavebeenchargedbasedonthealleged
commitment by the person to be extradited of the following
facts:
Intheyearof1995,incooperationwithotherindividuals(that
have been sentenced meanwhile), he planned the physical
elimination of two brothers in Mumbai because he did not
succeedtoconvincethemtosellsomerealestateinhisfavor.
Usingsophisticatedweaponry,heshotoneofthemandhadthe
otheroneinjured.''
331]
down the prayer for extradition of accused Abu Salem for offences
providingthepunishmentofdeathandimprisonmentforlife.Therefore,
320
320
the matter was carried in Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Justice of Republic of Portugal. The said Appeal was decided on
27/01/2005.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasnoteddowninPara
No.29the facts presentedbeforethe Portuguese Governmentandthose
facts were found reproduced in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
CourtofJusticeofRepublicofPortugalinParaNo.1oftheJudgment.As
far as C.R. No. 144 of 1995 registered at D.N. Nagar police Station is
concerned,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofJusticeofRepublicofPortugal
hastakencognizanceofall those facts andconsideredthe samein the
Judgment. While passing the order dated 27/01/2005 the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofJusticeofRepublicofPortugaltooknoteofthefollowing
facts.Thesaidfactsreadsthus:
'Incooperationwithotherindividuals(thathavebeensentenced
meanwhileintheyearof1995),hedevisedphysicalelimination
of two brothers in Mumbai because he did not succeed to
convincethemtosellsomerealestateinhisfavor.Byresorting
to sophisticated weaponry, he had shot one of them and the
otheronewasinjured.''
332]
clear beyond doubt that the facts constituting the offence of criminal
conspiracy to eliminate the Jain brothers and prime involvement of
accused Abu Salem therein, were presented before the Portuguese
Authoritiesandthosefactshadbeendulyconsideredbyalltheconcerned
Authoritiesandbasedonconsiderationofthosefacts,accusedAbuSalem
was extradited to India for the trial of those offences. At the cost of
repetition, it is necessary to mention that order of this Court dated
321
321
Inordertocompletediscussiononthispoint,itwouldbe
322
Judgmentandorderdateddated10/09/2010inthecaseof'AbuSalemv.
State of Maharashtra' and prayed for permission to withdraw certain
charges, which according to the CBI were not covered by the order of
extradition.ItmaybesignificanttonoteatthisstagethattheGovernment
ofMaharashtradidnotmakeanyapplicationbeforetheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiaformodificationoftheorderoftheHon'bleSupremeCourt
of India dated 10/09/2010 in the case of 'Abu Salem v. State of
Maharashtra'sofarasitrelatestotheconformationoftheorderofthis
Courtdated16/04/2007wherebythechargeagainstaccusedAbuSalem
u/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodewasframed.Itmaybementioned
atthisstagethattheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,inthepeculiarfacts
brought on record by the CBI, modified the order dated 10/09/2010
passedintheBombayBombBlastsCase1of1993onthepointofframing
certainchargesagainstaccusedAbuSalem.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
Indiahasmadesomecandidobservationwhilemodificationofthesaid
orderontheprayeroftheCBI.
334]
323
324
withdrawthechargeu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeframedagainst
accused Abu Salem inasmuch as it was not covered in the order of
extraditionofaccusedAbuSalemtoIndia.Inviewofthestatementofthe
learnedAttorneyGeneralofIndia,learnedSpl.P.P.appliedforwithdrawal
ofthechargesu/sec.386and387oftheIndianPenalCodeandSection5
oftheTADA(P)Act,1987.Atthesametime,learnedSpl.P.P.pointedout
thattheprosecutionwouldnotpressforframingchargeagainstaccused
AbuSalemu/sec.s384,449,450,452,506oftheIndianPenalCodeand
Section 5 and 27 of the Arms Act. In view of the prayer made in
Exhibit519 byorderdated13th and15th January,2014theprosecution
wasallowedtowithdrawthechargesu/sec.386,387oftheIndianPenal
CodeandSection5oftheTADA(P)Act,1987againstaccusedAbuSalem.
Itis,therefore,crystalclearthattimeandagainithasbeenheldthatthe
trialoftheaccusedAbuSalemfortheoffenceofcriminalconspiracyu/sec.
120B of the Indian Penal Code was not contrary to the order of
extradition. After considering all the material placed on record, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the facts constituting an
offenceu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodewereverymuchpresented
beforethePortugueseAuthoritiesbytheUnionofIndia. Inviewofthis
position,thesubmissionthatthechargeu/sec.120BoftheIndianPenal
Codeisinviolationoftheextraditionorder,cannotbesustained.Itmay
benotedatthisstagethatthemainchargeagainstaccusedAbuSalemis
u/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCode.Ifthechargeu/sec.120Bofthe
IndianPenalCodeisnotframedagainstaccusedAbuSalem,thenitwould
bedifficultfortheprosecutiontoestablishotherchargesagainstaccused
325
325
AbuSalem.Itmustbementionedthat,thiscouldnotbeandwasnotthe
object of the Union of India, when the facts of C.R. No. 144 of 1995
registered at D.N. Nagar Police Station were presented before the
Government of Portugal seeking extradition of accused Abu Salem for
facing the trial in C.R. No.144 of 1995 registered at D.N.Nagar Police
Station. The facts presented before the Portuguese Government and
AuthoritiesdistinctlystatedtheallegationsagainstaccusedAbuSalemin
C.R.No.144of1995registeredatD.N.NagarPoliceStation.TheJudicial
Forums in Portugal have taken note of those facts. For the purpose of
convenience, I have reproduced those facts in the earlier part of my
Judgment.
336]
necessary to deal with the submission that the prosecution was not
empowered to place on record the facts subsequently discovered after
extraditionofaccusedAbuSalemtoIndiatoformthebasisofthecharge
u/sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. This submission cannot be
acceptedformorethanonereasons.Ihavealreadyobservedthatthefacts
constitutingtheoffenceoftheconspiracytoeliminatetheJainbrothersin
the crime with some other accused were placed/presented before the
PortugueseAuthoritiesandonthebasisofthosefactsextraditionofthe
accusedAbuSalemwasordered. IntheearlierpartofmyJudgment,I
haveobservedthataccusedAbuSalemwasthemastermindinthiscrime.
TheaccusedputontrialinthiscrimeinTADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995
were the stooges of the accused Abu Salem. They were acting at the
326
326
commandsanddictatesoftheaccusedAbuSalem. AccusedAbuSalem
wasthedecisionmakerandtheyweresimplyassignedthejobtoexecute
thesaiddecision.ThemainaccusednamelyaccusedAbuSalem,accused
Naeem Khan(Approver)andaccusedMehendiHasan wereabsconding.
TheaccusedAbuSalemwasarrestedinthiscrimeon24/11/2005. The
remainingaccused,whoarefacingthetrialbeforeme,werearrestedafter
24/11/2005. In the earlier part of investigation, the involvement of
accused Mehendi Hasan and accused Riyaz Siddiqui was not even
disclosedbyname.Theirinvolvementwasrevealed/disclosedduringthe
courseofinterrogationofaccusedAbuSalem. AccusedMehendiHasan
appears to be the trusted soldier of the accused Abu Salem. Accused
Mohd.NaeemKhan(Approver)wasfollowingthecommandsanddictates
oftheaccusedAbuSalembecauseaccusedAbuSalemhadobligedNaeem
Khan inacasependingagainsthisnephew. AccusedRiyazSiddiquwas
initially the Approver in this case. However, he did not comply the
conditions of the Pardon tendered to him and, therefore, he has been
relegatedtothepositionofaccusedandbeingtriedseparatelyasperthe
mandate of law. It may be mentioned that during the course of
interrogation of accused Abu Salem, Mehendi Hasan, Naeem Khan and
Riyaz Siddiqui, they have unfolded the first hand account of the
conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy, the persons involved in the
conspiracyandmouldingoftheobjectoftheconspiracybyaccusedAbu
Salemdependinguponsituationfacedtoputtheconspiracytoitslogical
end.
327
337]
327
moneyfromJainbrothersbycompellingthemtorelinquishtheirrightover
theKoldogriProperty.Theobjectoftheconspiracywasnottopressurize
andthreatenJainbrotherstotransferthesaidpropertyeitherinthename
ofAbuSalemorothermembersoftheconspiracy.Theywereinterestedin
earningeasymoneybywayofransom.WhenAbuSalemfoundthatitis
notpossibletosettlethedealbypressurizingandthreateningJainbrothers
torelinquishtheirrightovertheKolDongriProperty,accusedAbuSalem
tookasomersaultandgavethemanoffertodeveloptheirpropertyon
theirownbypayinghandsomeamountofransomanddoawaywiththe
other party from the deal. The subsequent facts disclosed during the
course of investigation could not be said to be the new facts. On the
contrary,thefactsrevealedduringthecourseofinterrogationafterarrest
ofaccusedAbu Salem has tobe saidtobe apart of same transaction,
which continued till the elimination of Pradeep Jain. Therefore, the
submission that prosecution has deviated from its earlier case and
completelypresentedanewcasebyplantingthefalsewitnessescannotbe
accepted. Thecoreoftheprosecutioncasehasnotbeenchangedatall.
ThisfacthasalsobeenconfirmedandacceptedbytheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndia. Thisis onemorefacetofthemattertoturndownthe
submissionadvancedonbehalfofaccusedAbuSalembylearnedAdvocate
ShriPasbola.
338]
328
unwarrantedleveragecannotbegrantedinfavouroftheprosecution.The
prosecutioncanbemadetoplaywithintheplayingfield.Asunderstood
byour'CriminalJurisprudence',wheresomeadditionalfactsareplacedon
recordorslightdeviationmadefromearlierfacts,thenthesamehastobe
tested on the 'Criminal Jurisprudential Principles.' Our Criminal
Jurisprudence tilts the balance in favour of the accused. As per our
'Criminal Jurisprudence' the theory propounded is that, Let hundred
criminalsbeacquittedbutnotasingleinnocentpersonbeconvicted.We
aregovernedbytheruleoflaw.Whenweregovernedbytheruleoflaw,
theapplicationofabovestatedcriminaljurisprudentialprinciplebecomes
prominent. Inshort,asperour'CriminalJurisprudence',theaccusedis
treatedasaHolyCow.Hecannotbetermedasanaccusedunlessand
until he is proved guilty of the crime. At the same time, above said
principles of Criminal Jurisprudence does not propound that while
adheringtothisprincipletheCourtshouldcompletelyignorethevictim
andthesocietyatlarge. Theprosecutionisrequiredtoprovetheguilt
againsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.Theaccusedisnotrequired
toproveanything.Theaccusedisalsonotrequiredtoplaceanydefence
onrecord.Hecanremainsilentasfarasanydefenceisconcerned.But,
thisprinciplecannotbestretchedtosuchanextenttogooutofwayby
extendingbenefittotheaccusedwherethereisacceptableevidence. A
stereo type evidence is possible only when there is concoction and
tutoring.Ifthereisnoconcoctionandtutoring,thenthereisboundtobe
inconsistencies,variance,tosomeextentcontradictionsinthecaseofthe
prosecutionandtheevidenceofthewitnesses.Itmustbementionedthat
329
329
whenthereareinconsistenciesandcontradictionsintheevidenceofthe
prosecutionwitnessesthatistoalargerextentanassurancethatthecase
andwitnessisnottutoredandconcocted.Whiletakingcareofrightof
accused propounded under Criminal Jurisprudence, the Court has to
balance scale and see that at the same time interest of the victim and
societyatlargeisprotected. Inthecontextofthefactsofthiscase,it
needstobeobservedthattheterrorismhasbecomeaglobalphenomena.
Theterroristsactivitiesareontherise.Theobjectoftheterroristsdiffers
fromcasetocase. However,wheneverthereisaterrorists activity,the
ultimatevictimofthesameissocietyandpeopleatlarge. TheCriminal
AdministrationofJusticeisequallyanswerabletothevictimsofthecrime
andthesocietyatlarge.TheCriminalCourtscannotignoretheplightof
the victims and the society at large, which become scapegoat of the
terrorists activities. The object of the terrorists may differ, but while
fulfillingthedifferentobjectsofdifferentterrorists,theultimatesuffereris
thesociety.Thevictimandthesociety,whohavesufferedatthehandsof
theterrorists,areboundtocryforjustice.Itmaybementionedthatwhile
balancingtheprincipleofCriminalJurisprudence,aspropoundedherein
above,theCourthastobalancethescaleandseethatwithinthepermitted
parametersoflawjusticeisdonetotheaccusedaswellastothevictims
andthesocietyatlarge.
EVIDENCEOFPW9JYOTIJAIN
339]
Jain.Accordingtotheprosecution,herevidenceisdirectevidenceonthe
330
330
episodeofaphonecallfromAbuSalem,whichshehadpickedupand
lateronhandedovertoPradeepJainandtheeventsoccurredatthattime.
Itisfurthercaseoftheprosecutionthatherevidenceisdirectevidenceon
thepointofthesecondphonecallreceivedbyherfromAbuSalem,after
themurderofPradeepJainonthe13thdayceremonyofPradeepJainand
thethreatsextendedbytheaccusedAbuSalemtosatisfyhisdemandof
ransom.PW9JyotiJainwasexaminedasawitnessintheearlierpartof
thetriali.e.TADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995(PW33)on25/03/1997.
The prosecution has heavily relied upon her evidence to prove certain
materialfactsandseekindependentcorroborationtotheevidenceofthe
ApproverPW1NaeemKhanandgeneralcorroborationtotheconfessions
oftheaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasan.
340]
naturalwitness.Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthatthestatementofPW9
Jyoti Jain on the point of the threats disclosed to her by her husband
immediatelyaftercompletionoftelephonicconversationwithAbuSalem
would fall within the domain of oral dying declaration inasmuch as it
formsthepartofthetransactionandcircumstanceswhichresulted/ledto
thedeathofPradeepJain.Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthattheevidence
of PW9 Jyoti Jain proves that direct threats were extended to her by
accused Abu Salem. Ld.SPP Shri Nikam submitted that the evidence of
PW9JyotiJainis consistent,cogentandreliable. Ld.SPPShriNikam
submittedthattheomissionsbroughtonrecordinhercrossexamination
areminoromissionsand.therefore,cannotbegivenmuchimportanceto
331
331
discreditthetestimonyofPW9intoto.Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthat
whileappreciatingtheevidenceofPW9JyotiJain,theCourthastobear
inmindtheplightandthestateofmindofthewitness,afterthemurderof
her husband and also the continuous spell of threats at the hands of
accusedAbuSalem.Ld.SPPShriNikam,therefore,submittedthatevenif
certaindisclosuresaremadeforthefirsttimewhilegivingevidenceinthis
case, the same cannot be viewed with a suspicion in the backdrop of
certainfactsbroughtonrecordbytheprosecution.
341]
that the evidence of PW9 Jyoti Jain is concocted and brought into
existencetofalselyinvolvethe accusedinthis case. Ld.AdvocateShri
Pasbolasubmittedthattherearevariousmajoromissions,inconsistencies
andcontradictions in her evidence on material facts. Ld.Advocate Shri
PasbolasubmittedthattheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainiscontradictoryto
theevidencegivenonoathbeforethisCourtinTADASpecialCaseNo.22
of 1995. Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola pointed out various improvements
madebythiswitnessinherdepositionbeforethisCourtandonthebasis
ofthoseimprovementssubmittedthattheimprovementshavebeenmade
to support the evidence of the planted witness PW1 (Approver Naeem
Khan) Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthattheprosecutionhasnot
placed on record any plausible explanation for the material omissions,
contradictionsandinconsistenciesintheevidenceofPW9JyotiJain. In
thesubmissionofLd.AdvocateShriPasbolatheevidenceofPW9JyotiJain
isfullofimprovementsandexaggerationoncertainmaterialfacts. Ld.
332
332
AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthattheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainand
PW13SunilJain,onthefactsdeposedbyPW9,iscontradictory.
342]
Inordertoappreciatetherivalsubmissionsandtocome
333
PradeepJainwouldnothavebeenerasedfromhermindon10/03/1995.
Byapplyinganystandardofprudentman,shewouldhavetakenmonths
togethertocomeoutoftheshock,traumaandhorrorand,therefore,inthe
process,ifsomeomissionshadoccurredwhilestatingcertainfacts,then,
merely because of that her entire evidence cannot be looked with
suspicion.
343]
Intheearliertrial,sixaccusedweretried.AccusedAbu
earliertrialon25/03/1997.Inherevidence,PW9JyotiJainhasnarrated
twoincidents.FirstincidentoccurredinthemonthofFebruary,1995and
thesecondoccurredon13thdaydeathceremonyofherhusbandPradeep
Jainon20/03/1995.Herstatementrecordedearlieron10/03/1995and
334
334
herevidencegiveninearliertriali.e.TADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995on
25/03/1997issilentabouttheincidentofaphonecalldated20/03/1995.
FirstletmeseewhatPW9JyotiJainhasdeposedabouttheincidentof
2nd week of February, 1995. She has deposed that her husband was
havingmealatabout10.00p.m.Shewaspresentthere.Shehasdeposed
thatatthattimetheirphonerangandshepickedupreceiverandsaid
Hello. She hasdeposedthatpersonattheother endtoldthathe was
Salem from Dubai and enquired whether Ashokbhai was there. She
repliedthatAshokwasnotthere.Salemthenenquiredwhoelsewasthere
andsherepliedthatAshok'sbrotherPradeepwasthere. Shepassedthe
telephonereceivertoherhusbandPradeepJain. HerhusbandPradeep
Jainhadengagedintalkonphoneforalongandthereafterherhusband
putthereceiverinenragedcondition.Hehadalsolefthismeal.Shehas
deposedthatsheenquiredwithherhusbandastowhathadhappenedand
withwhomhewastalking.HerhusbandrepliedthatitwasacallofAbu
SalemfromDubai.Herhusbandfurthertoldherthatthesaidpersonhad
createdaterrorinMumbai. Whensheaskedthereasonofthecall,her
husbandtoldherthatthecallerhadinstructedhimtogetawayfromKol
Dongri property else he would be killed. She has deposed that after
hearingthisshewastoomuchfrightened.Shetoldherhusbandtolodgea
reportwithpolice. Herhusbandtoldherthatthematterwouldbecome
worseiftheygotopoliceandhealongwithhisbrotherswoulddiscussand
find out some other way. She has further deposed that she was not
satisfiedwiththisreplyfromherhusbandandsheapproachedherfather
inlawandtoldhimabouttheincident.Herfatherinlawassuredhernot
335
335
tobeworriedabouttheincidentandtheywouldgetthethingssetright.
345]
336
waspresentandonthisenquiryshehandedoverthephonetoPradeep
JainandthereaftertherewashotexchangeofwordsbetweenPradeepJain
andAbuSalem. InherearlierevidenceinTADASpecialCaseNo.22of
1995shehasdeposedthatonenquirywithherhusband,hetoldherthat
AbuSalemthreatenedthemtodoawaywiththeKolDongriPropertyby
signing the documents kept in the office of Bharat Raghani. In the
evidencegivenbyherinthiscase,shehasstatedthatherhusbandtoldher
thatthecallerhadinstructedhimtodoawaywithKolDongripropertyelse
hewillbekilled.Ihavetakennoteofthevarianceinhertwostatements.
Itmaybementionedthatasfarasthematerialpartofherevidenceis
concerned,itisconsistent.Shehasconsistentlydeposedaboutthereceipt
ofacallfromAbuSalem.Shehasalsodeposedthatshepickedupthecall
and on enquiry the person on the other side introduced being Salem
speakingfromDubai. Herevidenceisconsistentabouttheconversation
between Abu Salem and her husband Pradeep Jain. Her evidence is
consistentonthepointthatthecallwasreceivedwhenherhusbandwas
havingmealat10.00p.m. Herevidenceisalsoconsistentonthepoint
thatthecallertoldherhusbandtodoawaywithKolDongriPropertyelse
hewillbekilled.Inherearlierdepositionshehasstatedthatherhusband
toldherthatAbuSalemtoldhimtogototheofficeofsolicitorBharat
Raghaniandsign the documents. Inherevidenceinthis case she has
statedthatherhusbandtoldherthataccusedAbuSalemtoldhimtoget
awayfromtheKolDongriproperty.Thesubstanceisthesame.Itisthe
caseoftheprosecutionthattheconspiracywashatchedtomaketheJain
brotherstosurrenderthepropertyinfavourofsomethirdpartyandearn
337
337
croresofRupeesbyfinalizingthedeal.Therefore,theevidenceofPW9
JyotiJainonthepointofcall,conversationandcertainfactsdisclosedto
her by her husband is consistent. There is no major variance, major
omissionormajorcontradiction.
347]
Inherevidence,PW9JyotiJainhasdeposedthatafter
hearingthisfromherhusbandPradeepJain,shewastoomuchfrightened
and she told her husband to lodge a report with police. Her husband
repliedthatthematterwouldbecomeworseifwegotopoliceandhe
alongwithhisbrotherswoulddiscussandfindoutsomeway. Shehas
furtherdeposedthatshewasnotsatisfiedwiththisanswerofherhusband
and,therefore,sheapproachedherfatherinlawandtoldhimeverything.
Shehasfurtherdeposedthatherfatherinlawtoldhernottobeworried
aboutthethingsastheywouldgetthethingssetright. Thissubsequent
statementofPW9JyotiJaincannotbesaidtobeunnaturalconduct. A
personofordinaryprudenceplacedinsimilarsituationwouldreactinthis
manneronly. So,evenifitis foundthatthis isaimprovementinher
statement,inthecontextofcertainfactsestablishedonthebasisofher
evidence this natural reaction on her part cannot be disbelieved and
discarded.BeforegoingtoconsidersomeoftheadmissionsgivenbyPW9
JyotiJaininhercrossexamination,atthisstageitwouldbenecessaryto
considerotherevidence. TheevidenceofPW9JyotiJain,asdiscussed
above, has to be considered as independent corroborative piece of
evidencetothestatementofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)andasgeneral
corroboration to the confessions of accused Abu Salem and accused
338
338
MehendiHasan.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethattheconfessionof
accusedoncefoundtobevoluntaryandtrue,itisasubstantivepieceof
evidence and the conviction can be based on the said voluntary and
truthfulconfessionalone. Asdiscussedhereinabove,thedictumofthe
Hon'ble ApexCourt lays down that when it is proposedto use the the
confessionoftheaccusedagainstthecoaccused,thenbyapplyingtherule
ofprudencetheCourtmustseekageneralcorroborationtotheconfession
oftheaccused.Inthiscase,theconfessionoftheaccusedAbuSalemand
accused Mehendi Hasan have been found to be voluntary and true.
Therefore,theirconfessionscanbeusedagainstthemindividuallyaswell
asagainsteachothertocorroboratetheirstatements. Ihaveconsidered
thelegalpositiononthepointofuseoftheconfessionofoneaccusedto
corroboratetheconfessionoftheotheraccusedintheearlierpartofmy
Judgment.
348]
LetmenowseewhatAbuSalemhasstatedaboutthis
339
admittedinhisconfessionthathetoldthatwomantogivethephoneto
AshokJain. ButPradeepJaincameonphoneandstartedabusinghim.
AbuSalemhasalsoadmittedthathealsoabusedandthreatenedPradeep
Jain. AbuSalemthengavethephonetoAneesIbrahim.AneesIbrahim
abused Pradeep Jain. Pradeep Jain also abused Anees Ibrahim. Then
AneesIbrahim disconnectedthephone. AtthattimeRiyazSiddiquiwas
presentintheoffice.AbuSalemhasadmittedinhisconfessionthatatthat
timeheandAneesIbrahimdecidedthatPradeepJainshouldbekilled.In
hisconfession,AbuSalemadmitstwoimportantthings.Firstthathemade
a phone call at the residence of the Jain family in the last week of
February, 1995. Abu Salem has further admitted that the phone was
pickedupbyawoman.AbuSalemhasfurtheradmittedthathetoldthe
womantogivephonetoAshokJain.ButatthattimePradeepJaincameon
phone.AbuSalem,therefore,confirmstheconversationbetweenhimand
PradeepJain.Itis,therefore,establishedthatevidenceofPW9JyotiJain
corroborates these statements of accused Abu Salem made in his
confession.
349]
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemissilentontheissueoftellingPradeep
JaintogetoutofKolDongriPropertybysigningthedocuments.Butthe
fact remains that the conversation occurred at that time between Abu
SalemandPradeepJain,whichwaslateronnarratedbyPradeepJainto
hiswifei.e.PW9JyotiJain,hasbeendeposedbyPW9JyotiJainbefore
thisCourt.Atthisstageitis,therefore,necessarytomentionthataccused
340
340
Abu Salem was neither friend nor relative of Pradeep Jain. It is also
necessarytomentionthatthoughhisconfessionissilentaboutthereal
talk,itcanbesaidwithcertaintythatAbuSalemwouldnothavemadea
phonecalltotheJainbrotherstoexchange thegreetingsorpleasantries
withtheJainfamily.ThereasonforthecallhasbeenstatedbyPW9Jyoti
Jain.Itisstuddedwithallthedetails.Ifthephonecallwasnotmadeby
AbuSalemtoexchangethegreetingsorpleasantries,thenhisstatement
thatitwasmadetotheJainbrotherstopaytheremainingransomamount
deservesacceptance.WhilediscussingthesubmissionofLd.AdvocateShri
Pasbolafortheaccusedonthepointofcompletedeviationfromthefacts
oftheearliercaseandintroductionofanewcase,Ihaveobservedthat
though accused Abu Salem has moulded his plan according to the
situation,butthecoreoftheissuewastheKolDongriPropertyoftheJain
brothers,thethreatsandpressuretotheJainbrotherstorelinquishtheir
rightovertheKolDongriPropertyandJainbrothers.Itisseenonperusal
oftherecordthatwhentheJainbrothersdidnotsuccumbtothedemand
ofAbuSalemtosurrendertheproperty,hemouldedhismodusoperandi
andsettledthedealwiththemforRs.onecrore.AbuSalemhashimself
admitted this fact. Therefore, even though Abu Salem is silent in his
confessionaboutthetalktookplacebetweenhimandPradeepJainand
theyexchangedabusestoeachother,theevidenceofPW9JyotiJainis
sufficienttofillthevoidcreatedintheevidence.
350]
341
Now,letmeseewhatPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)has
to say about it. PW1 Naeem Khan (Approver) has deposed that on
02/03/1995onreceiptofPagermessagefromAbuSalemheimmediately
contactedhimonphoneandfoundthatAbuSalemwasveryangry.Abu
SalemaskedhimwhothePradeepJainwasandwhetherheknowsthe
mannersoftalking. PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)hasdeposedthathe
told Abu Salem that he was Ashok Jain's brother. PW1 Naeem Khan
(Approver)hasdeposedthathetriedtopacifyAbuSalem,butatthattime,
AbuSalemdisconnectedthephone. Asfarastheconversationbetween
AbuSalemandPradeepJainonphoneisconcerned,ithasbeenconfirmed
byPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)also.ThemannerinwhichaccusedAbu
SalemmadeenquirywithPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)aboutPradeep
JainclearlyindicatesthatwhenhemadeaphonecalltoPradeepJainand
hadatalkwithPradeepJain,thesailingwasnotsmoothbetweenPradeep
JainandAbuSalem.Asfarasthecauseofthephonecallisconcerned,I
342
342
havealreadymentionedthatbynostretchofimaginationthatthephone
callwouldhavebeenmadebyAbuSalemtoPradeepJainortoAshokJain
toexchangethegreetingsorpleasantries.Theobject,therefore,hastobe
presumedtobeeithertogetthesecondinstallmentofthemoneyorto
pressurize the Jain brothers to get out of Kol Dongri property. If the
evidenceofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)onthispointisconsideredin
juxtaposition with the facts admitted by accused Abu Salem in his
confession,thefactsadmittedbyaccusedMehendiHasaninhisconfession
andthefactsdeposedbyPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)inhisevidence,
wouldshowthatPW9 hasmade anarration ofthe facts occurredand
knowntoher.Herstatementsincebeginningonthepointofreceiptofthe
phonecall,thetalkbetweenAbuSalemandherhusbandPradeepJainand
thethreatsgivenbyaccusedAbuSalemisconsistent.Shehasnotdeviated
fromthatstatement.Itis,therefore,seenthatevidenceofPW9JyotiJain
proves the motive for the murder of Pradeep Jain. In his confession
accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthathemurderedPradeepJainthrough
hishenchmen.
352]
WhileappreciatingtheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainqua
accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan, one can not lay
unnecessary emphasis on the inconsistencies and omissions in her
evidence. Intheearliertrialarisingoutofthesamecrime,theaccused
werethestoogesofthemastermindAbuSalem.Butatthattimeaccused
AbuSalemwasnotfacingthetrialbeforetheCourtand,therefore,the
ProsecutorwouldnothaveinterrogatedoraskedthequestionstoPW9
343
343
Jyoti Jain about accused Abu Salem. Even at that time also she had
disclosed the direct involvement of the accused Abu Salem in the
commission of the crime. Accused Abu Salem has confirmed that the
phonecall was firstattended byawoman. This factwouldshow that
when conversation between accused Abu Salem and Pradeep Jain took
place,PW9JyotiJainwaspresentthere.Thisstatementbytheaccused
Abu Salem lends an assurance to the circumstance that after the
conversationwasoverbetweenhim(AbuSalem)andPrdeepJain,PW9
JyotiJainwaspresentintheroom.Beingawife,aftersuchahottalk,it
wasnaturalforhertoaskherhusbandaboutthesame. Sheaskedher
husbandastowhathadhappened.HerhusbandPradeepJaindisclosedto
herthedetailsofAbuSalemandthepurposeofthecall.Therefore, the
Portionmarked'A',instrictsense,cannotbesaidtobetheimprovement
orcontradiction. Itisamereinconsistency. Hersubsequentconductto
adviseherhusbandtolodgeapolicecomplaintisnaturalandconsistent
withtheconductofamanofordinaryprudenceplacedinsimilarsituation.
353]
344
want.ShehasdeposedthatafterthatAbuSalemstartedlaughingandtold
herthatwhethershewasnotmourning.Shehasfurtherdeposedthatshe
becamefuriousandstartedabusinghim.AtthattimeAbuSalemdirected
hertostopabusingandtoldherthathehaskilledherhusbandPradeep
Jainbecausetheydidnotpayhimmoneyontime.TheaccusedAbuSalem
toldherthatiftheydonotpayremainingamount,hewouldkillherother
brotherinlawsonebyoneanddisconnectedthecall.Herbrotherinlaw
SunilJainwassittingaroundher.Aftercompletionofthecall,hemade
enquirywithheraboutthecallerandshetoldhimthenameofthecaller
andrepeatedwhatAbuSalemhadtoldher.Itmaybenotedatthisstage
thatthisfactwasneitherstatedbyPW9JyotiJainbeforepolicewhile
recordingherfirststatementon10/03/1995norinherevidencerecorded
beforetheCourtinthe earliertrialon25/03/1997. Shehasdeposed
aboutthisincidentforthefirsttime.Thisisanimprovementinherearlier
statement.
354]
ThisstatementofPW9JyotiJainhasbeenassailedon
the ground that this improvement has been made only with a view to
implicatetheaccusedandsupporttheotherplantedwitnesses.Inthiscase,
theInvestigatingOfficerhasnotproducedonrecordanydocumentofthe
CallRecord. So,thereisnodocumentaryevidenceaboutthiscall. The
veracityofthisstatementofPW9JyotiJainhastobetestedkeepingin
mindtheotherdirectandcircumstantialevidence.Unlessanduntil,this
version is supported either by direct or circumstantial evidence, this
cannotbeacceptedasagospeltruth.BeforeIgotodealwiththedirect
345
345
andcircumstantialevidence,Imustobserveatthisstagethataftermurder
ofPradeepJain,accusedAbuSalemwasnotsatisfied.Hedidnotsnapthe
conspiracythenandthereonly.Itiscommonknowledgethat'Underworld
SelfproclaimedDons'aregreedytoearneasymoney.Theyhavenorespect
forlife.Theyonlyrespectmoney.Theyfindouttheirownways,means
and methods to earn easy money. The events narrated and ultimately
culminatedinthemurderofPradeepJaincouldmakeacommon manto
think twice that he is residing in a country, which is known for its
successfuldemocracyandgovernedbyruleoflaw.Butitisourmisfortune
thatwiththiscropandbreedofUnderworldGangsandDons,astigmahas
been attached to our successful Democratic Nation, which has been
governedbyruleoflaw.Ouremphasisallthroughouthasbeentorespect
alltheConstitutionalRightsoftheaccused,eveninheinousanddiabolic
crimes.
355]
ThisnewstorynarratedbyPW9JyotiJainwouldnot
beacceptablein theordinarycircumstances.Shedidnotmakewhisper
aboutthisstorytillrecordingofherstatementon30/11/2005.Whenthis
incidentoccurredon13thdayceremonyofherhusbandPradeepJain,in
the ordinary circumstances, the Jain brothers would have reported the
matter to the police. They did not do it. The explanation of the
prosecution is that they were traumatized, horrified and terrorstricken
after the murder of Pradeep Jain and on 13thdayceremonyitself,the
accusedAbuSalemmadeaphonecallandthreatenedthemtofulfillhis
demand,otherwiseremainingJainbrotherswouldbekilledonebyone.It
346
346
maybementionedthattheJainbrothershadsufferedfornoncomplying
thedemandsoftheaccusedAbuSalem.ThethreatgivenbyaccusedAbu
SalemwasconvertedintoactionbykillingPradeepJain.TheJainfamily,
therefore,couldnothavetakentheaccusedAbuSalemlightly.Theyhada
fair idea of his clout and network. Therefore, if this incident was not
reportedtothepolicedespiteprovidingthepoliceprotection,wouldnot
makeanydifferencevisavisthisincidentnarratedbyPW9JyotiJain.Itis
the case of the prosecution that after the murder of Pradeep Jain, the
accused Abu Salem went on extending the threats to Jain brothers to
comply his demand of ransom. When Jain brothers expressed their
financialdifficulty,AbuSalemsuggestedthemtosellwhateverproperty
theyhaveandsendthemoneytohim. Theevidencebroughtonrecord
clearlyprovesthatevenafterthedeathofPradeepJain,theJainbrothers
weremadebyaccusedAbuSalemtopayhimmorethanRs.40lakhs. It
maybenotedthatthisisthecircumstance,whichmakesmenottotake
thisincidentdisclosedbyPW9JyotiJainforthefirsttimeaftertenyears
ofthemurderofPradeepJainasunbelievable.IftheaccusedAbuSalem
hadsnappedtheconspiracyandhadputafullstoptohisfurtheractivities,
thentherewouldhavebeennoreasonfortheJainfamilytopropoundthis
story. Itmayfurtherbementionedthatbyconcoctingsuchastory,they
werenototherwiseevengoingtobebenefited.Beforeconsideringsome
of the answers given by PW9 Jyoti Jain in her crossexamination, it is
necessarytoadverttotheconfessionoftheaccusedAbuSalem.Itmustbe
mentionedthatthisincidentnarratedbyPW9JyotiJainforthefirsttime
could be a circumstantial evidence to corroborate the confession of the
347
347
accusedAbuSalem.Similarly,thisincidentnarratedbyPW9JyotiJain
couldalsobeusedasacircumstantialpieceofevidencetocorroboratethe
testimonyofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver).
356]
Inhisconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthat
afterthemurderofPradeepJain,hestartedthreateningAshokJainforthe
remainingamountofransom. WhenJainbrotherstoldAbuSalemthat
theirfinancialconditionwasnotgood,AbuSalemsuggestedthemtosell
whatever property they have and meet his demand. He has further
admittedthataccordinglytheyagreedtogivetheirthreeflatsbearingNos.
602, 605 and 606 from Mamta Cooperative Society , SherEPunjab
Colony, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai, in lieu of the
demand of money. They agreed to sell those three flats and send the
considerationofthesaidflatstoaccusedAbuSalem.OnthispointPW1
NaeemKhan(Approver)hasdeposedinhisevidencethattheaccusedAbu
SaleminformedhiminMarch/April1996onphonetomeetaccusedV.K.
Jhambinconnectionwiththesaleofthosethreeflats.PW1NaeemKhan
(Approver)hasdeposedthathediditaccordingly.Theyvisitedthesaid
threeflatsandtheyapprovedtheflats.PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)has
deposedthatheaccordinglyinformedaccusedAbuSalemonphonethat
theflatsareingoodconditionandcouldfetchgoodprice.Asfarasfurther
evidenceofthedealingoftheflatsisconcerned,Imaydealwiththesame
ingreatdetailwhileconsideringthecaseoftheprosecutionagainstthe
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb. Butonthebasisofthisevidence,onecansee
thataccusedAbuSalemafterthemurderofPradeepJain,wasafterthe
348
348
JainbrothersandthreatenedtheJainbrotherstosatisfyhisdemand.The
Jainbrothersthoughunwillingtofulfillthosedemands,butJainbrothers
hadtestedthemedicineofthethreatsofaccusedAbuSalem. Theyhad
losttheirbrother. Therefore,thefailureoftheJainbrotherstoreportof
theincidenttothepolicecannotbeaunnaturalcircumstance.
357]
AtthattimeaccusedAbuSalemwasinDubai. From
Dubai,he(AbuSalem)executedhisplanskillfullyandmeticulously.His
henchmenweresotrustedthattheytookthetheinsultoftheirMentor
AbuSalemastheirinsultandpumped17bulletsintothebodyofPradeep
Jainatatime.Thisfactwouldreflecttherespectthesecontractkillersand
henchmenhadforthecommandsandordersofAbuSalem. Itmaybe
notedthatJainbrothersafterthisbitterexperiencewouldhavenaturally
becomewise.Bythattime,Jainbrothersmusthavegottheideathat,for
AbuSalemonecommandissufficienttokillapersonlikeastraydog.
Therefore, inthebackdropofthisfact,thesecondincidentnarratedfor
thefirsttimebyPW9JyotiJaindoesnotappeartobeunnatural.The
narrationoftheincidentspeaksaboutthecruelandinhumanapproachof
theaccusedAbuSalem.ForAbuSalem,itappearsthat,themoneyismore
important,thanthelifeofaman.
358]
record during the course of the evidence of PW9 Jyoti Jain and see
whether these admissions are sufficient by itself to conclude that the
evidenceofPW9JyotiJainisunnatural,tutoredandconcocted. Ihave
349
349
dealtwithcertainfactswhichareatvarianceinherevidence. Butthe
varianceinthenarrationofthefactsisnotsowidetocreateadoubtabout
thecoreofthecaseoftheprosecutionnarratedbyPW9JyotiJain.Inher
crossexamination,shehasadmittedthatshewasadmittedinhospitalon
thedateoftheincidentitselfi.e.on07/03/1995andwasdischargedon
10/03/1995. PW9 Jyoti Jain admits about the recording of her two
statementsonthedatesmentionedabove. PW9JyotiJainadmitsthat
shedidnotdisclosewhilerecordingherstatementon10/03/1995about
thephonecallof20/03/1995byaccusedAbuSalem.Aboutthisomission,
shehasstatedthatpolicemightnothaveaskedtoherwhilerecordingher
statementand,therefore,shemightnothavestatedsowhilerecordingher
statement. InhercrossexaminationatPage174,shehasadmittedthat
afterthephonecalldated20/03/1995,sheaskedSunilbhaiastowhathe
haddecidedaboutthethreats. ButSunilbhaitoldherthatnocomplaint
waslodgedastheywanttogivemoneytoAbuSalemgraduallytoendthe
matter.ItissubmittedthatPW9JyotiJainissolelydependingonPW13
SunilJainafterthemurderofherhusbandPradeepJainand,therefore,on
the say of Sunil Jain(PW13), she has come before Court and deposed
againstaccusedAbuSalem.Inthebackdropofmyabovesaiddiscussion
and acceptance of her (PW9) evidence being a concrete and cogent
evidenceontheimportantfacts,thissubmissionhastoberejectedbeing
fallacious.Inhercrossexamination,therearecertainsuggestions,which
arepregnantwiththefactinissue.Afterconsideringthecumulativeeffect
ofthecrossexamination,Idonotseethatthecredibilityofthiswitness
PW9JyotiJainhasbeenshakenontheimportantaspects.
350
359]
350
Therearecertainomissionsinherevidence. However,
351
corroborativeindependentevidencetothetestimonyofPW1NaeemKhan
(Approver).
EVIDENCEOFPW13SUNILJAIN
360]
Jain.HeisaneyewitnesstothemurderofhisbrotherPradeepJainbythe
trusted henchmen of accused Abu Salem. PW13 Sunil Jain himself
sustained bullet injury to his right hand. PW13 Sunil Jain is a very
importantwitnessinthiscase.Inthiscase,theprosecutionhavehadthe
benefit of the evidence of the Approver and the confessions made by
accusedAbuSalemandaccusedAbuSalem. Thisisanaddedbenefitto
theprosecutioninthiscase.PW13SunilJainisawitnesstoalltheevents
occurred,whentheobjectoftheconspiracyhatchedinDubaibyaccused
AbuSalemandothersstartedtakingshapeintheformofimplementing
theobjectoftheconspiracy. PW13SunilJain,ascanbeseenfromhis
evidence,withstoodthetraumaandshockofdeathofhisbrotherPradeep
Jain.HewasconsistentlyputunderthespellofthreatsbytheaccusedAbu
Salem. PW13 Sunil Jain has, therefore, in his evidence unfolded the
events occurred from the day of implementation of the object of the
conspiracy started taking shape. With this brief background facts, it is
necessarytoconsiderthecredibility,reliabilityandtrustworthinessofthe
evidenceofPW13SunilJain.
361]
certainomissionsintheevidenceofPW13SunilJainquahisstatement
352
352
recordedin1995,hisevidenceinTADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995and
hisstatementrecordedin2005afterarrestofaccusedAbuSalem.Ld.SPP
submittedthatinhiscrossexaminationhewasofferedanopportunityto
explain those omissions and PW13 grabbed the said opportunity and
placed plausible explanation on record. Besides, Ld.SPP Shri Nikam
submittedthattheomissions/improvementspointedoutfromtheevidence
ofPW13SunilJaincannotbereadinisolation,butthesamehastobe
read in juxtaposition with the evidence of the other witnesses and the
confessionsofaccusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalem. Ld.SPP
ShriNikamsubmittedthatinsuchacasetheCourthastofindoutwhether
the facts deposed by the witness are factually correct or not. In the
submissionofLd.SPPShriNikamiftheCourtcomestotheconclusionthat
thefactsstatedbythewitnessarecorrect,thenmerelyonthegroundthat
thosefactsareomissionsfromtheearlierstatementsorearlierevidence
and/orimprovementscouldnotbethesolegroundtorejectsuchevidence
intoto.Ld.SPPsubmittedthatPW13SunilJainintheordinarycourseof
naturehadnoaxetogrindagainsttheaccusedinthiscase.Ld.SPPShri
Nikamsubmittedthatonecanvisualizetheplightofthiswitnessafterthe
incident of shooting of his brother by the hired goons of accused Abu
Salem in heinous manner. Ld.SPP Shri Nikam submitted that while
appreciatingtheevidenceofthiswitness,thefactthataccusedAbuSalem
consistentlymaintainedtheterroronthemindofthiswitnessandJain
family and made them to comply his demand even after the death of
PradeepJaincannotbebrushedaside.Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthat
aftertestingthebittermedicineandexperienceofthethreatsofaccused
353
353
Abu Salem and the fact that the accused Abu Salem and Naeem Khan
(PW1 Approver) were at large at that time and were capable to do
anything, the Jain family would have naturally been scared to utter a
wordagainsttheaccusedAbuSalem.Ld.SPPShriNikampointedoutthat
the conduct of accused Abu Salem must have created ever lasting
impression on the mind of Jain family that accused Abu Salem has no
regardforlife,butonlyregardformoney.Ld.SPPShriNikam,therefore,
submitted that if all these omissions and improvements are read in
juxtapositionwiththeotherevidence,thenitbecomesacompletecatalog
ofthefactsprojectingthecorrectpictureofthecaseoftheprosecutionfor
the due consideration of the Court against the accused, who are the
mercenarykillers.
362]
unturnedtocriticizetheevidenceofthiswitnessthreadbear.Ld.Advocate
Shri Pasbola submitted that the sympathetic background sought to be
created by Ld.SPP Shri Nikam by bringing on record certain imaginary
factscannotmaketheCourtgetswayedbyit. Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola
submitted that the evidence of PW13 is full of improvements qua his
earlierevidenceandstatements.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthat
excepttheFIRinthiscase,noothercomplaintwaslodgedbythemembers
oftheJainfamilyeitherbeforethemurderofPradeepJainorafterthe
murder of Pradeep Jain. Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that,
therefore, undue delay in narrating the facts for the first time creates
doubtontheveracityoftheevidenceofPW13SunilJain.Ld.Advocate
354
354
Shri Pasbola submitted that on the basis of the omissions in the police
statement and in the earlier evidence, the case sought to be placed on
recordbythiswitnessaboutthethreatsbyaccusedAbuSalemfallstothe
groundandthesamedeservestoberejected. Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola
submittedthattheperiodofthesocalledmeetingsintheofficeofsolicitor
BharatRaghanianddeposedtobythiswitnessPW13SunilJainis,first,
selfcontradictoryandsecond,ithasnotbeensupportedbyotherevidence
or rather contradicted by other evidence. Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola
submitted that this witness or any member of the Jain family did not
disclosethenameofeitheraccusedAbuSalemoraccusedNaeemKhan
(ApproverPW1)intheirearlierstatementsaswellasintheevidenceled
beforeCourt.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthattherearematerial
contradictionsbetweentheevidenceofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)and
PW13 Sunil Jain on material aspects and, therefore, the evidence of
PW13SunilJaincannotbebelievedandsuchtaintedevidencecouldnot
besaidtobeaindependentcorroborativepieceofevidencetotheevidence
ofApproverPW1NaeemKhan.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthat
PW13SunilJainhasgivenacompletegobytothecaseoftheprosecution
intheearlierpartofthetrialandhascomebeforeCourtwithtotallyanew
case. Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolapointedoutthatPW13SunilJainisa
concoctedwitness,afterarrestofaccusedAbuSalemonthebasisofthe
materialcollectedbytheInvestigatingOfficer.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola
submitted that after murder of Pradeep Jain, police protection was
provided to Sunil Jain (PW13) and, therefore, he would not have
hesitatedtolodgethecomplaintagainstaccusedAbuSalem,iftherewasa
355
355
threat by accused Abu Salem to him on the 13th day ceremony of his
brotherdeceasedPradeepJain.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthat
theomissionsandcontradictionsintheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainand
PW13SunilJaincannotbesweptunderthecarpetbystatingthattheyare
minorormerediscrepancies.
363]
356
coffinseitherbytaking'ProtectionMoney'or'ExtortionMoney'fromthe
builders. This case is ideal example of this situation prevailing in this
Metropolis.Atthisstage,Iwouldliketomentionthatthemajorityofthe
litigations in this Metropolis is between landlords and tenants and
sometimes between developers, builders and tenants and/or landlords.
WithmyexperienceasaJudgeoftheSmallCausesCourt,Mumbai,almost
foradecadewherethecasesundertheRentActaretried,theEviction
DecreeintheSuitsfiledundertheRentActisacivildeathforthetenants.
So,incityofMumbai,propertydisputeisfoughtbitterly.
364]
TheseUnderworldgangsterswithanevileyeoverthe
buildersanddevelopersarealwaysinthesearchoftheirpray.Inthiscase,
theJainbrothers,thoughhavingacleartitleovertheKolDongriProperty,
wereinformedthattheirtitlewasnotclearandtheyboughtthelandby
payingameageramounttothelandownersand,therefore,theyshould
get away from the property and surrender their right over the said
property else they would have to face the music of the bullets of the
UnderworldDon.
365]
BeforethemurderofPradeepJain,whichtookplaceon
07/03/1995,Jainbrotherswerethreatenedandpressurizedtosurrender
their right over the Kol Dongri Property. As per the case of the
prosecution,themainactorswereAbuSalemandAneesIbrahimKaskar
sittinginDubaiandoperatingtheactivitiestocompeltheJainbrothersto
surrendertheKolDongriProperty. Theremainingaccusedwereusedas
357
357
Ihaveminutelyperusedhisevidenceandonperusalof
358
provedinthiscaseonthebasisoftheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainand
corroboratedbytheevidenceofPW13SunilJain. WhenJainbrothers
werenotabletofulfilltheextortiondemandofaccusedAbuSalem,he
(Abu Salem) suggested to them to sell their property and meet his
demand. There is a voluminous evidence on record to show that Jain
brothers were made to hand over three flats from Mamta Cooperative
Society, SherAPunjab Colony, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai to Abu Salem. All these facts cannot be brushed aside while
consideringtheomissionsappearinginthestatementandintheevidence
recordedearlier.Aftertestingthebittermedicineofthethreatsofaccused
AbuSalem,itwasbutnaturalfortheJainfamilymembersnottouttera
singlewordaboutthesegangsters.TheJainfamilyhadanexperiencethat
thisUnderworldDoncouldgotoanyextentandkillanypersonthrough
hishenchmenatanytime.Itmaybenotedthatevenamanofordinary
prudenceplacedinasimilarsituationwouldhavefollowedthecommands
anddictatesoftheUnderworldDonandnothisownconscience.Itistrue
thatpoliceprotectionwasprovidedtoSunilJain(PW13)aftermurderof
hisbrotherPradeepJain. However,providingpoliceprotectiondoesnot
meanthataccusedAbuSalemwouldnothaveexecutedthethreats.The
Jainfamilyhadbitterexperienceinthiscasebecauseoneofthekillersof
PradeepJaini.e.RajeshIgavewasaservingPoliceConstable.Itmustbe
mentionedthatthisisacaseofFenceEatingTheField.Theabovestated
factsneedstobe bornein mindin appreciating the evidence of PW13
Sunil Jain. These are the hard realities of the life of the people in
Mumbai. This Court cannot oblivious of the hard realities of this life
359
359
prevalentinthisMetropolis.
367]
Admittedly,thereareomissionsanddiscrepanciesinthe
Inordertodrawcomparisonbetweenthefactsstatedby
accusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionandthefactsstatedbywitnessPW13
SunilJaininhisevidence,attheoutset,itisnecessarytoseewhataccused
Abu Salem has admitted in his confession. The confession is the best
evidenceagainsttheaccused. Theadmittedfactsnarratedhereinabove
360
360
aresufficienttocometoaconclusionthattheJainfamilywasawareofthe
prowess and capabilities of accused Abeu Salem. They had tested the
medicineofhisthreats.Theyhadbitterexperience. Itcanbepresumed
thatafterthedeathofPradeepJain,Jainfamilymustbeoftheconfirmed
viewthatanythreatextendedbytheaccusedAbuSalemcannotbetreated
asathreatsimplyforthesakeofthreat.ThemurderofPradeepJainhad
createdtheterrorinthemindoftheJainfamily.TheaccusedAbuSalem
didnotsnaphisactivitiesthere. EvenaftermurderofPradeepJain,he
was after the Jain brothers to satisfy his demand of ransom. He had
threatenedJainbrothersthatifhisdemandsarenotcompliedwith,then
hewouldkillJainbrothersonebyone. Itmaybenotedthatwiththe
bitterexperienceofthepast,ifJainbrotherswerethreatened,thenitcould
besafelybesaidthatJainbrothersmustbeterrorstrickenandcouldnot
havedisclosedthesametothepoliceortoanybodyelse.Thisexplanation,
tomymind,fitsinthefactsandcircumstancesbroughtonrecordinthis
case.
369]
Atthecostofrepetition,letmeseewhataccusedAbu
AccusedAbuSalemhasadmittedhisacquaintancewith
361
hisconfessionthatinOctober,1994RiyazSiddiquihadcometotheoffice
andacquaintedhim(AbuSalem)andAneesIbrahimaboutthedisputeof
KolDongriPropertyofJainbrothersatAndheriandgaveatelephoneNo.
6201996ofAshokJaintothemtotalkwithAshokJain.Hehasadmitted
thatafterthishecalledShaukatKadiathroughRiyazSiddiquitoDubaiin
November,1994. InthemonthofNovember,1994,ShaukatMistrygave
them the full information of the Kol Dongri Property and in the said
meeting,whichwasattendedbyaccusedMehendiHasanalso,aconspiracy
washatchedtotakethePropertyfromJainbrothersandsellittosome
other builder and thereby earn a huge profit. A conspiracy was also
hatchedatthattimethatifJainbrothersfailtocomplytheirdemand,then
one of the five Jain brothers would be killed. Abu Salem has further
admittedthattheroleassignedtoeachonepresentinthemeetingaswell
asnotpresentmeaningtherebyNaeemKhanwasdecided.Itwasdecided
in the said meeting that Abu Salem and Anees Ibrahim would make
threateningcallstotheJainbrotherstosurrendertheKolDongriProperty.
AbuSalemhasadmittedinhisconfessionthatitwasdecidedthatNaeem
KhanaliasNeemTR(Approver)(PW1)andShaukatMistrywouldhold
meetingswithJainbrothersandwouldconveytoAbuSalemandAnees
Ibrahim about the progress of the meetings / transaction from time to
time. Abu Salem has further admitted in his confession that he has
conveyed the entire plan/the conspiracy hatched to Naeem Khan
(Approver)(PW1).AbuSalemhasfurtheradmittedinhisconfessionthat
aspertheplan,hestartedthreateningtoAshokJainandhisbrotherson
phone.Similarly,hehasadmittedthatRiyazSiddiquiwasalsoexecuting
362
362
hisjob.AbuSalemhasadmittedthatNaeemKhanandShaukataliusedto
arrange meetings with Jain brothers in Mumbai and would convey the
progressofthemeetingstohim(AbuSalem)onhisDubaitelephoneNo.
009714226670and009714242939.So,thisistheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalemabouttheobjectoftheconspiracy,thethreatsextendedbyhim
totheJainbrotherspursuanttotheconspiracy,variousmeetingsheldwith
JainbrothersbyNaeemKhan(Approver)(PW1)andShaukatMistryand
reportedtohimontheabovestatedtelephoneNumbers.
371]
would show that after the last meeting in the office of solicitor Bharat
Raghani,theygotindicationthatitwasnotpossibletosuccumbtheJain
brotherstosurrendertheirproperty. His(AbuSalem)furtherconfession
wouldshowthatheaccordinglymouldedhisstandandsettledthematter
withJainbrothers. Inhisconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmitted
thatinlastweekofJanuary,1995,hemadeaphonecalltoNaeemKhan
(Approver)(PW1)andinformedhimthathehadsettledthematterwith
AshokJainandAshokJainhasagreedtopayRs.tenlakhspermonth.Abu
SalemhasadmittedinhisconfessionthataccordinglyheinformedNaeem
Khan(Approver)(PW1)togotoAshokJainandcollectthoseRs.tenlakhs.
Abu Salem has further admitted in his evidence that Naeem Khan
(Approver) (PW1) did it accordingly and as per his (Abu Salem)
suggestion,retainedRs.twolakhswithhimandforwardedremainingRs.
eight lakhs via Hawala through one Abdullah of Dunccan Road. The
confession of accused Abu Salem would show that he informedNaeem
363
363
KhanaboutthesettlementwithJainbrothers.
372]
admittedthatafterpaymentofRs.tenlakhs,Jainbrotherswereavoidingto
makethepaymentdespitemakingrepeatedcalls. Infurtherpartofhis
confession,accusedAbuSalemhasnarrated theepisodeoccurredwith
PradeepJain.AsfarastheeventsoccurredaftermurderofPradeepJain
areconcerned,accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthatafterthemurderof
Pradeep Jain, he again started making phone calls to Ashok Jain and
threatenedthemtomakeremainingpayment.Inhisconfession,accused
Abu Salem has further admitted that Ashok Jain explained to him his
financialcrisisandagreedtohissuggestiontogivethreeflatsfromMamta
CooperativeSociety,SherAPunjabColony,MahakaliCavesRoad,Andheri
(East),Mumbai.AccusedAbuSalemhasfurthernarratedthathetoldJain
brothers thathis man V.K.Jhamb(AccusedNo.5) will dealwiththose
flats. Accused Abu Salem has admitted in his confession that he has
accordingly informed Naeem Khan (Approver PW1) to go and meet
V.K.Jhambandcompletethetransaction.Inhisfurtherconfession,accused
AbuSalemhasadmittedthathereceivedinallRs.42lakhsoutofthesale
of those three flats bearing Nos. 602, 605 and 606 through Hawala in
Dubai.
373]
TheconfessionmadebyaccusedAbuSalemhasbeen
foundtobevoluntaryandtrue.Itis,therefore,necessarytoseewhether
theevidenceofPW13SunilJainandthispartoftheconfessionofaccused
364
364
AbuSalemisconsistentwitheachotherornot.
374]
Inhisevidence,PW13SunilJainhasdeposedaboutthe
visitofthreepersonstotheKolDongriPropertyinDecember,1992and
aftercomingbacktotheiroffice,aheftyfellowoutofthethreeinformed
them that this property was acquired by them. PW13 Sunil Jain has
deposedthatinfirstweekofOctober,1994hehadreceivedaphonecall
fromAbuSalem.AbuSalemtoldonphonethattheyshouldhandoverthe
Kol Dongri Plot to one Shaukat Mistry else he would kill all of them.
PW13 Sunil Jain has further deposed that on 10/10/1994, again he
receivedatelephonecallfromAbuSalemandonthatdayafterplayingthe
conversation of murder of one Cohelo, accused Abu Salem threatened
themtohandoverthepropertytoShaukatMistry.PW13SunilJainhas
furtherdeposedthatinthe4thweekofNovember,1994,hereceiveda
phonecallfromAbuSalem.Atthattime,AbuSalemtoldhimthatheis
sendingapersonbynameKhantohisofficeandhe(Khan)woulddiscuss
withthemabouttheKolDongriProperty. Thereafter,saidKhancameto
theirofficeandsawallthedocumentsoftheKolDongriProperty. They
visitedtheKolDongriProperty. HewasaccompaniedbyShaukatMistry.
HisbrotherAshokbhaiJaingavexeroxcopiesofthedocumentstoKhan.
PW13SunilJainhasdeposedthatatthattimeMr.Khantoldthattheplot
waspurchasedbyhis manandtheyshouldleavethePlot. Duringthe
courseofconversation,ShaukatMistryabusedandthreatenedthemthatif
theydonotfollowthedictate,thenAbuSalemwouldkilloneofthem.In
hisevidence,PW13SunilJainhas,therefore,confirmedthethreatening
365
365
callsfromAbuSalemtoJainbrothers.Onthispoint,thereisconsistency
betweentheevidenceofPW13andthefacts admittedbyaccusedAbu
Saleminhisconfession.Similarly,consistentwiththefactsadmittedby
accused Abu Salem in his confession, Shaukat Mistry and Naeem Khan
(Approver)startedmeetingwithJainbrothersandthreateningthemtoget
awayfromtheKolDongriProperty.Thisisalsoconsistentwiththefacts
admittedbyaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfession.
375]
Inhisfurtherevidence,PW13SunilJainhasprovided
accountofvariousmeetingsheldintheofficeofsolicitorBharatRaghani.
AllthemeetingswereattendedbyJainbrothersattheinstanceandasper
theinstructionsofNaeemKhan(ApproverPW1).NaeemKhanwasnota
partytothemeeting,whentheconspiracywashatchedinDubai.Naeem
Khan joined the conspiracy, when the object of the conspiracy was
conveyed to him by accused Abu Salem. If Naeem Khan (Approver)
(PW1)hadrefusedtoactconsistentwiththeconspiracyhatchedinDubai
andinformedtohimbyaccusedAbuSalempersonally,thentherewould
havebeennoquestionofadmittinghimasanApproverinthiscase.The
moment he was apprised of the conspiracy, the decision taken in the
conspiracyandthe roleassignedto him byaccused AbuSalemandhe
started acting consistent with the role assigned to him by accused Abu
Salem,itiscrystalclearthathebecamea'particepscriminis'fromthatday.
PW13 Sunil Jain has stated that except one meeting, almost all the
meetings held in the office of Bharat Raghani were attended by PW1
NaeemKhan(Approver).
366
376]
366
variance/discrepanciesintheevidenceofPW13SunilJainandthecaseof
theconspiracy.Intheearliertriali.e.TADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995,
theperiodofconspiracyisfromSeptember,1994to7thMarch,1995.In
thiscase,accordingtotheprosecution,theperiodofconspiracyisfrom
November,1994to7thMarch,1995.Adiscrepancyhasbeennoticedon
thepointofholdingofsomeofthemeetingspriortoNovember,1994.This
facthasbeenadmittedbyPW13SunilJaininhisevidence. Asperthe
confessionofaccusedAbuSalem,inthelastweekofOctober,1994,Riyaz
SiddiquiapprisedhimandAneesIbrahimabouttheKolDongriPropertyat
Andheriand,therefore,afterdoingsomeplanning,ameetingwasheldin
theofficeofAneesIrabhimandAbu SaleminthemonthofNovember,
1994andinthesaidmeeting,theconspiracywashatchedandtheroleof
eachonepresentinthemeetingandtheroleofNaeemKhan,whowasin
Mumbai,wasdecided.IfweperusetheevidenceofPW13SunilJain,it
would show that the meetings in the office of solicitor Bharat Raghani
startedfromthefirstweekofOctober,1994andthesaidmeetingswere
arrangedbyShaukatali.HehasadmittedatPage298thatthelastmeeting
washeldintheofficeofBharatRaghaniinDecember,1994. Perusalof
thisadmissionandtheprovedcontradictions,itappearsthatactuallythe
meetingstartedpriortolastweekofOctober,1994whereasaccordingto
accused AbuSalem, Riyaz Siddiqui informedhim about the Kol Dongri
PropertyinthelastweekofOctober,1994.
367
377]
367
PerusaloftheentireevidenceofPW13SunilJainin
totalitywouldshowthatdespitestatingthatthefirstmeetingtookplacein
firstweekofOctober,1994,theeventsoccurredduringallthemeetings,
havebeenstatedbyPW13SunilJain.AccusedAbuSalemhasadmittedin
his confession that the job was assigned to Shaukat Mistry and Naeem
Khan (Approver) (PW1) to hold meetings with Jain brothers and to
conveytohimtheprogressmadeinthemeetings.AccusedAbuSalemhas
furtheradmittedinhisconfessionthataccordinglyNaeemKhan(Approver
PW1)andShaukatalifromtimetotimewouldconveytheprogressofthe
meetings took place in the office of solicitor Bharat Raghani with Jain
brothers.Theaccountoftheeventsoccurredinthemeetingspresentedby
witnessPW13SunilJainandPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)isconsistent.
Thisisastrongcircumstancetoindicatethatallthemeetingstookplace
pursuant to the conspiracy hatched in the meeting of November, 1994.
Barringthedifferenceofdateofthefirstmeeting,theentireaccountof
events occurred in all the meetings narratedby PW13 Sunil Jain and
PW1 Naeem Khan (Approver)(PW1) is consistent. In this case,
consideringthetimegapandthestateofmindofPW13SunilJain,after
murder of Pradeep Jain, at the time of recording his statement on
10/03/1995andthetimeofhisevidencedeservessomeleverage.So,as
farastheevidenceofPW13SunilJain,aboutthethreatsbyaccusedAbu
SalemandvariousmeetingsheldintheofficeofBharatRaghaniatthe
instance of Naeem Khan (Approver) (PW1) and Shaukat Mistry, is
consistent.IthascomeonrecordinhiscrossexaminationatPage298that
thelastmeetingintheofficeofBharatRaghanimighthavebeenheldin
368
368
December,1994.Thisstatementisalsoconsistentwiththefactsadmitted
intheconfessionbyaccusedAbuSalem.
378]
ItisthecaseofPW13SunilJainandPW1NaeemKhan
(Approver)(PW1)thatinthelastmeeting,seriousthreatswereextended
toJainbrothersbyShaukataliinpresenceofBharatRaghanitokillthem,
if they fail to surrender the property and, therefore, he told the Jain
brothers to get down from the office of Bharat Raghani. The events
narrated by this witness PW13 Sunil Jain about the role of Bharat
Raghani,theroleofShaukatMistryandtheroleofNaeemKhan(Approver
PW1)isconsistentwiththeconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.AtPage287
Para39,PW13SunilJainhasadmittedthatallthefactsstatedbyhimin
ExaminationinChiefandwhichwerenotdeposedintheearliertriali.e.
TADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995,aretheimportantfacts,astheyare
directlyconcernedwiththemurderofhisbrotherPradeepJain. Hehas
admittedthatstillhedeliberatelydidnotdiscloseallthefactsbeforethe
Courtinhisdeposition.Thewitnesshasmadeacategoricalstatementat
thisstagethatashehadbeenthreatenedofhislife,hedidnotdepose
thesefactsbeforetheCourt. Hehasfurthermadeavoluntarystatement
thathedidnottakethenameofaccusedNo.5V.K.JhambandNaeem
Khanbecausehewasafraidofusingthosenames.Itmaybenotedthat
hisexplanationisafittingreplytoallthequestionsraisedinthismatter.
AccusedAbuSalemwassettledinDubai. Hewasfreetodoanything.
Jain brothers knew that his stooges in Mumbai were block headed to
followblindlythecommandsofAbuSalemandkillthepersonsasperthe
369
369
commandsofAbuSalem.JainbrothersknewthatNaeemKhan(Approver)
(PW1) and V.K. Jhamb (accused No.5) were the trusted men of Abu
Salem.ConsideringtheadmissionsofAbuSaleminhisconfession,itcan
be seen that a very important task was assigned to Naeem Khan
(Approver)(PW1) as well as to V. K. Jhamb, accused No.5. Holding a
meeting with Jain brothers and prevailing upon them to follow the
commandsanddictatesofAbuSalemrequiredsomeskill.Consideringthe
evidenceofNaeemKhan(Approver)(PW1),onecangatherthataccused
AbuSalemwasawareofhisexperienceandskillinthebusiness.Outof
thousandsofthebuildersinMumbai,accusedAbuSalemhaschosenonly
V.K.Jhambtocompletethetransactionofsaleofthreeflats.Thiscould
clearlyindicatethatNaeemKhanandJhambbuilderwerethetrustedmen
of accused Abu Salem and, therefore, they were assigned with this
importanttask.Iftheirnameswerenotdisclosedintheearliertrialorin
thestatementsrecordedbypolice,then,oneshouldnotbesurprised.The
reasonhasbeenassignedbyPW13SunilJainandinthebackdropofthe
admitted facts, circumstances and evidence brought on record, this
explanationisplausibleandappealabletotheconsciousmind.
379]
PW13SunilJainhasdeposedthatwhilerecordinghis
statementon10/03/1995andhisevidence,hedidnotdiscloseaboutthe
incidentoccurredon13thdayceremonyofPradeepJainmurder.Hehas
alsoadmittedthatdespitehavingapoliceprotectionandthefactthatthe
matterwassubjudicebeforeCourt,theydidnotdisclosefurtherthreats
givenbyaccusedAbuSalemtomakethemtomeethisdemandofransom
370
370
ThearrestoftheaccusedAbuSaleminthiscrimeinthe
371
involvementinBombayBombBlastsCase1of1993wasrevealed.Hehad
takenshelteratDubai.Buttheevidenceplacedonrecordclearlyindicate
that despite having settled in Dubai, they continued their extortion
activitiesinMumbaithroughtheirhenchmen. PW13SunilJainandhis
familymemberscouldnothavebeenobliviousofthisfact. Thereisone
morefactwhichcanspeakabouttheterrorofaccusedAbuSalemoverthe
mindofJainfamily.Ithascomeonrecordthatduringthecourseofthe
evidenceintheearliertriali.e.TADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995,PW13
refused to come to the Court and give evidence despite provided with
police protection. It has come on record that he was threatened by
accusedAbuSalemnottogototheCourtandgiveevidenceagainsthim.
InTADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995whenhe(PW13SunilJain)didnot
attendtheCourt,thePresidingOfficerwasconstrainedtoissueawarrant
againstwitnessPW13SunilJaintosecurehispresencebeforeCourt.The
proceedingrecordedbytheCourtatthattimewouldshowthatthereis
substanceinthecontentionofthewitnessthattheterrorcreatedintheir
mindbyaccusedAbuSalemandhishenchmenwassuchthatevenbefore
CourtPW13 Sunil Jain could notdare to open his mouth andtell the
nameoftheaccused.
381]
Itmustbementionedthatthiswitness(PW1)aftera
gapoftenyearsnarratedcertainfactsandmostofthefactshavebeen
admittedbyaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfession. Ifanyrevengefulor
vindictiveapproachhadbeenadoptedandtherewasnoterrororfearof
accusedAbuSalem,PW13SunilJainandhisfamilymemberswouldhave
372
372
disclosedsomanythingsin1995itself.Itisapparentonthefaceofthe
recordthatwhentheyrealizedthatnowtheUnderworldDonAbuSalemis
inthelockupandinthecustodyofpolice,theythoughtitfittodisclose
certainfactsbeforepolice.ThearrestofaccusedAbuSalemmustbeabig
sighofrelieftotheJainfamily.Thiscouldhavebeenthemostimportant
factortoerasetheterrorandimpressionoftheaccusedAbuSalemfrom
theirmind.Therefore,theexplanationgivenbyPW13SunilJainthathe
didnotdiscloseallthefactsbecauseofthepersonsinvolvedinthecrime
appearspalpablyacceptable. Idonotseeanyreasontorejectit. Ifthe
omissions,discrepanciesandcontradictionsareconsideredinjuxtaposition
withthefactsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfession,thenit
wouldshowthattheevidenceofPW13SunilJaincannotbetermedas
unreliableandunworthyofcredence.Theaccountofthehappeningsinthe
meetingsnarratedbyPW13SunilJainandPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)
isidenticaland,therefore,thedifferencebetweentheperiodofmeetings
narratedearlierandnarratedatpresentbyPW13wouldnotmakeany
difference.Thereisvarianceabouttheperiodofthemeetings.Butthere
isnovarianceoftheactualeventsoccurredinthemeetings.Theevidence
is consistent about the meetings held in the office of solicitor Bharat
Raghaniandtheeventsoccurredinthosemeetingsfromtimetotime.The
facts and circumstances in the backdrop of the explanation and the
evidence placed on record would show that the Jain family purposely
avoidedtotakethenameofaccusedAbuSalem,accusedNaeemKhanand
Jhambbuilder. Therefore,whileconsideringtheomissions,alltheabove
stated facts, circumstances and evidence cannot be ignored. It must be
373
373
mentionedthatmerelybecauseoftheomissions,discrepanciesandsome
contradictions,theevidenceofPW13SunilJaincannotbediscarded.
382]
OnthebasisoftheevidenceofPW13SunilJain,ithas
beenprovedthataccusedAbuSalemandAneesIbrahimKaskarthreatened
themtosurrendertheirrightovertheKolDongriProperty.Hisevidence
furtherprovesthatvariousmeetingswereheldintheofficeofsolicitor
Bharat Raghani and in those meetings also the Jain brothers were
threatenedbyShaukatMistryandNaeemKhan(Approver)(PW1).PW13
Sunil Jain has categorically stated and by his statement, it has been
establishedthatNaeemKhan(Approver)wasparticepscriminis.Onthe
basisofhisevidence,theprosecutionhasprovedthatonaccountoftheir
failuretomeetthedemandofransombyaccusedAbuSalemandthehot
exchangeofabusesandwordsbetweenaccusedAbuSalemandPradeep
Jain, the accused Abu Salem through his henchmen brutally murdered
PradeepJainandattemptedtocommitmurderofPW13SunilJain.On
the basis of his evidence, it has also been established that even after
murderofPradeepJain,accusedAbuSalemcontinuedthespellofthreats
andmadetheJainbrotherstomeethisdemands. Intheteethofallthe
abovestatedfacts,circumstancesandevidencebroughtonrecord,much
weightageandimportancecannotbegiventotheomissions,discrepancies
andcontradictions.Inthebackdropofcertainfactsadmittedbyaccused
Abu Salem in his confession, the omissions, discrepancies and
contradictions become insignificant and of no consequence. The
confessionofthecrimebyaccusedAbuSalem, inthebackdropofthe
374
374
ShriSitaramNamdeoNikaljeandPW5MohammedShabirMunawaruddin
MaliktoseekindependentcorroborationtotheevidenceofPW1Naeem
Khan(Approver)andgeneralcorroborationtotheconfessionsofaccused
AbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanonthepointofexistenceofthe
STD booths from where the calls were made to Dubai and also the
telephonenumberstowhichthecallsweremade.Asperthecaseofthe
375
375
prosecutionduringthecourseofinterrogationofaccusedMehendiHasan
byPW20APIShriDineshKadam,heexpressedthedesiretopointoutthe
STDboothsfromwherehewouldmakephonecallstoaccusedAbuSalem
inDubai.PW20APIShriDineshKadamthenimmediatelysummonedtwo
panchasandinpresenceofthosepanchasaccusedMehendiHasanmadea
statementstatingthathewouldpointouttheSTDboothsfromwherehe
wasmakingthephonecallstoaccusedAbuSaleminDubai.PW20API
Shri Dinesh Kadam has deposed that he accordingly drew the
MemorandumPanchnamainpresenceoftwopanchas. Hehasdeposed
thataccusedtookthemtooneSTDboothatChemburandfromChembur
hetookthemtoanotherSTDboothatAndheri. PW20APIShriDinesh
Kadam has further deposedthatfrom theSTDBoothatChembur,they
seized two registers and some telephone bills, which are marked as
ArticlesB1,C1andD1.
384]
376
statementwasmadebytheaccusedandsaidboothswerepointedoutby
the accused, as stated bythe prosecution. After answering this factual
question,itwouldbenecessarytoadverttothelegalissueastowhether
thiswouldamounttoastatementleadingtothediscoveryoffactstrictly
withintheparametersofSection27oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Learned
AdvocateShriPasbolaonfactssubmittedthatthereisampleevidenceto
falsify the evidence of PW4 Shri Sitaram Namdeo Nikalje, PW5
Mohammed Shabir Munawaruddin Malik and PW20 API Shri Dinesh
Kadamonthepointofseizureof ArticlesB1 and D1 i.e.thetelephone
recordregisters.
385]
ItisnownecessarytoseetheevidenceofPW4Shri
SitaramNamdeoNikalje,PW5MohammedShabirMunawaruddinMalik,
PW20 API Shri Dinesh Parshuram Kadam and PW22 Kisan Narayan
Shengalcollectivelyonthefactualaspects. Itmaybementionedatthis
stage that the statement made by the accused was not in respect of
pointing out of some telephone registers. Accused Mehendi Hasan had
expressedthedesiretopointouttheSTDBoothsfromwherehewould
make phone calls to accused Abu Salem in Dubai. PW4 Shri Sitaram
NamdeoNikaljeisthepanchwitness.Inhisevidencehehasdeposedthat
on19/12/2005heandcopanchwerecalledtoBhoiwadaPoliceStation.
Thepurposeofcallingthemtothepolicestationwasexplainedtothem.
HehasfurtherdeposedthatinhispresencetheaccusedMohd.Mehendi@
Sunny made a statement that he would point out the STD booth from
where he used to make phone calls to Abu Salem at Dubai. He has
377
377
386]
378
ItisnownecessarytoconsidertheevidenceofPW5
379
heknowsaccusedMehendiHasansincehischildhoodandsecondfactis
that accused Mehendi Hasan used to come to his STD booth to make
phonecallstoDubai.AsfarasreceiptofthephonecallsfromAbuSalem
andattendanceofthesaidcallssometimesbyhimistheimprovementin
his evidence. This fact was not stated by him while recording his
statement.However,thisfacthasbeenadmittedbyaccusedAbuSalemin
hisconfession.Inhisconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthathe
usedtomakephonecallsfromDubaiattheSTDboothatChemburto
accusedMehendiHasan.Therefore,thestatementmadebythiswitness,
though found to be a improvement, cannot be discarded. As per the
defenceoftheaccused,ArticlesB1andD1wereseizedpursuanttosome
searchwarrantin19931994bytheofficersoftheCrimeBranch. PW5
hasadmittedinhiscrossexaminationatPage131Para30thatthepolice
hadcometohisSTDboothwithSearchWarrantin1993.Hehasadmitted
thatatthattimepolicedidnotprepareanypanchanamainhisshopor
seizedanyarticle.Hehasadmittedthatthepolicehadcometohisshop
with the Search warrant in connection with one Salim Haddi. He has
admittedatPage132Para30thatatthattimepolicehadinspectedhiscall
registers.HehasadmittedthathehadshownthecallregistersArticlesB1
andD1.Hehasfurtheradmittedthatatthattimethepoliceofficersfrom
CrimeBranchhadcometohisshop. PW20APIShriDineshKadamhas
admittedthisfactinhiscrossexaminationatPage409Para12. Hehas
admitted that registers Articles B1 and D1 were already taken in
possessionevenbeforetheirvisittotheshop.
380
388]
380
PW22ShriKisanNarayanShengalhasadmittedin
hisevidenceatPage474Para50thatPIDineshKadamPW20hadseized
phone call registers Articles B1 and D1 and telephone bills Article C1
collectivelyduringthecourseofinvestigationinsomeothertrial.Hehas
admittedthathedidnotshowthesedocumentstoPIShriKadam(PW20)
whilerecordinghisstatementafresh.Inthebackdropoftheseadmissions
bythepoliceofficers,Iamoftheopinionthatthecaseoftheprosecution
thattheseregistersweresizedon19/12/2005cannotbebelievedatall.
PW22 was nominated as the Investigating Officer in this case on
27/12/1995. Beforehim,PW19ShriDattaSambhajiDhawalewasthe
InvestigatingOfficer.ThethenInvestigatingOfficerShriDhawalePW19is
silentinhisevidenceabouttheseizureofArticlesB1,C1andD1.Atthis
stage,itisnecessarytomentionthatbeingtheInvestigatingOfficerinthis
casePW19DattaDhawalewassupposedtoknowthisfactandhewas
supposedtodeposeaboutthisfactbeforeCourt. Itmaybementioned
thatintheabsenceofanystatementbyPW19onthisaspect,thebenefitof
thesamemustgototheaccused.
389]
381
Khan(Approver)hasdeposedthatontwooccasions,alongwithMehendi
HasanhehadanoccasiontomakephonecallstoaccusedAbuSalemin
DubaifromSTDboothatAndherinearHotelMotiMahal.Onthebasisof
theevidenceofPW4ShriSitaramNamdeoNikalje,ithasbeenprovedthat
thesetwoSTDboothswerepointedoutbyaccusedMehendiHasan.The
evidenceofPW4andPW5lendsgeneralcorroborationtotheconfessions
of accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan on the point of
existence of the STD booths. The evidence PW4 and PW5 also
corroboratestheevidenceofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)onthispoint.
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatifitisfoundthatthestatement
382
382
madebyaccusedMehendiHasandoesnotfallwithintheambitofSection
27oftheIndianEvidenceAct,then,therewouldnotbeanydifficultyin
acceptingthesaidstatementassubsequentconductoftheaccusedu/sec.8
oftheIndianEvidenceAct.
391]
prosecution has not been able to establish that these documents were
seizedon19/12/2005. Asfarasthetelephonebillsareconcerned,the
samehavenotbeenprovedasrequiredbylaw.Thetelephonebillsarethe
printoutsoftheelectronicrecordmaintainedbytheMTNL,Mumbai.No
certificate,asrequiredbySection65BoftheIndianEvidenceAct,hasbeen
producedonrecordwiththosetelephonebills,whicharetheprintoutsof
theelectronicrecord. Therefore, evenifitis assumedforthesakeof
argumentthatthesetelephonebillswereseizedon19/12/2005,thesame
havenotbeenprovedasperthelaw.
392]
Itisnownecessarytoadverttothemainobjectionof
thelearnedAdvocateShriPasbolafortheaccused.LearnedAdvocateShri
PasbolahassubmittedthatthestatementmadebyaccusedMehendiHasan
leadingtothediscoveryoftheSTDboothscannotbeacceptedwithinthe
parameters of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In order to
substantiate this submission, learned Advocate has relied upon the
followingthreedecisions.
i)
HimachalPradeshAdministrationv.Om
Prakash AIR1972SUPREMECOURTCASES975;
383
383
ii)
PandurangKaluPatilandanotherv.Stateof
Maharashtra
2002CRI.L.J.1007;and
iii)
Pulukurikottayaandothersv.Emperor
A.I.R.(34)1947PrivyCouncil67
393]
Inthepresentcase,theprosecutionhasreliedupon
Inthecaseof HimachalPradeshv.OmPrakash
reportedinAIR1972SupremeCourtCases975,theperson,fromwhom
theweaponusedintheoffencewaspurchasedbytheaccused,waspointed
outandallegedlydiscovered.Inthiscase,theHon'bleApexCourthasheld
that fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian
EvidenceActmustrefertoamaterialfacttowhichtheinformationdirectly
relates.Thatinformationwhichdoesnotdistinctlyconnectwiththefact
discoveredorthatportionoftheinformationwhichmerelyexplainsthe
material things discovered is not admissible u/sec. 27 of the Indian
Evidence Actandcannotbeproved. Inthis case the Hon'ble Supreme
CourtofIndiahasobservedthatwhereanaccusedgivesinformationtothe
384
384
InvestigatingOfficerthathepurchasedmurderweaponfromaparticular
dealerandtakestheInvestigatingOfficerandthepanchastotheplaceof
the dealer and points him out the dealer and the shop, the said
informationisnotinadmissibleu/sec.27oftheIndianEvidenceAct.The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasobservedthathowevertheevidenceof
theInvestigatingOfficerandthepanchasthattheaccusedhadtakenthem
to the dealer and pointed him out and as corroborated by the dealer
himselfisadmissibleu/sec.8oftheIndianEvidenceActastheconductof
theaccused.
395] InthecaseofPandurangKaluPatilandanotherv.
StateofMaharashtrareportedin2002CRI.L.J.1007,theaccusedhad
madeastatement,Ihavekeptfirearmconcealedbehindtheoldhousein
aheapofwood.InthiscasethefactdiscoveredwasnottheGunbutthe
factdiscoveredwasthattheaccusedhadconcealedthegunbehindold
houseunderheapofwood.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
thatwhatisadmissibleu/sec.27oftheIndianEvidenceActisthefact
discoveredandnottheobjectproducedpursuanttothestatementmadeby
the accused. In Pandurang Kalu Patil and another v. State of
Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered the
decisioninthecaseofPulukurikottayaandothersv.Emperorreported
inA.I.R.(34)1947PrivyCouncil67.
396]
InPulukurikottayaandothersv.Emperorreported
in A.I.R.(34)1947PrivyCouncil67, theHon'bleSupremeCourthas
385
385
heldthatitisfallacioustotreatthefactdiscoveredwithinSection27of
theIndianEvidenceActasequivalenttotheobjectproduced. Thefact
discoveredembracestheplacefromwhichtheobjectisproducedandthe
knowledgeoftheaccusedastothis,andtheinformationgiven,mustrelate
distinctlytothisfact.Informationastopastuser,orthepasthistory,ofthe
objectproducedisnotrelatedtoitsdiscoveryinthesettinginwhichitis
discovered. The Hon'ble Privy Council has observed that information
suppliedbyapersonincustodythat,Iwillproduceaknifeconcealedin
theroofofmyhousedoesnotleadtothediscoveryofaknife;kniveswere
discoveredmanyyearsago.Itleadstothediscoveryofthefactthataknife
isconcealedinthehouseoftheinformanttohisknowledge,andifthe
knifeisprovedtohavebeenusedinthecommissionoftheoffence,thefact
discoveredisveryimportant.
397]
Whileconsideringtheapplicabilityoftheproposition
oflawlaiddownintheJudgments,citedsupra,itisnecessarytotakea
noteofthestatementmadebyaccusedMehendiHasaninthiscase.Ihave
takennoteofthestatementinthebeginning.Asperthestatementmade
by the witness already existing STD booths were pointed out by the
accusedandaccordingtotheprosecution,thediscoveryoftheSTDbooths
attheinstanceoftheaccusedwouldbeadmissibleu/sec.27oftheIndian
EvidenceAct.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethatasperthestatement
madebytheaccusednoothermaterialobjectorfactwasdiscovered. It
hascomeonrecordintheevidencethattheArticleswerealreadyseizedby
thepolicein19931994.TheexistenceoftheSTDboothswasknownto
386
386
thepoliceofficers.Inthiscasethestatementmadebytheaccusedhasnot
ledtothediscoveryofanyfact.Atthemostitcouldbesaidtohaveledto
thediscoveryoftheobjecti.e.theSTDBooths.Byapplyingthelawlaid
downbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaandthePrivyCouncil,this
statementmadebytheaccusedleadingtothediscoveryoftheSTDBooths
cannotbeheldtobeadmissibleu/sec.27oftheIndianEvidenceAct.As
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Himachal
Pradesh v. Om Prakash, it could be admitted u/sec. 8 of the Indian
EvidenceActasaconductoftheaccused.Idonotseeanydifficultyin
accepting this statement to establish the subsequent conduct of the
accused. PW4panchwitness has admittedlydeposedthatthe accused
tookthemtotheSTDBooth. PW5hasdeposedthatheknewaccused
MehendiHasansincehischildhood.Theyareresidinginthesamevicinity.
PW5hasdeposedthataccusedMehendiHasanusedtocometohisSTD
booth to make phone calls to Dubai. PW5 has further deposed that
sometimesheusedtoattendthephonecallsmadeathisPCOboothfrom
DubaibyaccusedAbuSalem.TheevidenceofPW5isconsistentwiththe
factsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanintheir
respective confession. In this case, on the basis of the evidence, the
statement made by accused Mehendi Hasan can be used and admitted
u/sec.8oftheIndianEvidenceActasaconductoftheaccused.Ithasbeen
corroborated by other evidence. The statement made by the accused
MehendiHasanforthereasonsstatedaboveinviewofthelawlaiddown
bytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiacannotbeacceptedasastatement
leading to the discovery of fact u/sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
387
387
TheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambisfacingthecharge
u/sec.120BreadwithSections386and387oftheIndianPenalCode
alongwithaccusedAbuSalem,accusedNaeemKhan,accusedMehendi
Hasanandothers. AccusedNaeemKhanhasbecomeApprover(PW1)in
this case. A Pardon tendered to accused Riyaz Ahmed Siddiqui was
forfeitedand,therefore,heisbeingtriedseparatelyasperthemandateof
law.Thechargesu/sec.386and387oftheIndianPenalCodehavebeen
withdrawnbytheprosecutionagainstaccusedAbuSalem.Asperthecase
oftheprosecution,evenafterthemurderofPradeepJainon07/03/1995,
pursuanttotheconspiracyhatchedbeforethemurderofPradeepJain,the
accusedAbuSalemhimselfandwiththehelpofhishenchmencontinued
thespellofthreatstotheJainfamilytopaytheextortionmoney. When
theJainbrothersplacedbeforeaccusedAbuSalemtheirfinancialcrisis,
theaccusedAbuSalemsuggestedthemtosellsomeoftheirpropertyand
satisfyhisdemands.Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,therefore,theJain
388
388
brothersagreedtotransferthreeflatsinlieuoftheextortionamountand
assuggestedbyaccusedAbuSalem,accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambwashisman
tocompletethesaleofthoseflatsandsendthemoneyoutofthesaleprice
ofthoseflatstoaccusedAbuSaleminDubai.Accordingtothecaseofthe
prosecutionaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambwasnotinvolvedintheconspiracy
priortothemurderofPradeepJainon07/03/1995.Asperthecaseofthe
prosecution, the accused No. 5 V. K. Jhamb joined the conspiracy
somewhereinMarch/April1996. So,thesearesomeofthebackground
factsquaaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.
399]
LearnedSPPShriUjjwalNikamsubmittedthatin
thiscasetheconductoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambisverymaterialand
relevant.LearnedSPPShriNikamsubmittedthatwhenhewasinstructed
bytheaccusedAbuSalemtocompletethesaletransactionofthosethree
flats,afterexplainingtherealnatureofthetransaction,he(accusedNo.5
V.K.Jhamb)nevercomplainedaboutthesameeithertothepoliceorto
anyotherpersonallegingthathewasbeingforcedbyaccusedAbuSalem
toindulgeintheillegalact.LearnedSPPShriNikamsubmittedthatthis
conductoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambreflectsuponhisguiltystateof
mind.LearnedSPPShriNikamsubmittedthattheconspiracyhatchedin
DubaitoforcetheJainbrotherstosurrendertheflatsandtoacquirethe
monetarybenefitsoutofthesaletransactionwasnotsnappedafterthe
murder of Pradeep Jain. Learned SPP Shri Nikam submitted that the
prosecutionhasprovedthatpursuanttothesaidconspiracyaccusedAbu
SalemcompelledtheJainbrotherstosurrenderthethreeflatsinlieuof
389
389
theextortionmoneyandexecutethedocumentsinfavourofthebuyers
suggested by V. K. Jhamb (accused No.5). Learned SPP Shri Nikam
submittedthattheprosecutionbyexaminingtheindependentwitnesses
has proved the commission of the offence u/sec.s 386 and 387 of the
IndianPenalCodereadwithSection120BoftheIndianPenalCodeby
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb. LearnedSPPShriNikamsubmittedthatthe
defencesubmittedinwritingatthetimeof313statementoftheaccused
No.5V.K.Jhambiscontraryandassuchcompletelybelieshisstandand
defencetakeninthiscase.LearnedSPPShriNikamsubmittedthattaking
theadvantageofdeathofAshokJain,accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhastaken
thedefenceoftheloantransactionwithdeceasedAshokJain.LearnedSPP
ShriNikamsubmittedthatsincetheoffencecommittedbyaccusedNo.5V.
K.Jhambwaspursuanttotheconspiracy,whichwashatchedinDubaiin
October/November,1994,theaccusedNo.5isliabletobeprosecutedwith
theotheraccusedthoughhehasnotbeenchargedforcommissionofany
oftheoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act.
400]
LearnedAdvocateShriSrikantShivadeappearing
fortheaccusedNo.5V.K.JhambsubmittedthataccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb
cannotbechargedandtriedinthiscasebecausehewasnottheparticipant
in the conspiracy and the offence alleged against the accused was
committed after the expiry of the TADA (P) Act i.e. on 23/05/1995.
LearnedAdvocate ShriShivade submittedthatthe TADA(P)Actwasa
temporarylegislationandwhichexpiredon23/05/1995and,therefore,by
virtueoftheprovisionsofSection1subsection4subclause(d)ofthe
390
390
TADA(P)Act,theaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambcannotbechargedandtried
with the other accused in this case. Learned Advocate Shri Shivade
submittedthatasperthecaseoftheprosecutiontheallegedoffencewas
committedinMarch/April1996,afteraboutayearfromthedateofthe
murder of Pradeep Jain and, therefore, it was a part of a separate
conspiracy.LearnedAdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthataftermurderof
PradeepJainon07/03/1995,theconspiracyallegedlyhatchedinDubaiin
1994wassnappedand,therefore,theallegedactoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.
Jhambcannotbebroughtwithintheambitofthesaidconspiracy.Learned
AdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthattheallegedactsdoneinMarch/April
1996couldnotbesaidtobeincontinuationoftheconspiracyevenafter
themurderofPradeepJainon7thMarch,1995. LearnedAdvocateShri
ShivadesubmittedthatsincetheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambisnotcharged
andtriedforanyoftheoffencespunishableundertheTADA(P)Act,the
confessionmadebytheaccusedAbuSalemcannotbeusedandadmissible
againsthim(accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb). LearnedAdvocateShriShivade
submittedthatinviewofthefacts,thisistheissueofthejurisdictionof
thisCourttoentertainthechargeagainsttheaccusedNo.5inthistrial.
LearnedAdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthatwhiledecidingthepointof
acts done in the same transaction, the proximity of time test is very
important. LearnedAdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthatthetimegap
between the murder of Pradeep Jain and the alleged transaction in
March/April1996clearlyindicatesthatitwasnotthepartofthesame
transaction. LearnedAdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthattheevidence
adducedbytheprosecutiontoprovethechargeagainstaccusedNo.5V.K.
391
391
Jhambisnotcogentandreliable.InthesubmissionoflearnedAdvocate
ShriShivadetheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhasbeenfalselyinvolvedinthis
casebyplantingthewitnessestosubstantiatethecaseoftheprosecution
againstaccusedAbuSalem.LearnedAdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthat
thereisnoiotaofevidencetoestablishthecaseofextortionagainstthe
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.LearnedAdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthat
thedefenceoftheaccusedaboutthemonetarytransactionbetweenthe
Jain brothers and brother of accused No. 5 is probable and, therefore,
deservesacceptance.
401]
prosecutiontoprovethechargesagainsttheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,itis
necessarytodecidetwoimportantissues.Firstissueisastowhetherthe
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambcouldbechargedandtriedtogetherwiththe
otheraccusedfortheoffencesu/sec.120BofIndianPenalCodereadwith
Sections386and387oftheIndianPenalCodeinatrialinitiatedunderthe
TADA(P)Act,whennochargeundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act
has been framed against the accused No.5 V. K. Jhamb. The second
important question depends upon the answer,one wayor the other,to
questionNo.1. IftheCourtcomestotheconclusionthatasperlawthe
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambcanbejointlychargedandtriedwiththeother
accused,then,whetherthe confession made by the accusedAbu Salem
couldbeusedagainsthim(accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb)sincetheaccused
No.5hasnotbeenchargedforthecommissionofanyoftheoffencesunder
theTADA(P)Act.
392
402]
392
Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,theconspiracy
393
eachofthemortheydidnotperformanyoneormoreofsuchactsbyjoint
efforts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is not
necessarythatalltheconspirators,whohavejoinedintheschemefrom
thefirstandthose,whocameinatlaterstage,areequallyguiltyprovided
theagreementisproved. ThelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiainthiscaseisananswertotheroleplayedbytheaccused
No.5V.K.Jhambbysubsequentlyjoiningtheconspiracy.
403]
CourttoproceedagainsttheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,learnedAdvocate
ShriShivadedrewmyattentiontowardstheprovisionsofSection12ofthe
TADA (P) Act. It is submitted that the powers are vested with the
Designated Court established under the TADA (P) Act to try the other
offencesasperSection12oftheTADA(P)Act. LearnedAdvocateShri
Shivadepointedoutthatthepowersu/sec.12oftheTADA(P)Actcanbe
invokedbytheDesignatedCourtonlywheretheaccusedischargedwith
theoffencesundertheTADA(P)Actandalsotheoffencesconnectedand
allegedlycommittedbythesaidaccusedunderanyotherAct.Inthiscase,
admittedlytheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhasnotbeenchargedforanyof
theoffencesundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.TheaccusedNo.5
hasbeenchargedfortheoffencesu/sec.386and387readwithSection
120BoftheIndianPenalCode. Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,the
conspiracytoextortmoneyfromJainbrotherswashatchedinOctober/
November,1994inDubaiandthesaidconspiracywascontinuedevenafter
themurderofPradeepJainon07/03/1995anditwasputtoitslogical
394
394
395
conspiracy,thoughjoinedlateron,toextortmoneyfromJainbrothers.
404]
Onthispoint,learnedSPPShriNikamhasreliedupon
thedecisioninthecaseofStateofMaharashtraandothersv.SomNath
Thapaandothers reportedin (1996)4SupremeCourtCases659. In
thiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthattoestablisha
chargeofconspiracyknowledgeaboutindulgenceineitheranillegalactor
alegalactbyillegalmeansisnecessary.Insomecases,intentofunlawful
usebeingmadeofthegoodsinservicesinquestionmaybeinferredfrom
the knowledge itself. When the ultimate offence consists of achain of
actions,itwouldnotbenecessaryfortheprosecutiontoestablish,tobring
home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the
knowledgeofwhatthecollaboratorwoulddo,solongasitisknownthat
thecollaboratorwouldputthegoodsorservicetoanunlawfuluse.Inview
ofthefactsandtheevidencebroughtonrecordinthiscase,considering
theroleassignedtotheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambinthecrimebyaccused
No.1 Abu Salem, would be sufficient to attribute the knowledge of
conspiracytotheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambandalsotheillegalnatureof
thetransactionandact.
405]
Inthiscase,fortunatelyfortheaccusedNo.5V.K.
Jhamb,theInvestigatingOfficerhasnotfiledthesupplementarycharge
sheetagainsttheaccusedNo.5underanyoftheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)
Act. Onthe basis of the materialplaced before the Court,my learned
predecessorwaspleasedtoframethechargesagainsttheaccusedNo.5V.
396
396
K.Jhambwithothersu/sec.120BreadwithSections386and387ofthe
Indian Penal Code. In this case, the murder of Pradeep Jain on
07/03/1995wascommittedpursuanttotheconspiracyhatchedin1994at
Dubai.Thisfacthasbeenprovedbyleadingcogentandreliableevidence.
Inthiscase,sincetheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhasnotbeenchargedfor
commissionofanyoftheoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act,thesubmission
madebylearnedAdvocateShriShivadethatwhentheallegedoffencewas
committedbytheaccusedNo.5,theTADA(P)Acthadalreadyexpired,is
ofnosubstanceandconsequence.Inthiscase,fortunatelyfortheaccused
No.5eitherbymistakeorotherwise,supplementarychargesheethasnot
beenfiledfor commissionofalltheoffencesfromtheinceptionofthe
conspiracy. After considering the facts and evidence in entirety, the
accusedNo.5musttakeitasblessingindisguise. TheaccusedNo.5has
beenmadetoansweronlythechargeu/sec.s386and387oftheIndian
Penal Code read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. While
challengingthejurisdictionofthisCourttoentertainthechargeagainst
the accused No. 5 V. K. Jhamb under the Indian Penal Code, learned
AdvocateShriShivadehaschallengedthejurisdictionofthisCourtunder
theTADA(P)Act.
406]
ApplicabilityofSection12oftheTADA(P)Actin
this case qua accused No.5 V.K. Jhamb has to be considered in the
backdropofthecaseoftheprosecutionthatevenaftermurderofPradeep
Jaintheconspiracywasnotsnapped.TheaccusedAbuSalemandothers
continuedthespellofthreatstotheJainbrotherstoforcethemtopaythe
397
397
398
dealingwiththeevidenceledbytheprosecutiontoprovethevoluntary
andtruthfulnatureoftheconfession,Ihaveheldthattheprosecutionhas
provedinthiscasethattheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemisvoluntary
and true. If the confession of accused Abu Salem is excluded from
399
399
considerationquatheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,then,therewouldhardly
be any consistent evidence to come to a positive conclusion about the
involvement and complicity of the accused No.5 V. K. Jhamb. The
confession of accused Abu Salem is, therefore, a important piece of
evidence. The responsibility was on the shoulder of the Prosecutor to
justifythatunderlawtheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem,inviewofthe
admittedfacts,isadmissibleandcanbeusedasapieceofevidenceagainst
theaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.IftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemis
excludedfromtheevidencerelieduponagainsttheaccusedNo.5,thenthe
prosecutionwouldberequiredtofaceaveryprecarioussituation.Inorder
to satisfy this Court on the point of admissibility of the confession of
accused Abu Salem against the accused No.5 V.K. Jhamb in the facts
obtainedonrecord,learnedSPPShriNikamhasrelieduponthedecisionin
the case of Prakash Kumar alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat
reportedin 2005SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)518. Inthiscase,while
consideringtheprovisionsofSection12andSection15oftheTADA(P)
Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that confessional
statement of accused recorded u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act would
continuetoremainadmissiblefortheoffencesunderanyotherlaw,which
weretriedalongwiththeTADAoffencesu/sec.12,notwithstandingthat
theaccusedwasnotfoundguiltyofoffencesundertheTADA(P)Actinthe
sametrial.Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthat
theconfessionalstatementrecordedundertheTADA(P)Actisadmissible
againsttheaccusedandcoaccused,iftheyareacquittedundertheTADA
(P)ActandfoundguiltyoftheoffencespunishableundertheotherActs.
400
400
OnfactsthepropositionoflawlaiddownintheJudgment,citedsupra,by
learnedProsecutorwouldnotjustifyandsupportthesubmissionadvanced
bylearnedProsecutor.
409]
Consideringtheimportanceandthemagnitudeofthis
caseandvaluableevidencebeingrequiredtobebrushedasideonsome
technicalorlegalpoints,Ididsomeresearchonthesubject. Aftersome
research,Icouldlaymyhands ontheJudgmentinthecaseof Manjit
Singh alias Mange v. Central Bureau of Investigation Through its
Superintendent ofPolice reportedin (2011) 11SupremeCourt Cases
578. ThisdecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaisthedirect
Judgmentonthisissue. Thefactsinthecaseof ManjitSingh v.C.B.I.
andthefactsofthecaseonhandareidenticalandsimilar. Inthecase
beforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaaccusedManjitSinghandK.K.
SayaniwerechargedfortheoffencesundertheprovisionsofSection3
subsection (2) and Section 3 subsection (3) read with Section 3 sub
section(1)oftheTADA(P)Actandalsotheoffencesu/sec.302readwith
Section120BoftheIndianPenalCode.AccusedBabloowasnotcharged
foranyoftheoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act. Hewaschargedforthe
offencesu/sec.120BreadwithSection302oftheIndianPenalCode.All
thethreeaccusedweretriedtogether.AccusedK.K.Sayaniandaccused
ManjitSinghwereacquittedfortheoffencespunishableundertheTADA
(P)Actandrelyingupontheirconfessions,beingadmissibleinevidence,
wereconvictedu/sec.120BreadwithSection302ofthe IndianPenal
Code. Thequestioninvolvedinthiscasewaswhethertheconfessionsof
401
401
accusedManjitSinghandaccusedK.K.Sayanicouldbeusedagainstthem
inviewofthefactthattheyhavebeenacquittedofthechargesunderthe
TADA(P)ActandagainstaccusedBablu,whowasnotchargedforthe
offencesundertheTADA(P)Act,butwasonlytriedtogetherwithaccused
ManjitSinghandaccusedK.K.Sayani.Foraddressingthefirstpoint,the
Hon'ble Supreme CourtofIndia has referredthe Judgmentof Prakash
Kumarv.StateofGujaratandheldthattheconfessionswereadmissible
againstaccusedManjitSinghandaccusedK.K.Sayani.Whiledecidingthe
admissibilityoftheconfessionsofaccusedManjitSinghandaccusedK.K.
Sayani against accused Bablu, who was tried with them but was not
chargedfortheoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act,theHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiahasheldthattheconfessionalstatementmadebyaperson
u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act shall be admissible in the trial of a co
accusedfortheoffencescommittedandtriedinthesamecasetogether
withtheaccused,whomakestheconfession.TheHon'bleSupremeCourt
ofIndiahasheldthattheconfessionmadebyaccusedu/sec.15ofthe
TADA(P)Actcanbeusedagainstthecoaccusedwherethecoaccusedis
not charged for the offences under the TADA (P) Act, but he is tried
togetherwiththeaccused,whohasmadetheconfession.Inmyview,the
lawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthiscasewouldbe
ananswertothequestionposedbylearnedAdvocateMr.Shivade. The
decisioninthecaseofManjitSinghisthedirectdecisiononthispoint.
410]
confession u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act. The same has been found
402
402
voluntaryandtrue.TheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhasbeenchargedforthe
offencesu/sec.120BreadwithSections386and387oftheIndianPenal
Code, together with accused Abu Salem and others. He has not been
chargedfortheoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act.Therefore,inmyview,
byapplyingtheratiolaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiain
thecaseof ManjitSingh,theconfessionmadebyaccusedAbuSalemis
admissibleandcanbeusedasapieceofevidenceagainsttheaccusedNo.5
V.K.Jhamb.OnceitisfoundthattheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemcan
be used and is admissible in evidence against the accused No.5, it is
necessaryatthecostofrepetitiontoseeastowhataccusedAbuSalemhas
statedinhisconfessionquatheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.
411]
Inhisconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmitted
thatafterthemurderofPradeepJain,heagainstartedthreateningtheJain
brothersformakingthebalancepayment.Jainbrotherswereinfinancial
difficultiesand,therefore,theycouldnotcomplyhisdemand.Theaccused
AbuSalemhasadmittedthat,therefore,hetoldSunilJain(PW13)tosell
his property and pay the money to his man in Mumbai. Accused Abu
Salem has admitted in his confession that accordingly in March/April,
1996,SunilJain(PW13)toldhimthattheyhavethreeflatsinMamtaCo
operative Society, SherEPunjab Colony, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri
(East),Mumbai,andtheywouldsellthoseflatsandmeethisdemands.
SunilJaintoldaccusedAbuSalemtosendhismantoseetheflatsand
buyersfortheflats. ThisstatementmadebyaccusedAbuSalemwould
showthatevenaftermurderofPradeepJainon07/03/1995,hedidnot
403
403
stophisgreedydemands. HewasaftertheJainbrothersandcontinued
thespellofthreatstothemtopaytheextortionmoney.So,thisstatement
made by accused Abu Salem in his confession would show that the
conspiracytoextortmoneyfromJainbrotherswasnotsnappedandputto
anendwiththedeathofPradeepJain.AccusedAbuSalemhasadmitted
thatJainbrotherswouldtellhimthattheyareinfinancialdifficultiesand,
therefore, they were unable to comply his demands. In these
circumstances,onsuggestionofaccusedAbuSalem,theyagreedtosell
theirpropertynamelythreeflatsandpaythepurchasepricetoaccused
AbuSalemthroughhismen.ThisconfessionmadebyaccusedAbuSalem
wouldshowthattheconspiracytoextortmoneycontinuedevenafterthe
deathofPradeepJain. AccusedAbuSalemwashellbendtopressurize
andforcetheJainbrotherstopayhimextortionmoney. Inthisprocess,
the deal of saleofthree flats was struck. ItappearsthataccusedAbu
SalemtookoneyeartomaterializethedealwithJainbrothers.Itmaybe
notedthatbecauseofthistimelag,itcannotbeacceptedinviewofthe
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemthattheconspiracytoextortmoneyfrom
Jainbrotherswassnappedatanytime.
412]
Itmaybementionedatthisstagethattheaccused
No.5V.K.JhambjoinedtheconspiracyinMarch/April,1996. Thereis
concreteandcogentevidenceledbytheprosecutionthattheconspiracy
washatched,asstatedbytheprosecution.Inhisconfession,accusedAbu
SalemhasadmittedthatwhenJainbrothersagreedtogivehimthreeflats,
404
404
405
establishthecomplicityofaccusedNo.5inthiscase.Inordertodecidethe
limited objection raised by learned Advocate Shri Shivade to try the
accusedNo.5withotheraccusedbyinvokingtheprovisionsofSection12
oftheTADA(P)Actonthegroundthattheconspiracywassnappedafter
themurderofPradeepJain,theconfessionmadebyaccusedAbuSalemis
verymaterial.Atthisstage,Imustmentionthatthefactofcontinuationof
theconspiracyafterthemurderofPradeepJainhasbeencorroboratedby
theevidenceofPW1ApproverNaeemKhan,PW9JyotiPradeepJainand
PW13 Sunil Jain etc.. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Manjit Singh v. C.B.I., referred
above,theaccused,whoisnotfacingthechargesundertheprovisionsof
the TADA (P) Act, can be charged and tried together with the accused
facingthechargesundertheTADA(P)Acttogetherwiththeothersforthe
offencescommittedundertheotherActbythem.Therefore,thelawlaid
downbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiainthecaseofManjitSingh
v. C.B.I. is an appropriate answer to the objection raised by learned
AdvocateShriShivadebypressingintoservicetheprovisionsofSection12
oftheTADA(P)Act.Theevidenceonrecordintheformofconfessionof
accusedAbuSalem,evidenceofNaeemKhan(ApproverPW1),PW9Jyoti
Pradeep Jain, PW13 Sunil Jain and others clearly go to show that the
conspiracyhatchedinOctober/November,1994toextortmoneyfromJain
406
406
brotherswasnotsnappedtillitwasputtoitslogicalend. AccusedAbu
SalemandotherscontinuedtoextendthespellofthreatstoJainbrothers
tosatisfythedemandofransom.Simplybecauseofthefactthatthedeal
couldbematerializedafteroneyearwouldnotbetheonlyfactortoopine
thattheconspiracywassnappedandanewconspiracywasenteredintoin
March/April1996.Onthebasisoftheevidenceonrecord,itcanpositively
be said that the subsequent acts of the accused Abu Salem and the
participationoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambinthesamewasapartofone
seriesofacts.Itwassoconnectedtogetherthatitformedthepartofthe
sametransaction.Nootherconclusioncanbereachedonthebasisofthe
positiveevidenceadducedbeforeme.
414]
Section220and223oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973,
whichfallundertheHeadingof'Charge'dealswiththejoinderofthe
offences and joinder of the offenders in one trial. In this case, by
invokingtheprovisionsofSections220and223oftheCr.P.C.,theoffences
and offenders in this crime can be tried together. Here, in this case,
Sections220and223oftheCr.P.C.wouldsquarelyapply.Onthebasisof
Sections220and223oftheCr.P.C.,thetrialofaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb
withothers,whohavebeenadditionallychargedfortheoffencesunderthe
TADA(P)ActcouldnotbesaidtobeinbreachoftheprovisionsofSection
12oftheTADA(P)Act.Alltheactscombinedtogetherwouldshowthat
theconspiracyconstitutedamajoroffenceinthiscase.TheaccusedNo.5
V.K. Jhamb joined the conspiracy in March/April 1996 and shared the
common object of the conspiracy. Therefore, the submission of learned
407
407
Advocate Shri Shivade that his acts would not form part of the same
transaction,cannotbeaccepted. Inviewofthepositiveevidenceledby
the prosecution in this case, the proximity of time test required to be
appliedinsuchasituationdoesnotbecomeapplicableinthiscase.Inthis
case,theprosecutionhasprovedthatevenafterthemurderofPradeep
Jain,theconspiracytoextortmoneyfromJainbrotherscontinuedandit
wasputtoitslogicalendwhenJainbrothersweremadetopaythemoney
bysellingthreeflatsthroughaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.
415]
Asfarasthe objectionofthelearnedAdvocateShri
ShivadeonthepointofapplicationoftheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Actis
concerned,ithastobeobservedthatinthiscasetheaccusedNo.5V.K.
Jhambhasnotbeenchargedforanyoftheoffencesundertheprovisionsof
theTADA(P)Act.Asperthecaseoftheprosecutionthattheknowledgeof
theconspiracycanbeattributedtotheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.Inview
oftheevidenceplacedonrecord,hecanbemadeliablefortheactsand
consequencesbyinvokingtheprovisionsofSection120BoftheIndian
PenalCode. Inthiscase,admittedlytheconspiracywashatchedduring
thesubsistenceoftheTADA(P)Act.Pursuanttotheconspiracy,accused
AbuSalemandotherscommittedtheoffencesundertheprovisionsofthe
TADA(P)Act.TheconspiracyhatchedtoextortmoneyfromJainbrothers
byhookorcrookwasnotsnappedevenafterthemurderofPradeepJain
on07/03/1995. Section1subsection4oftheTADA(P)Actwasinthe
formofsavingclause.LearnedAdvocateShriShivdesubmittedthatnone
oftheclausesofsubsection4ofSection1oftheTADA(P)Actwould
408
408
justifytheprosecutionoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.JhambwithaccusedAbu
Salemandothers.IhaveminutelygonethroughtheprovisionsofSection
1subsection4oftheTADA(P)Act.Strictlyspeaking,itappliesonlyto
theoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act.Aspertheconspiracy,someofthe
offencescommittedwereundertheTADA(P)Actandsomeoftheoffences
wereundertheIndianPenalCodeandotherActs.ByinvokingSection1
subsection4oftheTADA(P)Act,theparticipantsorthemembersofthe
conspiracytocommitotheroffencescannotbeexoneratedandsegregated.
IhavealreadyobservedthatsincetheaccusedNo.5 V.K.Jhambhasnot
beenchargedforcommissionofanyoftheoffenceundertheTADA(P)
Act,therelianceontheprovisionsofSection1subsection4oftheTADA
(P)ActbylearnedAdvocateShriShivadeforaccusedNo.5iscompletely
misplaced.AsfarastheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemisconcerned,it
wasrecordedduringthesubsistenceoftheTADA(P)Act. Therefore,by
applyingtheratiointhecaseof ManjitSinghv.C.B.I.,itcanbeused
againsttheaccusedNo.5V.K.JhambandaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambcan
betriedwithaccusedAbuSalemandothersbyinvokingtheprovisionsof
Section12oftheTADA(P)ActandSections220and223oftheCr.P.C..
416]
OnthepointofholdingajointtrialofaccusedNo.5
V.K. Jhamb with accused Abu Salem and others, learned Advocate Shri
Shivade submitted that it does not fall within the parameters of the
provisionsofSection223oftheCr.P.C. Insupportofhissubmission,he
hasrelieduponthedecisioninthecaseof LalluPrasadYadavv.State
throughCBIreportedin 2003CRI.L.J.4452(S.C.). Inthecasebefore
409
409
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia, theamalgamationofallthecases
arising out of animal husbandry Scams was sought on the ground that
there was one common conspiracy. While rejecting the contention for
amalgamation of the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
observedthatthemainoffencesinallthecaseswereundertheCorruption
Act. Theconspiracywasonlyanalliedoffenceto mainoffence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, observed that it cannot,
therefore, be said that the alleged overtact of siphoning money out of
differenttreasuriesatdifferenttimecouldbesaidtobeinthecourseof
thesametransaction. Itisheldthatinordertoholdthejointtrial,the
personsmustbetheaccusedofthesameoffencescommittedinthecourse
ofsametransaction.Onfactsthepropositioninthiscaseisofnohelpand
assistancetothecaseoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.Inthiscaseonthe
basisoftheevidenceithasbeenfoundthattheconspiracywashatchedin
October/November1994.Theconspiracywasnotsnappedevenafterthe
murder of Pradeep Jain on 07/03/1995. The accused No.5 joined the
conspiracyandsharedthecommonobjectoftheconspiracyinMarch/April
1996.Theconspiracywasputtoitslogicalendafterthesaleofthirdflat
andreceiptofthepurchasepriceofthesaidflatbyaccusedAbuSalemin
Dubai.ThereisevidenceonrecordtoprovethattheaccusedNo.5playeda
veryvitalroleintheprocessofsaleofthosethreeflatsonthesayofthe
accusedAbuSalem.Inthiscasethereisconcreteevidencetoprovethat
accusedNo.5V.K.JhambhastobechargedwithaccusedAbuSalemand
others,astheoffencescommittedbythemareinthecourseofthesame
transaction.
410
417]
410
LearnedAdvocateShriShivadeforaccusedNo.5has
relieduponthedecisioninthecaseof HirabhaiChhibabhaiTandelvs.
Stateof Gujarat reportedin (2004)6SupremeCourtCases421 to
substantiatehiscontentionthattheoffencescommittedafterexpiryofthe
TADA (P) Act cannot be brought within the fold and tried as per the
provisionsoftheTADA(P)Act. InthecasebeforetheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiatheactswereadmittedlyfoundcommittedafterexpiryof
the TADA(P)Act. The proposition in this decision is of no help and
assistancetothecaseofaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambfortworeasons;i)that
theaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhasnotbeenchargedforcommissionofany
of the offences under the provisions of the TADA (P) Act and, ii) that
accusedAbuSalemhasbeenchargedforthecommissionoftheoffences
under the provisions of the TADA (P) Act and the confession made by
accusedAbuSalem,inviewofthedecisioninthecaseofManjitSinghv.
C.B.I.,canbeusedagainsttheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.
418]
Itisnecessarytoconsidertheotherevidenceledby
theprosecutiontoestablishthecomplicityoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb
inthiscase.AsfarastheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemisconcerned,it
speakvolumesabouttheinvolvementoftheaccusedNo.5inthecrime.
AsperthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,whena
confessionofaccusedissoughttobeusedagainstthecoaccused,therule
ofprudencedemandsthattheremustbeageneralcorroborationtothe
confessionoftheaccusedbeforeitismadeabasisofconvictionoftheco
accused.Theprosecutionhasadducedampleevidencetocorroboratethe
411
411
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemonthefactsadmittedbyhimquaaccused
No.5.PW1NaeemKhanistheApprover.Inhisevidence,hehasdeposed
thataspertheinstructionsofaccusedAbuSalem,hewenttotheresidence
oftheJhambbuildersandmethim.PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)has
furtherdeposedthattheaccusedNo.5andhisbrothertookhim tothe
flats.PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)hasfurtherdeposedthattheaccused
No.5V.K.Jhambgotdownonthewayfromthecarandtheflatswere
shown to him bythe brother of the accusedNo.5. PW1 Naeem Khan
(Approver) has identified the accused No.5 in the Court. As per the
instructions of accused Abu Salem, PW1 (Approver) Naeem Khan was
assignedthetasktomeettheJhambbuilderandtoseethoseflatsand
report him back about the condition of the flats. PW1 Naeem Khan
(Approver)diditaccordingly.PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)hasdeposed
thatafterseeingtheflats,hemadeaphonecalltoaccusedAbuSalemand
informedhimthattheflatswereingoodconditionandcouldfetchgood
price.Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatPW1wasnotinvolved
intheprocessofsaleofthoseflatsandalsothetransferofmoneyoutof
saleofthoseflatstoaccusedAbuSalem.Hisrolecametoanendoncehe
reportedabouttheconditionoftheflatstoaccusedAbuSalem.Asfaras
theroleassignedtoPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)byaccusedAbuSalem
is concerned,accusedAbu Salem himself has confirmedthis factin his
confession. PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)hasbeencrossexaminedon
behalfofaccusedNo.5.Ihaveminutelyperusedthecrossexaminationof
PW1 Naeem Khan (Approver) made on behalf of accused No.5. On
perusinghiscrossexamination,Ihavenotcomeacrossanyadmissionin
412
412
hiscrossexaminationtocauseadenttohisevidenceonthefactofhisvisit
totheresidenceofJhambbuilderandfromtheresidenceofJhambbuilder
toMamtaCooperativeSocietytoseethethreeflats.Iftheprosecution
had planted this witness, then the prosecution could have made this
witnesstodeposeonallthefactstillthethirdflatwassoldtoPW8Shri
MurjiPatel. ThisreflectsuponthefactthatthePW1NaeemKhanisa
naturalwitness.Hehasonlydeposedaboutthefactsknowntohim.
419]
Asfarasindependentcorroborationtotheevidenceof
PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)isconcerned,onecangetitfromevidence
ofPW13SunilJain. ImaydealwiththeevidenceofPW13SunilJain
separatelyonthisissueindependentlyanddecideaboutitscredibilityand
theindependentcorroborationitofferstotheevidenceofPW1Approver
NaeemKhan.
420]
Imaynowdealwiththeevidenceofthewitnesseson
thepointofactualsaleofthreeflats.Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,
twoflatsnamelyflatNos.605and606weresoldtoPW14HareshMohan
Gehi in March, 1996. PW14 has not supported the case of the
prosecution. He was declared hostile. It is settled position in law that
evidenceofhostilewitnesscannotbediscardedintoto. Inhisevidence,
PW14 has admitted that he purchased two flats through Estate Broker
Amirbhai. InhisExaminationinChief,hehasstatedthatAmirbhaitold
himthattheseflatsbelongtohisfriend,whoresidesneartheStateBankof
IndiaatJuhu.ThebungalowofaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambisneartothe
413
413
StateBankofIndiaatJuhu.HehasnotidentifiedaccusedNo.5beingthe
samepersonwhomhehadmetwithAmirbhai.Itisundisputedfactthat
thetwoflatsweresoldtoPW14HareshGehiforRs.28lakhs.Hemade
thepaymentbycheques.ThetotalconsiderationofthetwoflatswasRs.
28lakhs.Inhisevidence,henowherestatesthathehaddealingswiththe
partners of M/s. Kamla Constructions namely the Jain brothers while
purchasingthosetwoflats.
421]
Engineer.HeisPW15.Heisalsoahostilewitness.Ihavegonethrough
hisevidence. Ongoingthroughhisevidence,Iamconvincedthatitcan
extendsomehelptotheprosecutiononcertainimportantaspects. The
evidenceofhostilewitnesscannotbediscardedintoto.Whileappreciating
theevidenceofhostilewitness, greatamountofcareisrequiredtobe
taken.Incaseofsuchwitness,theCourthastodotheminutescrutinyand
separate the grains from the chaff. If any part of the evidence of the
hostile witness is found believable and acceptable, then it cannot be
discardedonlyonthegroundthatthewitnesswasdeclaredasahostileby
theCourtonthe prayerofthe prosecution. Perusalofthe evidenceof
PW15Amirbhaiwouldshowthatthiswitnesswasindualmind.Onsome
pointshehassupportedthecaseoftheprosecutionandonsomepointshe
has resiled from his earlier statement. In his evidence, PW15 has
admittedthatPW14HareshGehiwantedtopurchaseflatsbymakingfull
paymentincheque.AnotherEstateBrokerKasambaisuggestedtheflats
situatedinMamtaCooperativeSociety,SherEPunjabColony,Mahakali
414
414
CavesRoad,Andheri(East),Mumbai.Hehasdeposedthatthesaidflats
were belonging to one investor Mr. Jhamb. He has admitted in his
ExaminationinChiefthathealongwithKasambhaiwenttotheresidence
ofV.K.JhambatJuhuandJhamb'smanhandedoverthekeysofthoseflats
to Kasambhai. With the permission of the Court, learned SPP put the
questionsofthenaturetobeputincrossexaminationtothiswitness.In
his crossexamination by the learned Prosecutor, he has given certain
admissions.HehasadmittedthathemetV.K.Jhambontwooccasions.In
thosemeetings,hetalkedwithhimaboutthechequepayment.V.k.Jhamb
toldhimthatfirsttheyshouldseetheflatsandapproveit,thenhewould
tellaboutacceptanceofchequepayment.Theyaccordinglysawthoseflats
andapprovedflatNos.605and606.Hehasadmittedthatafterinspecting
the flats, the keys were handed over to V.K. Jhamb. So, in his cross
examination, he confirms that he along with Mr. Haresh Gehi (PW14)
transactedforthepurchaseofthetwoflatswithMr.V.K.Jhamb(accused
No.5).ThiswitnesshasconvenientlyavoidedtoidentifyaccusedNo.5V.K.
Jhamb before Court. In his crossexamination by learned SPP he has
admittedthatafterinspectionoftheflatsandapprovalthereofbyHaresh
Ghei(PW14),V.K.Jhambwasreadytoacceptfullpaymentbycheque.
422]
Thiswitnesshasbeencrossexaminedonbehalfofthe
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb. Inhiscrossexamination,hehasgivencertain
admissions.Thoseadmissionscanbeusedinfavouroftheprosecution.At
page 348 para 7 he has admitted that he was notknowing Mr.Jhamb
beforethistransaction. Hehasfurtheradmittedthattheirfirstmeeting
415
415
withJhambwasformaximumperiodoftwominutes. Hehasadmitted
thatinfirstmeetinghewasnotknowingthefirstnameorinitial ofsaid
Jhamb.Hehasadmittedthathedoesnotrememberanyspecialmarkto
remember thatperson. Further perusal of his crossexamination would
showthatinhisstatementrecordedbypolice,hedidnotstatenameofthe
saidpersonasV.K.Jhamb.Hiscrossexaminationatpage350para9isvery
material.PW15hasadmittedthathedoesnotknowbuilderAshokJain.
HehasadmittedthatGehihadgivenfourchequesofRs.sevenlakhseach
toJainbuilderofMamtaSociety.Hehasadmittedthathedoesnotknow
thefullnameofJainbuilder. Hehasadmittedthathedoesnotknow
whethertherewasotherfinancialdealingbetweenHareshGehiandJain
buildersbesidestransferofflats.Whenhewasspecificallyaskedabouthis
visittotheresidenceofJhambbuilder,hehasstatedthathewouldnotbe
inapositiontotellday,dateandmonthofhisvisit.However,againhehas
stated that it was in the month of March, 1996. He has denied the
suggestionthatV.K.Jhambhadnoconcernwiththetransactionbetween
Gehi and Jain builders but it was a direct transaction between them.
Perusaloftheevidenceofthiswitnessinentiretywouldshowthatforthe
purposeofsaleoftwoflats,hehadnodirectdealingswithJainbrothers.
He had dealings with Jhamb builder. PW14 Haresh Gehi has also not
statedthattherewasdirecttransactionbetweenhimandJainbuilder.So,
onthebasisoftheevidenceofthiswitness,onefactisestablishedandthe
saidfactisthatforthepurposeofsaleofthetwoflatsinfavourofMr.
HareshGehi,theytransactedwithJhambbuilder. Theyhaveavoidedto
identifyaccusedNo.5intheCourt.InthiscasetheidentityofaccusedNo.
416
416
5V.K.Jhambhasbeenestablishedonthebasisoftheevidenceofother
witnesses.ItisthedefenceoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambthathehadno
concernatallwiththetransferoftwoflatsinfavourofMr.Gehi.These
twowitnessesconfirmthesalepricebeing28lakhsRupeesofthesaidtwo
flats.Similarly,PW15Amirali,thoughdeclaredhostile,hasadmittedone
thingincleartermsthatforthepurposeofdealingsinrespectofthosetwo
flats,hehadapproachedV.K.Jhamb.Onthislimitedaspect,theevidence
ofPW15corroboratesthecaseoftheprosecution.
423]
Itisnownecessarytodealwiththeevidenceledby
theprosecutionaboutsaleofthirdflat.Thepurchaserofthethirdflatis
PW8ShriMurjiAnandaPatel. BeforeIgotoconsiderthecaseofthe
prosecution and appreciate the evidence of PW8 Shri Murji Patel, it is
necessarytobrieflynotedownthedefenceoftheaccused.TheaccusedNo.
5 V.K.Jhambhas filed his Written Statement. In his statement he has
statedthathisbrotherN.K.JhambwasknowingAshokJain. AshokJain
hastakenfriendlyloanfromtimetotimefromhisbrother. Hisbrother
N.K.JhambpaidRs.10lakhstoAshokJainon12/02/1997,Rs.4,97,500/
on14/01/1998andRs.5,00,000/on16/01/1998 respectively. Thesaid
amountwaspaidtoAshokJainbyhisbrotherN.K.JhambandAshokJain
hadagreedtotransfersomeflatstohisbrotherasasecuritytowardshand
loan. Asfarasthisdefenceisconcerned,thetransactionofsaleoftwo
flatstoMr.Gehihasnotbeenbroughtwithinitssweep.Thefactsbrought
on record in the evidence by the prosecution has made this defence
palpably unbelievable and as such cannot be accepted. This defence,
417
417
insteadofmakingthecaseoftheprosecutionimprobable,hasextendeda
helpinghandtothecaseoftheprosecution.
424]
TheevidenceofAshokJainwasrecordedintheearlier
trialon19thApril,1997.AshokJainwassufferingfromCancer.Hewas
notabletomoveoutofhishouseand,therefore,mylearnedpredecessor
wasrequiredtorecordevidenceofAshokJainathisresidencebyshifting
the place of trial there by invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the
TADA(P)Act.IthascomeonrecordintheevidenceofPW13SunilJain
thatconstructionofMamtaCooperativeSociety wascompletedinthe
year1990. Ithasalsocomeonrecordthattheflatsconstructedon6th
floorofthebuildingwerenotasperthesanctionaccordedbytheBombay
MunicipalCorporationand,therefore,therewassomedispute.Asperthe
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemandtheevidenceofPW13SunilJain,the
flatswerereadyforsaleinallrespectintheyear1995. Theagreement
withShriMurjiPatel(PW8)wasexecutedon15/03/1997. Asperthe
defenceoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,AshokJainfelttheneedofmoney
inFebruary,1997.HisbrotherN.K.JhambpaidRs.tenlakhstoAshokJain
on12/02/1997. Theremainingloanamount,accordingtoaccusedNo.5
V.K. Jhamb, was paid in January, 1998. Considering the fact that the
agreement with PW8 Murji Patel was executed on 15/03/1997, there
wouldnothavebeenaquestionofneedofloanamountinJanuary,1998
toAshokJain. ItisnotthedefenceoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambthat
thisflatwasgiventothebrotherofaccusedNo.5asasecurityfortheloan
tobepaidinfuture.Iftherewasaneedofmoney,thentheJainbrothers
418
418
couldhavesoldthisflatintheopenmarket. AccordingtoPW8Murji
Patel,hepurchasedtheflatforRs.21lakhs.Apersonfrombuildingline
wouldnotactinthemannersoughttobeprojectedbyaccusedNo.5V.K.
Jhamb. Thisdefencedoesnotfitinthefactsandevidenceobtainedon
record.Itappearsthatthisdefencehasbeentakenonthebasisofsome
withdrawalentriesoftheamountfromthebankaccountsofwifeofN.K.
JhambandN.K.Jhamb. IfithasbeenthedefenceoftheaccusedNo.5
thattheentireloanamountwaspaidbeforeexecutionoftheagreement
dated15/03/1997infavourofPW8ShriMurjiPatel,thencoupledwith
othercircumstancestheaccusedNo.5couldhaveconvincedthis Court
abouthisdefence.Therefore,thisdefencefallsflat.
425]
ItisnownecessarytoconsidertheevidenceofPW8
MurjiPatelandthetransactionbetweenPW8ShriMurjiPatelandN.K.
Jhamb.PW8hasdeposedthatheisinthebusinessofsellingelectrical
appliancesandaccessories. HehasadmittedthatheknowsV.K.Jhamb.
HehasdeposedthathehadsuppliedelectricalgoodsworthRs.15lakhs
between1995to1997toV.K.Jhamboncredit.Hehasdeposedthatwhen
hedemandedthemoney,Jhamb,toldhimthathehadnomoney,buthe
hassomeflatsandifheisinterestedinpurchasingthesame,hecould
inspectthesaidflats.Hehasfurtherdeposedthatthetalkinrespectof
the flat took place between himself and Chhote Jhamb, brother of V.K.
Jhamb,inMarch,1997.Afterseeingtheflat,heagreedtobuythesame
forRs.21lakhs.Itwasdecidedthattomakethefullpayment,heshould
supply the goods for remaining Rs.six lakhs. He has deposed that the
419
419
possession of the flat was handed over to him in 1999. However, the
agreement was given in the year 2000. He has further admitted that
stampdutyofRs.26,000/ofthesaidflatwaspaidbyJhambbuilder.In
hisevidence,hehasfurtherdeposedthathedoesnotknowJainbrothers
fromKamlaConstruction. Hehasdeposedthathesuppliedgoodsworth
Rs.sixlakhstoJhambbuilderandthereafter,theagreementwashanded
over to him. In his ExaminationinChief he has admitted that the
transactionwaswithtwoJhambbrothers.ThegoodsweresuppliedtoV.K.
Jhamb. His evidence would show that both the Jhamb brothers were
doingthebusinesstogether.
426]
Inhiscrossexaminationthiswitnesshasalsomadean
attempttogiveasomersaulttothecaseoftheprosecution.Inhiscross
examinationhehasferociouslybroughtintopicturetheyoungerbrother
KumarJhambofV.K.Jhambbeingtheconcernedpersonwithwhomhehad
transacted. At Page 164 he has admitted that he does not know the
natureofthetransactions,ifany,betweenJhambandAshokJainbutin
thenextbreathhehasdeposedthatKumarJhambhadexplainedhimthat
hehadtorecoversomeamountfromKamlaConstructionand,therefore,
hisamountwouldbeadjustedbetweenthemagainsttheflatpurchasedby
him. Thisadmissionappearstobetheadmissionofawitness,whohas
played goodygoody with the prosecution as well as with the accused.
Whenhisagreementwasexecuted,asperthedefenceoftheaccusedNo.
5, only Rs.ten lakhs were paid to Ashok Jain as a loan. Therefore,
whatever admissions he has given in the crossexamination are
420
420
contradictorytothedefenceoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.Onethingis
certain,onperusalofhisevidence,thatinrespectofthisflathehadno
dealingswiththeJainbrothers. Evenifitisassumedthattherewasa
transactionbetweenJhambbuilderandPW8ShriMurjiPatel,itwastheir
owntransaction. Onthecontrary,inmyview,sincethedefenceofthe
accusedNo.5hasfallenflat,thecaseoftheprosecutionintheteethofthis
evidencebecomesmorecredible.Jainbrothershadnothingtodowiththe
transactionbetweenJhambbuilderandPW8ShriMurjiPatel.Asperthe
caseoftheprosecution,theyhadsurrenderedthreeflatstoJhambbuilder.
TheaccusedAbuSalemhadgiventhepiousresponsibilitytoV.K.Jhambto
sellthoseflatsandmakemoneyoutofthesameandsendthesametohim
atDubai. Intheprocess,iftheaccusedNo.5haddonesomeadjustment
withwitnessPW8ShriMurjiPatel,itwouldnotatallbetheconcernof
theprosecutionorJainbrothers.Similarly,theaccusedAbuSalemwould
havehardlybeinterestedandconcernedwiththattransaction. Hewas
interestedinthemoney.Therefore,onthebasisofthisdefence,itappears
that as far as this third flat is concerned, Jain builder executed the
agreementwithPW8ShriMurjiPatelandmetthedemandofaccusedAbu
Salem. In my humble opinion, this is the most reasonable judicial
inferencethatonecoulddrawfromthisevidence,circumstancesandthe
facts. Therefore, the evidence of PW8 Shri Murji Patel with certainty
establishestheroleofaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambinthesaleofthesaidflat.
Onthebasisofthisindependentevidence,ithasbeenestablishedthatthe
transaction of three flats was exclusively handled and completed by
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.
421
427]
421
Thereareotherwitnesses,whohavecomeforwardto
deposeaboutthecollectionofthepurchasepriceofthefirsttwoflatsfrom
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.Onthispointtheprosecutionhasexaminedtwo
witnessesnamelyPW3ShriVasantRamnathSharmaandPW7Dr.Arshad
KamalShaikh. Attheoutset,ImustmentionthatPW3andPW7have
criminal background. After considering their evidence in toto, one can
positivelysaythatonceuponatimetheywereveryclosetotheaccused
Abu Salem. Accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan in their
respective confessions have admitted the association of these witnesses
withthem. ItappearsthatafterarrestofaccusedAbuSalem,theyhave
shifted their loyalty and became the prosecution witnesses to depose
againsttheironetimeMasterandMentorAbuSalem.
428]
PW3ShriVasantRamnathSharmahasdeposedinhis
evidenceabouthisassociationwithaccusedAbuSalem,accusedMehendi
HasanandaccusedNaeemKhan(Approver)(PW1).Hehasalsodeposed
about the acquaintance with Aslam Khan, Shaukat Kadia, Dr. Arshad
Shaikh,AzizTingu,SalimHaddiandAneesKaskar. He has identified
accusedAbuSalem,MehendiHasanandNaeemKhan(Approver)before
Court.Hehasdeposedthatintheyear1991heusedtogototheofficeof
AbuSalemsituatedatArsaMarket,Andheri.InFebruary,1994onthesay
ofMehendiHasan,hemadeaphonecalltoAbuSalem,whowasatDubai
andrequestedAbuSalemtosecuresomejobforhiminDubai.Bytheend
of1994hewenttoDubaiandatDubaiAirporthewasreceivedbyaccused
AbuSalem,MehendiHasanandSalimHaddi. Hehasfurtherdeposed
422
422
thattheytookhimtothehouseofAbuSalem. Hewasdoingthejobof
maintainingtheofficeandhouseofaccusedAbuSalem.Inhisevidencehe
has deposedabout the conspiratorial meeting held in the office of Abu
Salem and Anees Kaskar in November, 1994. He has deposed that
MehendiHasanandhehadgonetotheofficeofAneesastheywerecalled
there.AbuSalem,RiyazSiddiqui,AneesIbrahimandShaukatKadiawere
presentintheoffice.Hehasdeposedthathewasaskedtogooutofthe
officeatthetimeofthemeeting.Afterthemeeting,theyallcameoutof
theofficeafter30to45minutes.ThisevidenceofPW3isrelevantonthe
point of holding of a meeting in the office of Anees Ibrahim Kaskar in
November,1994.However,heisnotawareofthedeliberationstookplace
inthesaidmeeting.
429]
Jhambisconcerned,hehasdeposedthatwhilestayingwithaccusedAbu
SalemheusedtogowithAbuSaleminSharjahTextileMarkettotheshop
ofAneesHawalawalawhereAbuSalem'sHawalamoneywouldcome.He
hasdeposedthatoncewhenhewasreturningalongwithAbuSalemafter
takingmoneyfromAneesHawalawala,AbuSalemtoldhiminthecarthat
themoneywassentbyJhambbuilderfromMumbai.Hehasdeposedthat
hereturnedbacktoMumbaiin2002.
430]
BeforeIgotoconsiderthe statementsmadebythis
witnessinhiscrossexamination,itisnecessarytolookattheconfessions
ofaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanandseewhattheyhave
423
423
statedabouttheassociationofthiswitnesswiththem. AtPage5ofhis
confession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthatPW3usedtocometohis
office in Mumbai. At Page 7 of his confession accused Abu Salem has
admittedthatinDubaiheandVinuSharma(PW3)usedtocollectthe
money received through Hawala. In his confession accused Mehendi
Hasan at Page No.2 has admitted that he got acquainted with Vinu
Sharma(PW3)andothersintheofficeofAbuSaleminMumbai.AtPage4
ofhisconfessionhehasadmittedthepresenceofPW3intheofficeof
accusedAbuSaleminDubaiinNovember,1994,whenthemeetingtook
place.
431]
confessionshaveadmittedthepresenceofPW3VinuSharmainDubai,
being their associate. PW3 has, therefore,corroborated in general the
facts admitted by accused Abu Salem and Mehendi Hasan in their
confessions. While assailing the evidence of PW3 Vinu Sharma, it is
pointedoutthatthiswitnesshasnotproducedhisoriginalPassportbefore
thisCourttoshowthatatanypointoftimehetravelledtoDubaiandwas
inDubai.Inmyview,theanswertothissubmisionhasbeenprovidedby
thefactsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanin
their respective confessions. I have minutely gone through his cross
examination.Inhiscrossexaminationhehasadmittedhisinvolvementin
somecrimesinMumbai.Thereisnodenialofthefactthathewasthe
erstwhile associateofaccusedAbu Salem. In his crossexamination his
criminalbackgroundhasbeenvividlydepicted.,which, inthefactsand
424
424
showthathehasansweredallthequestionsputtohimonthepointofhis
presenceinDubaiandhisassociationwithaccusedAbuSalemconsistently.
Onthebasisoftheadmissionsinthecrossexamination,itisverydifficult
todiscardtheevidenceofthiswitnessinentirety. Theomissionsinhis
evidencearefoundtobeimmaterial.Merelybecauseofthefactthathis
passport is not produced before Court, his otherwise credible evidence
cannot be brushed aside. His evidence, therefore, lends general
corroborationtotheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemthatwitnessNo.3
VasantSharmaandAbuSalemusedtocollectHawalamoneyinDubai,
whichwassentfromMumbai.IfAbuSalemtellshimthatthemoneywas
sentfromMumbaibyJhambbuilder, asdeposedbyPW3,couldnotbe
saidtobeunnaturalevent.AsstatedbyPW3,hewasdoingtheworkat
homeandintheofficeofaccusedAbuSalematDubai. Inthefactsand
circumstances he becomes a natural witness. There is one more fact,
which has been brought on record in crossexamination to admit his
presenceinDubaiandhisvisittotheofficeofAneesHawalawala.During
the course of crossexamination, he was asked various questions with
425
425
regardtothedescriptionoftheshopofAneesHawalawala,thedurationof
themeetingsbetweenAbuSalemandAneesHawalawalaandthelocation
oftheofficeofAneesHawalawala.Thewitnesshasprovidedthedetailsof
all these things in his crossexamination. It must be mentioned that
without visiting the office of Anees Hawalewala, PW3 Vasant Sharma
wouldnothavebeeninapositiontoanswerthesequestions.Therefore,I
donotseeanyreasontodiscardtheevidenceofthiswitness.
433]
PW7Dr.ArshadKamalShaikhhasbeenexaminedto
provethathehadcollectedtheamountofsaleoftheflatsfromJhamb
builderandforwardedthesametoaccusedAbuSalemthroughoneAbdul
QuaviresidingatShehjadiCooperativeSociety,DunkanRoad,Nagpada.
Hisevidenceisalsorelevanttopinpointthenatureofthetransactions
betweenaccusedAbuSalemandJhambbuilder. Inhisevidence,hehas
deposed that he used to visit the office of Abu Salem situated at Arsa
Market,Andheri.Hehasfurtherdeposedthatin1992AbuSalemshifted
his office from Andheri to Santacruz at 2nd Hasanabad Lane. He has
deposed that he and Abu Salem hail from the same District. He has
identifiedbothaccusedNo.1AbuSalemandaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.
WhilenarratingthereasonstoidentifyaccusedNo.5,hehasdeposedthat
intheyear1996AbuSalemhadrequestedhimtofindoutsomecustomers
fortheflats,ashehastorecoverthemoneyfromJhambbuilder.Hehas
deposedthatAbuSalemtoldhimthatthoseflatswereinpossessionof
Jhambbuilder. HehasdeposedthathewasnotknowingJhambbuilder
and,therefore,asstatedbyaccusedAbuSalem,hetookoneKasimtothe
426
426
residenceofJhambbuilder.HecollectedthekeysoftheflatsfromJhamb
buildertoshowtheflatstoMr.SevaSinghandMr.Shetty.Heshowedthe
flatstothem. However,theydidnotapprovetheflats. Hehasdeposed
thatinthemonthofApril,1996AbuSalemhadcalledhimfromDubai.At
that time Abu Salem told him to go to Jhamb builder and collect the
moneyfromhim.HehasdeposedthathehimselfandMohd.Kasimwent
toJhambbuilderandcollectedRs.15lakhs.AftercollectingRs.15lakhs,
hehimselfandMohd.KasimwenttoAbdul Quavi andhandedoverthe
said amount to him. After handing over the amount to Abdul Quavi,
Hawaladealer,heinformedaboutthepaymenttoAbdulQuavi,bymaking
aphonecallfromSTDboothtoaccusedAbuSalem.
434]
Thiswitnessisadoctorbyprofession.Hehasstated
thattheaccusedAbuSalemandhehimselfhailfromthesameDistrict.It
hascomeonrecordinhiscrossexaminationthatatPage152Para8that
since1984hewasworkinginTibbiyaCollegeHospital,Nagpada.Hehas
furtheradmittedthathestartedhisprivatepracticeintheyear1987. A
Doctorbyprofessioncameinabadcompanyandstarteddoingoperations
withthebadcompanybystigmatizinghisnobleprofession.Inhiscross
examinationithascomeonrecordthatheworkedasasoldierofaccused
Abu Salem and completed certain criminal operations for accused Abu
Salem. Hehascriminalantecedentsandhistory. Hisevidencehasbeen
assailed on the ground that his criminal background is such that no
prudentmanwouldrelyonhisevidence.Adoctorbyprofessioncouldnot
restrainandcontrolhimselffromjoiningabadcompanyandindulgingin
427
427
criminalactivitieswiththosehardcorecriminals.Itappearsthatforsome
reasonortheother,hedecidedtoparthiswayswithaccusedAbuSalem
andchangedhisloyalty.Inthiscase,thevividaccountofhisinvolvement
in various criminal activities would indicate that, in the facts and
circumstances,heisanaturalwitness.Hisevidencecannotbediscarded
merelybecauseofthefactthathehaspartedwiththecompanyofaccused
AbuSalemandbecamedisloyaltohim.Beforegoingtoconsiderhiscross
examinationatthisstageitwouldbeappropriatetoseewhataccusedAbu
SalemandaccusedMehendiHasanhavestatedaboutthiswitnessintheir
confessionalstatements.
435]
AccusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionatExhibit387
at Page 6 and 7 has admitted that Naeem TR (PW1) and Dr. Arshad
(PW7)wouldsendtheextortionmoneybyHawalathroughoneAbdullah
Quavi,residentofDunkanRoad,Nagpada. InhisconfessionatPage 17
accusedAbuSalemhasfurtheradmittedthataftercollectingthepurchase
price of the two flats from Sunil Jain, builder V.K.Jhamb sent the said
amountthroughHawalatohim(accusedAbuSalem). Accused Mehendi
HasanhasadmittedatPage2ofhisconfessionthathecameintocontact
withDr.Arshad(PW7)intheofficeofaccusedAbuSalem.
436]
deposed about his acquaintance with accused Abu Salem and accused
MehendiHasan.Hehasprovidedthedetailsandparticularsoftheoffice
of accused Abu Salem in Mumbai. Accused Abu Salem has clearly
428
428
admittedinhisconfessionthatPW1NaeemKhanandPW7Dr.Arshad
usedtosendtheextortionmoneytoDubaithroughAbdulQuavi,resident
ofDunkanRoad,Nagpada.ThisadmissionbyaccusedAbuSalemclearly
indicatesthattheroleofcollectionoftheextortionamountwasassigned
toNaeemTR(Approver)(PW1)andDr.Arshad(PW7).Inthecontextof
thisstatementbyaccusedAbu Salem,the evidence of PW7Dr.Arshad
Kamal Shaikh assumes greater importance. The evidence of PW7 Dr.
ArshadKamalShaikhcanextendgeneralcorroborationtothestatementof
accusedAbuSalem. Similarly,itcanlendassurancetothestatementof
this witness that he had been to the residence of Jhamb builder and
collectedRs.15lakhsfromhimbeingthesalepriceofoneflat. Inhis
crossexaminationatPage148Para8PW7hasadmittedthatin1995one
Mohd. Kasim had introduced him to Jhamb builder. He has further
admittedthatsaidintroductionwasinconnectionwiththesearchofflats
forhisfriendsMr.SinghandMr.Shetty.HehasfurtheradmittedthatMr.
Jhambathisbungalowhandedoverthekeysofthetwoflatstohim.He
hadshowedthesaidflatstoMr.SinghandMr.Shetty,buttheydidnotlike
the flats. He has denied the suggestion that this happened before he
received phone from Abu Salem. As far as this evidence is concerned,
excepttheyear,allotheradmissionsdirectlycorroboratethetransaction
narrated by PW7 Dr. Arshad. It has not been suggested in the cross
examinationthatthoseflatsshowntoMr.SinghandMr.Shettywerefrom
someotherbuildingandnotfromMamtaCooperativeHousingSociety.It
maybenotedthatthisisasortofconformationtohisstatementinthe
ExaminationinChief.Thefactwithregardtothecommunicationbetween
429
429
himandaccusedAbuSalemin1996withregardtothetransactionofaflat
is found to be a omission from his statement recorded before the
Magistrate. However,thesaidfactisthereinthestatementrecordedby
thepolice. Similarly,thefactdeposedbyhimwithregardtothevisitto
theresidenceofJhambbuilderandcollectionofRs.15lakhsisfoundtobe
aomissionfromthestatementrecordedbytheMagistrate.However,the
saidfactisthereinhis statementrecordedbypolice. Therearecertain
improvementsinhisevidence.However,theomissionsifreadincontext
ofthefactsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMenhendiHasan
intheirconfessionscannotbemadethesolebasistodiscardtheevidence
ofthiswitness.AtPage152thiswitnesshasadmittedthathewasarrested
by L.T.Marg Police Station in a case of murder of two people for non
paymentofextortionmoney. Hehasadmittedthathewasassociateof
accusedAbuSaleminthatcase. AbuSalemwasalsooneofthewanted
accusedinthesaidcase.AtPage153ithasbeensuggestedtothiswitness
thatsincehewascoaccusedwithaccusedAbuSalemintheextortioncase
registeredatL.T.MargPoliceStation,thepolicepressurizedhimtogive
evidenceagainstaccusedAbuSaleminthiscase.AtPage152Para17this
witnesshasadmittedthatintheyear2004itselfhewasacquittedfromthe
said case. Therefore, the suggestion appears to be a meaningless
suggestion. Certain admissions given by this witness in his cross
examinationclearlyindicatethathewasthetrustedmanofaccusedAbu
Salemonceuponatime. Itfurthergoestoshowthatthoughhewasa
doctorbyprocession,hejoinedthebadcompanyandactedwiththem.
430
437]
430
InhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedNo.5he
has not denied his involvement in various other crimes. At Page 156,
thoroughenquiryhasbeenmadeinthecrossexamination.Inhisevidence
he has admitted in his crossexamination that Jhamb builders are two
brothers.Hemetthemintheiroffice.Hehasfurtheradmittedthatatthat
timehesawboththebrothersandboththebrotherswerehavingsimilar
look.HehasfurtheradmittedthathewenttotheofficeofJhambbuilder,
tookthekeysandreturnedimmediately.Hehasfranklyadmittedthatthe
natureofthetalktookplacebetweenJhambbuilderandMohd.Kasimis
notknowntohim.HehasadmittedatPage156Para26thatbothJhamb
brotherswerepresentintheofficewhiletheytooktheamountfromtheir
office.Hehasadmittedthatheisunabletostatethenameofthebrother
outoftwo,whogavemoney.Theseadmissionsareverycrucial.Theline
of defence suggest that this accused No.5 was not involved in the
transactionbuthisbrotherwasinvolved. Itmaybementionedthathe
(PW7) has identified accused No.5 in the Court. The line of cross
examinationindirectlyadmitstheacquaintancebetweenthiswitnessand
Jhamb builders and his presence in their office. In the facts and
circumstancesandmoreparticularlyinviewoftheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalem,Idonotseeanyreasontodoubtthecredibilityofthiswitness.
Theevidenceofthiswitnesscannotbedisbelievedanddiscardedonlyon
thegroundthatthiswitnesshasacriminalbackground.Inthefactsand
circumstances, it must be stated that this witness could depose against
accusedAbuSalemandV.K.Jhambonlybecauseofthefactthathewas
associatedwithaccusedAbuSalem.Inthefactsandcircumstances,this
431
431
witnessappearstobeanaturalwitness.Ifthiswitnesshadbeenplanted
by the prosecution, then this witness would have been exposed in the
crossexamination.SameisthecaseasfaraswitnessVinuSharma(PW3)
is concerned. Perusal of the evidence of this witness in entirety
corroboratestheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.
438]
ShriArshadKamalShaikhhavestatedthattheygotacquaintedwithPW1
NaeemKhan(Approver)intheofficeofaccusedAbuSalem.PW1atPage
6Para7hasdeposedthatheknowsPW3andPW7.Hehasdeposedthat
hemetthemintheofficeofaccusedAbuSalem.Onthepointofpresence
ofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)intheofficeofaccusedAbuSalemandhis
acquaintancewithaccusedAbuSalem,evidenceofPW3andPW7provide
independentcorroboration. TheevidenceofPW3ShriVasantRamnath
Sharma, PW7 Shri Arshad Kamal Shaikh and PW1 Naeem Khan
(Approver)ifconsideredcollectively,thenitwouldshowthattheywere
visiting the office of accused Abu Salem. They were in good books of
accused Abu Salem. Their evidence would further show that for some
reasonortheother,theypartedthecompanyofaccusedAbuSalemand
changedtheirloyalty. Insteadofgoingintothereasonforshiftingtheir
loyalty,onemustgototherootofthestatementsmadebythemandfind
outwhetherthestatementsmadebythemarecredibleornot. Itissaid
thattheBirdsofthesamefeatherflocktogether.Aftertakingabundant
careandprecautionwhileappreciatingtheirevidence,Idonotseeany
reasontodiscardanddisbelievetheirevidenceonthefactsdisclosedby
432
432
thesewitnesses.
439]
BeforeconsideringtheevidenceofPW6ShriRizwan
MehmoodKhan,whohappenstobethedriverofSunilJain,andSunilJain
(PW13), I have dealt with the evidence of PW3 Shri Vasant Ramnath
SharmaandPW7ShriArshadKamalShaikh.Intheirevidence,theyhave
confirmedthereceiptofsalepricethroughHawalabyaccusedAbuSalem.
Itisnownecessarytofindoutwhethertheprosecutionhasbeenableto
provethatthepurchasepriceofthetwoflatswashandedovertoJhamb
builder(accusedNo.5)bySunilJain(PW13)ornot. PW13Sunil Jain
doesnotspeakaboutthereceiptofthepurchasepriceofthethirdflat.
WhileconsideringtheevidenceofPW8ShriMurjiPatel,Ihaveconcluded
thatinviewofthetransactionbetweenaccusedNo.5V.K.JhambandPW8
Shri Murji Patel, the Jhamb builder arranged to send Rs. 14 lakhs to
accused Abu Salem without involving any of the Jain brothers. I am
considering the evidence of PW13 Sunil Jain on this point after the
evidenceofotherwitnessesbecausePW13SunilJainhasdisclosedthis
caseofthreatsbyaccusedAbuSalemevenafterthemurderofPradeep
Jainandasaresultofthethreatsinlieuofmoney,hehandedoverthree
flatstothemanofaccusedAbuSalemandthatthesaidmanisaccused
No.5V.K.Jhamb,forthefirsttimeafterarrestofaccusedAbuSalemin
thiscase.
440]
examinedtocorroboratetheevidenceofPW13SunilJainonthepointof
433
433
theirvisitstothebungalowofaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambontwooccasionsto
makehimthepaymentaftersaleoftwoflatsin1996,Hehasdeposedthat
on two occasions he accompanied Jain brothers to the bungalow of
accusedNo.5.Asfarashisevidenceisconcernedhehasdeposedthatin
thefirstweekofApril1996hedrovetheAshokJainandSunilJainintheir
TataCieraCartothebungalowofaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,whichisnear
tothebungalowoffilmstarAmitabhBachchan.Afterparkingthecar,he
carried the bag with money and followed the Jain brothers to Jhamb
builder'sbungalow.Hehasstatedthatwhenthecashwashandedoverto
theaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,hewaspresent.Hehasalsodeposedabout
theconversationtookplacebetweenSunilJain(PW13)andJhambbuilder.
HehasfurtherdeposedthatinsecondweekofApril1996hefirstdrove
SunilJainandAshokJaintoAllahabadBank,JuhuScheme,JVPDRoad,
InthebankJainbrotherswithdrewRs.15lakhsfromtheirbankaccount.
Theyagainwenttothesamebungalow. HefollowedtheJainbrothers
carryingthebagwithcash. Thebagwithcashwashandedover tothe
accusedNo.5.Sumandsubstanceofhisevidenceisthatontwooccasions
JainbrotherspaidRs.15lakhseachtotheaccusedNo.5.Thiswitnesshas
beenthoroughlycrossexamined.Itissuggestedthatthiswitnessisagot
upwitnessbroughtintoexistencejusttosupportthe falsecaseofthe
prosecution.Thiswitnessisnotaqualifiedperson.Hehasadmittedthat
eventodayalsoheisintheserviceofSunilJainasadriver.IftheCourt
comestotheconclusionthathisevidenceiscredibleandacceptable,then,
thiswitnesscannotbesaidtobeanoutsider.Hewouldbeamostnatural
witness.
434
441]
434
Ihaveminutelygonethroughhiscrossexamination.
Hehaswithstoodthesearchingandgruelingcrossexamination.Ifhehad
beenagotuporplantedwitness,thenatsomepointhewouldhavebeen
caughtunawareinthecrossexamination. Exceptminorimprovements,
over all perusal of his crossexamination would show that he did not
fumble in the crossexamination. The over all perusal of his cross
examinationwouldshowthathedidaccompanytheJainbrotherstothe
bungalowoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.Ifhehadnotaccompaniedthe
Jainbrothers,thenhewouldnothavebeeninapositiontofacethecross
examinationoncertainrelevantaspects.Inthatcasehewouldhavebeen
certainlyexposedinhiscrossexamination.HehasadmittedatPage137
Para5thathecannotgiveexactdateoftheirvisittothesaidbank. At
Page138hehasadmittedthatheopenedthebagatfirstinstancewhenhe
handedoverthebagtoJhambbuilder.Thecrossonbehalfoftheaccused
No.5isverymaterial. Hehasadmittedthathisrelationswiththe Jain
familyareverycordial.Hehasadmittedthathehastrustinthem.Hehas
providedthedetailsofhisearlieremploymentetc.AtPage139,acaseis
soughttobeputuptothiswitnessthathewaspresentintheCourtwhen
evidenceofSunilJain(PW13)wasrecordedintheearlierpartofthetrial.
The witness has denied this suggestion. At Page 139 Para 9 he has
providedtheaccountoftheeventsoccurredatthetimeofrecordingofhis
statement. This account of the events provided by him at the time of
recordingofhisstatementwouldshowthathisstatementwasrecordedon
hissay.AtPage140hehasadmittedthathissignaturewasnotobtained
onthewritingoronthecomputerprintofhisstatement. AtPage140
435
435
Para 10 he has admitted that after two visits to the bungalow of the
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,hedidnotvisitthesaidbungalowinApril,1996.
HehasadmittedthathehasseentheaccusedNo.5forthefirsttimewhen
he visited his bungalow. He has further admitted that after the said
incident,he hadseen the photographof accused No.5in the magazine
somewherein1997.Hehasadmittedthatthereweretwogatestothesaid
bungalow. One gate was big and the other gate was small. He has
admittedatPage141thatbellofthebungalowwasrangbytheperson,
whomettheminthecompoundofthebungalow.Themainthrustofthe
crossexamination was toknowfromthiswitnessthedescriptionofthe
bungalowandthesurroundingsofthebungalowtoexposehimthathe
had not been to the bungalow. and, therefore, he would not be in a
positiontotellthedescription,butperusalofhiscrossexaminationwould
show that this witness has meticulously narrated the description of the
bungalowandthemajorityofthesurroundingsofthebungalow.
442]
seenthatthiswitnesshasnotfumbledatanyplace.Hehasansweredall
thequestionsinastraightforwardmanner.PW6isalayman.Alaymanis
notsupposedtoknownitigritiesoflaw.Onecanacceptastatementthat
thewitnesscanbeaskedtomemorisethestatementeitherreadoverto
him or read by him. In my opinion, that cannot apply to the cross
examination.Thecrossexaminationissuchaweaponthatitcanmakea
tutored or planted witness to fall like a house of cards. A tutored,
concoctedandplantedwitnesscanbecaughtsomewhere. Ifthewitness
436
436
happenstobethedriver,theninallcertaintyonecansaythatsuchwitness
cannotescapefromthetrapofthecrossexaminer. Here,itappearsthat
thetrapofthecrossexaminerfellshortbecausethiswitnessdidnotallow
the trap to scratch his body indicating that he is a natural witness.
Therefore,Idonotseeanyreasontodisbelieveanddiscardtheevidence
ofthiswitness.Onthebasisofevidenceofthisindependentwitness,ithas
been established that on two occasions Jain brothers had been to
bungalowoftheaccusedNo.5tomakethepaymentofRs.15lakhseach.
443]
Jhambandthecasewithregardtothehandingoverofthethreeflatsin
lieuoftheextortionmoneytotheaccusedAbuSalemandcompletionof
the transaction of sale of three flats by accused No.5 V. K. Jhamb is
concerned, has been disclosed for the first time after the arrest of the
accusedAbuSalem.TheevidenceofPW13wasrecordedinTADASpecial
CaseNo.22of1995inthemonthofAugust,1997.PW13SunilJaindid
notdisclosethiscasewhenheledevidenceinthesaidtrial. Thefacts
disclosedonthisepisodehavebeenstatedtobetheimprovementsoverhis
earlier statements recordedbythe policeandhis evidencegiven in the
Court. On perusal of the evidence and the case of the prosecution in
entirety,itappearsthatthiscasewasnotdisclosedbyPW13SunilJainin
his statement recorded by the police as well as in his evidence before
Court.WhiledecidingthecredibilityoftheevidenceofPW13SunilJain
quaaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasan,Ihaveextensively
dealt with the point of omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions
437
437
appearingintheevidenceofPW13. Whileconsideringtheevidenceof
PW13SunilJainquaaccusedNo.5,sameobservationswouldapply.The
observationsmadebymearebasedoncertainfactsandafterconsidering
thefactsdespiteomissions,discrepanciesandsomecontradictions,Iwas
notpreparedtodiscardtheevidenceofPW13SunilJainoutrightly.Ido
notwanttorepeatthosefacts.Keepingthoseobservationsandreasonsin
mind,InowproposetodealwiththeevidenceofPW13SunilJain.
444]
continuousthreatsbyaccusedAbuSalem,theydecidedtohandoverhim
threeflatsinlieuofthemoneysincetheywereinfinancialdifficulties.He
hasdeposedthataccusedAbuSalemhadtoldthemthathewouldsend
Jhambtothemandtheyshouldexecutetheagreementwithhim.Jhamb
cametotheirofficeandsawtheflats.HehasidentifiedtheaccusedNo.5
intheCourt.Hehasfurtherdeposedthathehasexecutedtwoagreements
offlatNos.605and606infavourofMr.HareshGehi. Hehasdeposed
thatMr.HareshGheipurchasedthetwoflatsforRs.28lakhsandheissued
fourchequesforRs.27lakhs.Hehasdeposedthatonthedateofthesale
oftheflats,hereceivedaphonecallfromaccusedAbuSalemandhe(Abu
Salem)startedabusinghim.He(AbuSalem)demandedthemoney.When
PW13SunilJaintoldhimthathewouldpaymoneyafterencashmentof
thecheques,butaccusedAbuSalembecameupsetandtoldhimthathe
shouldarrangethepaymentimmediately.Hehasadmittedthat,therefore,
hearrangedtheamountofRs.15lakhsandonthenextdaywenttohouse
ofJhambwithhisbrotherAshokbhaianddriverRizwanKhanandpaidit
438
438
toaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.Hehasfurtherdeposedthatafterfewdays,
theywithdrewRs.15lakhsfromtheirbankaccountandpaidthesameto
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambathisresidence.
445]
PW13SunilJainhasdeposedthatinMarch,1997Mr.Jhambsentablank
agreement regarding the said flat to his office for signature. He
immediatelysignedthesaidagreement. Hehasdeposedthataboutthis
flat they did not receive a monetary consideration either from Jhamb
builderorthepurchaser.Inhisevidencehehasnotsaidawordaboutthe
identity of the purchaser. While commenting upon the evidence of
purchaser PW8 Shri Murji Patel on this fact, I have observed that the
transactionbetweenaccusedNo.5V.K.JhambandPW8MurjiPatelwasan
independent transaction. The adjustment made by them was neither
knowntotheJainfamilynortheconcernoftheJainfamily.
446]
Beforegoingtoconsiderthecrossexaminationofthis
witness(PW13),itisnecessarytomentionatthisstagethataccusedAbu
Salemhasadmittedalmostallthefactsinhisconfessionasdeposedby
PW13.LearnedAdvocatefortheaccusedNo.5submittedthatwhenthe
purchase price of the two flats was Rs. 28 lakhs, the Jain brothers, as
deposed by PW13 Sunil Jain, paid Rs. 30 lakhs to Mr. Jhamb. It is
submittedthatthiswascontrarytotheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.
Atthisstagewhiledealingwiththissubmission,onecannotlosesightof
theprecariousconditioninwhichtheJainbrotherswereplacedatthat
439
439
time. TheJainbrotherswouldnothavehappilypaidtheirhardearned
moneytoaccusedAbuSalemthroughV.K.JhambaccusedNo.5. Ifthey
hadpaidonlyRs.28lakhstheycouldhavestatedsobecauseaspertheir
casebeforeencashmentofthefourcheques,Rs.15lakhswerecollectedby
themandpaidtoV.K.Jhamb,accusedNo.5.Iftheprosecutionwantedto
makeawatertightcase,theycouldhavedonesobytakingtheadvantage
of this situation. It is also apparent on the face of record that the
prosecutionbymakingthisstatementofthepaymentofRs.30lakhswas
taking the risk. It must be mentioned that in the risk taken by the
prosecutionliesthetruth.Inthiscase,aspertheevidenceofPW13,after
encashment of the cheques, Rs.15 lakhs was withdrawn. The learned
Prosecutorhasproducedonrecordthestatementofthebankaccountof
'KamlaConstructions'. TheBankStatementwastakenonrecordbymy
learnedpredecessor.TheStatementoftheBankwasproducedatbelated
stage. TheBankAccountStatementhasnotbeenadmittedinevidence.
Thefailurehasnotbeenexplained. Evenatabelatedstage,keepingin
mind the provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 the
appropriate certificate could have been attached to the Bank Account
Statement. The Bank Account Statement with proper certificate has a
presumptive valueunderthe Bankers'BooksEvidenceAct,1891. Such
care was also not taken. At this stage, while dealing with this Bank
AccountStatement,Imustobservethatmorethanonedocumentswere
produced by the Prosecutor at the time of evidence. My learned
predecessorwaspleasedtorejectproductionofsomeofthedocuments.It
may be mentioned at this stage that in such a serious matter, the
440
440
Prosecutorinthebeginningofthemattermustgiveseriousthoughttothe
documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The prosecutor
mustensurethatallthedocumentsaremadeavailabletotheaccusedwell
in advance. Similarly,the documents must be placed on record before
Courttodecidetheadmissibilityandotherwiseofthedocumentsatthe
initial stage to avoid burdening of the record by unnecessary evidence.
The failure on the part of the prosecutor to take appropriate steps at
propertimemayresultintoprejudicetotheaccused.Similarly,itcauses
inconvenienceandduplicatestheworkoftheCourt.
447]
evidencetotakecareofthisfact.TheevidenceofPW3VasantRamnath
Sharma, PW7 Dr. Arshad Kamal Shaikh and evidence of PW6 Rizwan
Mehmood Khan has lend sufficient independent assurance to the facts
admittedbyaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionaswellastothefacts
deposed to by PW13 Sunil Jain on this issue. It is now necessary to
consider the exercise undertaken by the defence lawyer in the cross
examination to point out that the evidence of PW13 Sunil Jain is a
concoctiontosuitthecaseoftheprosecution. Ihavealreadymentioned
thathe(PW13)hasadmittedinhiscrossexaminationaswellasithas
beenconcededbylearnedprosecutorthatthiscasehasbeenputforthby
theprosecutionforthefirsttimeafterarrestofaccusedAbuSalem. In
viewofmyabove saidobservations,Iamof the opinion thatthis case
introducedforthefirsttimecannotberejectedanddisbelievedintoto.
PW13SunilJainhasplacedonrecordthereasonsfornondisclosureof
441
441
thiscasewhenhegaveevidenceinAugust,1997.Whileconsideringthe
evidence of PW13 Sunil Jain independently, I have accepted this
explanationasbelievable.
448]
AtPage305Para63,onthepointofwithdrawalof
Rs.15lakhfromtheaccountinAllahabadBank,JuhuBranch,PW13Sunil
JainhasbeenquestionedwithregardtotheentryofthewithdrawalofRs.
15 lakhs and the payment to Mr. Jhamb in their Income Tax Returns.
PW13SunilJainhasstatedthathedoesnotrememberaboutit.Hehas
notdeniedthefactthatKamlaConstructionswasanIncomeTaxassessee.
He was called upon to produce the Income Tax record or the balance
sheetsfortheconcernedyear.Buthehasstatedthatallthosepaperswere
destroyedinJuly2005flood. InfacttheInvestigatingOfficeroughtto
havetakencareofthisissue. Inthecrossexaminationwhenconfronted
withthisposition,thewitnesshasofferedtheexplanation.Forthismess,
PW13SunilJaincannotbeblamed.Here,inthiscase,theprosecutionhas
failedtotakeappropriatestepstoproduceandprovetheBankAccount
Statement.
449]
ThecrossofPW13SunilJainonbehalfoftheaccused
No.5bylearnedAdvocateShriShivadeneedscarefulconsideration. He
has admitted that he knows V.K. Jhamb. He has admitted that he is
residingintheirvicinity. Inthecrossexamination,anattempthasbeen
madetopointoutthatthistheoryofpaymentofRs.30lakhstoV.K.Jhamb
byPW13SunilJainisfalse.PW13SunilJainhasgivenconsistentanswers
442
442
12/02/1997anyloanwasobtainedbyAshokJainfromtheJhambfamily.
Thisfacthasnotbeendisclosedeitherinthecrossexaminationorinthe
WrittenStatementplacedonrecordbyaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb. While
considering the evidence of the prosecution in juxtaposition with the
defenceoftheaccusedNo.5,Ihaveobservedthatthisdefenceisjustfor
thesakeofdefencetakingtheadvantageofsomeofthewithdrawalsfrom
theBankAccountsoftheJhambfamilymembers. AtPage332Para104
PW13 has admitted that at the time of withdrawing money from
AllahabadbankformakingpaymenttotheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,it
443
443
ItmaybementionedthatV.K.Jhamb,accusedNo.5,
mighthavefollowedthedictatesofaccusedAbuSalemundercompulsion
ortoobligetheaccusedAbuSalem,accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambcouldnot
444
444
havesaid'No'toaccusedAbuSalem.Insteadofsaying'No'toaccusedAbu
Salem,he followed his dictates andfell praytohis dictates. Whyand
underwhatcircumstancestheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhadfallenprayto
theaccusedAbuSalemisnottheissueatall. Oncehehassaid 'Yes'to
accusedAbuSalemandstartedactingforhim,theaccusedNo.5would
becomeequallyresponsibleforthecommissionoftheoffenceofconspiracy
andextortion.Ifhehadnointentiontojointheconspiracy,hecouldhave
said'No'toaccusedAbuSalemandincaseofanythreatorpressure,he
couldhavelodgedacomplainttothe police. Itappearsthatinsteadof
safeguarding the interest of his Builder Community member,he at that
time thought it fit to follow the dictates of the 'Underworld Don' Abu
Salem.Theknowledge,thattheaccusedAbuSalemisanotoriousgangster
and that the extortion of money was for a particular purpose, can be
attributed to the accused No.5 V.K. Jhamb. Accused Abu Salem in his
confessionhasadmittedthatwhenhestruckthedealwithJainbrothers,
hemadeaphonecalltotheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambandinformedhim
abouttheentiretransactionandassignedhimtheroletosellthosethree
flatsandsendthesalepriceofthesaidthreeflatstohimatDubai.The
evidenceonrecordisclinchingevidenceandonthebasisofthisclinching
evidence, the complicity of the accused No.5 V.K. Jhamb has been
establishedinthiscase.Inthefactsandcircumstances,Idonotseeany
reason to disbelieve and discard the case of the prosecution, though
propounded for the first time in this trial, after arrest of accused Abu
Salem.Theexplanationplacedrecordistheacceptableexplanation.The
facts and circumstances, discussed herein above, are very clinching to
445
445
indicate that all throughout the Jain family was threatened with dire
consequencesevenafterthemurderofPradeepJainon07/03/1995.After
testing the medicine of the conversation of the threats into action by
committing the murder of Pradeep Jain, even a person of ordinary
prudenceplacedinsuchasituationandpositionofJainfamily,hewould
haveactedinthesimilarfashionandmanner.Therefore,theomissions,
improvements, discrepancies and even some contradictions cannot be
given much weightage in the teeth of the explanation, facts and
circumstancesplacedonrecordinthiscase.
452]
learnedSPPShriUjjwalNikamandlearnedAdvocateShriSudeepPasbola
on the point of the effects of the omissions, discrepancies and the
contradictionsintheevidenceofthewitness. LearnedSPPShriNikam
relyinguponthedecisioninthecaseof ChandrasekharSureshchandra
Bhattv.StateofMaharashtra reportedin (2000)10Supreme Court
Cases582submittedthattheprosecutorcannotbenailedtothestatement
recordedu/sec.161oftheCr.P.C., TheProsecutorhasaprerogativeto
elicit such facts from the witness as he deems necessary for the case.
RelyinguponthisJudgment,learnedSPPShriNikamsubmittedthatfor
someimprovementsintheevidenceofthewitnessesanysinistermotive
cannotbeattributedtotheprosecution.LearnedSPPsubmittedthatsince
certain facts brought on record for the first time are in the nature of
elaborations,thesamecannotbedubbedwithimprovementsasmadewith
sinistermotive.Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
446
446
thatmarginalvariationsbetweenthestatementoftheprosecutionwitness
recordedu/sec.161oftheCr.P.C.andthetestimonygiveninCourtcannot
bedubbedasimprovementsmadewithanysinistermotive.TheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatifitisinthenatureofelaborations
elicitedbytheProsecutorduringtheExaminationinChief,itmustbeheld
to be within the prerogative of the Public Prosecutor. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that it is the prerogative of Public
Prosecutortoelicitsuchpointsfromawitnessashedeemsnecessaryfor
thecase.NoPublicProsecutorcanbenailedforsuchstatementrecorded
u/sec.161oftheCr.P.C..
453]
Inthiscasetheincidentoccurredin1995.Thefacts
broughtonrecordclearlyindicatethataftermurderofPradeepJain,the
Jainfamilywasterrorstricken.Ithasbeenprovedinthiscasethateven
aftermurderofPradeepJain,accusedAbuSalemwasnotsatisfiedandhe
made Jain brothers to pay ransom amount by selling their three flats
through accused No.5 V.K. Jhamb. In this case the Prosecutor was well
withinhisrightstobringonrecordand/orelicitcertainpointsfromthe
witnessesashethoughtthesamebeingnecessaryforthecase.
454]
NikamisinthecaseofEsherSinghv.StateofAndhraPradeshreported
in(2004)11SupremeCourtCases)(Cri)585.ThisJudgmenthasbeen
reliedupontosubstantiatethestatementsofthewitnessesmadeforthe
firsttimeintheCourtandnotduringtheinvestigation. Inthiscase,the
447
447
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatamereelaborationofafact
bythewitnesscannotbetermedasadiscrepancy. Itisfurtherheldthat
whenthebasicfeaturesarestated,unlesstheelaborationisofsuchnature
thatitcreatesadifferentcontourorthecommissionoftheoffence,the
samecannotbesaidtohavetotallychangedthecomplexionofthecase.
455]
Inthiscase,thereareomissions,discrepanciesandthe
somecontradictionsintheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainandPW13Sunil
Jain.WhileappreciatingtheevidenceofPW9andPW13,Ihaveobserved
thatintheteethoftheexplanationandthefactsandcircumstancesplaced
onrecord,theimprovements,discrepanciesandcontradictionscannotbe
givenmuchweightageandimportance. Inthiscasetheprosecutionby
examiningthewitnesseshavenottotallychangedthecomplexionandcore
of the case. I have already observed that the case of the prosecution
revolvesaroundtheKolDongriPropertyofJainbrothers,thethreatsto
the Jain brotherstosurrender the property,murderofPradeepJainon
failureofJainfamilytocomplythedemandofaccusedAbuSalemandthe
threatstotheJainfamilytopaytheextortionmoneyevenaftermurderof
PradeepJain. Thisisthecoreandcomplexionoftheprosecutioncase.
Thishasnotbeenchangedatall.
456]
accusedsubmittedthattheomissions,contradictionsanddiscrepanciesin
theevidenceofthewitnessesarematerialand,therefore,onthebasisof
the same, the very credibility of all the witnesses has been shaken. In
448
448
supportofhissubmission,hehasrelieduponcertainJudgments. Inthe
case of Lahu Kamlakar Patil and another v. State of Maharashtra
reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 528, the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatthoughtherecannotbeuniformityin
humanreaction,butatthesametimeitisalsotobeborneinmindthatif
the conduct of the witness is so unnatural and is not in accord with
acceptable human behaviour even allowing for variations, then his
testimonybecomesquestionableandislikelytobediscarded.
457]
InthecaseofSampathKumarv.InspectorofPolice,
Krishnagirireportedin(2012)2SupremeCourtCases(Cri)42,(2012)
4SupremeCourtCases124,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
thatminorcontradictionsareboundtoappearinstatementsoftruthful
witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and sense of observation
differs from person to person. Discrepancies in testimony of a witness
causedbymemorylapsesareacceptable.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
Indiahasheldthat,however,itisonlyunsafetorelyuponaversionwith
materialimprovementunlessitiscorroboratedbysomeotherindependent
evidencethatmayprobabalisethetestimony.
458]
InthecaseofKantilalaliasK.L.GordhandasSoniv.
StateofGujaratreportedin2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1408,the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that merely because the
statementofawitnessisrecordedbythepoliceu/sec.161oftheCr.P.C.
belatedly, by itself, does not make the evidence unacceptable provided
449
449
thereissomelogicaloracceptableexplanationforthesame.Ifthereisno
logical or acceptable explanation, then the evidence of such witness is
liabletobedisbelieved.
459]
InthecaseofRaiSandeepaliasDeepuv.State(NCT
ofDelhi)reportedin(2012)3SupremeCourtCases(Cri)750,(2012)
8SupremeCourtCases21,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
thatasterlingwitnessshouldbeofaveryhighqualityandcaliberwhose
version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the
versionofsuchwitnessshouldbeinapositiontoacceptitforitsfacevalue
withoutanyhesitation.Totestthequalityofsuchawitness,thestatusof
the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulnessofthestatementmadebysuchawitness. Itisfurtherheld
that what would be more relevant would be the consistency of the
statementrightfromthestartingpointtilltheend. Itshouldbenatural
andconsistentwiththecaseoftheprosecutionquatheaccused. There
450
450
InthecaseofDr.D.L.Goswamiv.StateofMadhya
451
ingredientsofanoffenceisalwaysupontheprosecutionandatnostage
does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to
somehowhookthecrook.Evenincaseswherethedefenceoftheaccused
doesnotappeartobecredibleorispulpablyfalsethatburdendoesnot
becomeanytheless. Itisheldthatthestandardofprooftoprovea
defence pleais notthe sameasthatwhichrests uponthe prosecution.
Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf
probabilisesthepleahewillbeentitledtothebenefitofreasonabledoubt.
463]
Inordertoseetheapplicabilityofthelawlaiddown
452
primeaccusedandmastermindbehindthecrime.AccusedAbuSalemand
accusedMehendiHasanhaveconfessedtheircrime.Theirconfessionshave
beenfoundvoluntaryandtrue.Theirconfessionshavebeencorroborated
byotherevidence.Here,inthiscasetheprosecutionhasthebenefitofthe
evidence of the Approver Naeem Khan(PW1). The evidence of the
Approver has unfolded the vivid details studded with all the facts and
circumstances related to the crime in this case. Certain omissions,
discrepanciesandcontradictionsintheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainand
PW13SunilJainhavebeenexplainedonthebasisoftheevidenceofPW1
NaeemKhan(Approver)andtheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemand
accused Mehendi Hasan. In this case there is independent evidence to
corroboratethetestimonyofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)onmaterial
aspects. TheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemandMehendiHasanare
provedtobevoluntaryandtrue.Thereisampleindependentevidenceled
bytheprosecutiontocorroboratetheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalem
andaccusedMehendiHasan.Inthebackdropoftheentireevidence,facts,
and circumstances placed on record, the omissions, discrepancies and
contradictionscannotbetermedtobefataltothecaseoftheprosecution.
Therefore, thelawlaiddownintheJudgmentsrelieduponbylearned
Advocatefortheaccusedisofnohelpandassistancetothecaseofthe
accused.ByapplyingtheratiolaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India in the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocates for the
accused,theevidenceledbytheprosecutioncannotbediscardedsolelyon
thegroundofomissions,discrepanciesandsomecontradictions.Besides,
theomissions,discrepanciesandcontradictionshavebeenfullyexplained
453
453
byothercogentevidence.
464]
CONCLUSION:
:
ByexaminingPW5Mohd.ShabirMalik,PW6Rizwan
Mohd.Khan,PW7Dr.ArshadKamalShaikh,PW8MurjiAnandaPateland
PW15 Amirali Akabarali Engineer, the prosecution has proved various
454
454
importantcircumstances.Theevidenceofthesewitnessescannotbesaid
to be a direct evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW1 Approver
Naeem Khan. However, the circumstances brought on record in their
evidenceclearlycorroboratethetestimonyofPW1Approveronvarious
material aspects. Atthisstage,Imaymentionthatwhileindependently
appreciatingtheevidenceofallthewitnesses,Ihaveofferedmycomments
about their evidence and corroboration the said evidence offers to the
evidenceofPW1NaeemKhanandtheevidenceofeachother. Atthis
stage,Idonotthinkitnecessarytorepeatalltheseaspects.
466]
MehendiHasanhavebeenprovedtobevoluntaryandtrue.Asperthelaw
laiddowninthecaseofJameelAhmedv.StateofRajasthanreportedin
2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)1853, theconfessionofoneaccused
canbeusedtocorroboratetheconfessionofthecoaccused. Onminute
scrutinyoftheevidenceledbytheprosecutiontoprovetheconfessionsof
theaccused,Ihaveheldthatthesaidevidenceiscredibleevidencetolend
assurance that the confessions were recorded in free and congenial
atmosphere.Ihavealsoheldthatthecompetentofficershavefollowedall
the mandatory provisions of law while recording the confessions of
accused Abu Salem and Mehendi Hasan. On going through the
confessionsofaccusedAbuSalemandMehendiHasanandafterdrawing
comparison between the facts admitted by them in their respective
confessions,itcanbepositivelysaidthatthefactsadmittedbythemqua
commissionofthecrimesinceinceptionareconsistent.Theirconfessions
455
455
areinculpatory.OnthebasisoftheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemand
MehendiHasan,theprosecutionhasprovedthechargeslevelledagainst
theaccused.TheevidenceofPW5,PW6,PW7,PW9,PW13andPW15
havecorroboratedthefactsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSalemandMehendi
Hasanintheirrespectiveconfessions.Whiledealingwiththeevidenceof
these witnesses independently, I have dealt with the point of the
corroboration,theevidenceofeachwitnessleadingtothefactsadmitted
byaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanintheirconfessionson
particular points. As per the law, before using the confession of the
accusedagainstthecoaccused,ruleofprudencedemandsthattheremust
beageneralcorroborationtotheconfessionoftheaccused.Theevidence
oftheabovestatedwitnessesfulfillsthesaidrequirementoflaw.
467]
ThefactsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSalemandaccused
456
457
Inthebackdropofthispositionandsituation,onehas
toconsidertheevidentiaryvalueoftheconfessionoftheaccusedrecorded
u/sec.15oftheTADA(P)Actforthepurposeofthecorroborationtothe
evidence of the Approver. In this case, I have concluded that there is
independentevidencetocorroboratethetestimonyoftheApprover.When
thelawhasrecognisedtheconfessionoftheaccusedrecordedu/sec.15of
theTADA(P)Actasasubstantivepieceofevidence, Idonotseeany
reasonandlogicnottoactuponitasacorroborativepieceofevidenceto
theevidenceoftheApprover. Inthiscase,theevidenceoftheApprover
hasalsopassedthetestofreliability. TheevidenceoftheApproverhas
been corroborated. The Approver PW1 Naeem Khan and accused Abu
SalemandMehendiHasanaretheBirdsofthesamefeatherandquietlong
timetheyflockedtogether. Butwhenthetestingtimecame,theaccused
NaeemKhani.e.ApproverPW1, answeredhis conscience properlyand
decidedtobecomeanApprovertherebybetrayinghiserstwhiletooclose
associate. ItwasthedecisionofthePW1ApproverNaeemKhan. This
Courtcouldnothavequestionedthesaiddecision. Beforetenderingthe
pardon, this Court took appropriate care to ensure that the desire
458
458
expressedby the accused todisclose the true facts from his knowledge
aboutthecommissionofthecrimeisbonafide.Therefore,Idonotsee
anydifficultytousetheconfessionsoftheaccusedAbuSalemandaccused
MehendiHasan as acorroborative pieceofevidence tothe evidence of
PW1ApproverNaeemKhan.PW1NaeemKhanhasunfoldedtheaccount
of the conspiracy and the various actions undertaken to implement the
objectoftheconspiracytotakeittoitslogicalend.Intheirconfessions,
accusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanhavealsoprovidedthe
vividdetailsstuddedwiththenecessaryfactsandcircumstancesquathe
conspiracy and the object of the conspiracy and the steps/action taken
fromtimetotimetoexecutetheobjectoftheconspiracyandtotakethe
conspiracy to its logical end. As per law there is no hurdle to use the
confessions of the accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan
recordedu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)Actbeingsubstantivepieceofevidence
for the purpose of corroboration to the evidence of the Approver PW1
Naeem Khan. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case is
concrete, cogent and reliable evidence. I do not see any reason to
disbelieveanddiscardtheevidenceledbytheprosecution.
469]
reliable evidence, the prosecution has proved that the conspiracy was
hatchedinDubaiinOctober/November,1994byaccusedAbuSalemAbdul
Kayyum Ansari, Mohammed Naeem Abdul Rahim Khan, Mohammed
Hussain Mehendi Hasan Shaikh, wanted accused Anees Kaskar and
ShaukatMistrytriedinTADASpecialCaseNo.22of1995topressurize
459
459
470]
460
namelythehenchmenofaccusedAbuSalempumped17bulletsintothe
bodyofPradeepJain.OnebullethitPW13SunilJain.however,itmissed
thetarget.PW13SunilJainsustainedbulletinjurytohisrightarm.The
Medical Certificate is at Exhibit558. I have already discussed the
evidenceoftheprosecutionabouttheactualincidentofshootingbythe
assailantsintheofficeofJainbrothers.PW13SunilJainwasfortunate.
Thebulletdidnottargetanyvitalpartofhisbody. Ifbullethadhitany
vitalpartofthebodyofSunilJain,certainlyhewouldhavedied. The
bullet injury caused to PW13 Sunil Jain was with an intention or
knowledgeandunderthecircumstancesthatifithadhithim,itwould
havecausedhis(SunilJain)deathincertainty.Therefore,inthiscase,the
prosecutionhasprovedtheoffenceofcriminalconspiracy,theoffenceof
murderofPradeepJainandtheoffenceofattempttocommitmurderof
PW13 Sunil Jain by accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan
pursuanttothesaidconspiracywhichwashatchedinDubai.
471]
ThePostmortemReportisatExhibit361.Thecause
ofdeathisdeathduetofirearmsinjuries(unnatural). TheC.A.Reports
areatExhibit360(colly.). Inthiscase,thesophisticatedfirearmswere
usedbytheshooters.ThenatureofthefirearmscanbeseenfromtheC.A.
ReportsatExhibit360(colly.).Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,this
wasaterroristact. Onthebasisoftheuseofthesophisticatedfirearms
andthebrutalmurdercommittedbypumping17bulletsinthebodyof
deceasedPradeepJainandcausingbulletinjurytoPW13SunilJain,the
461
461
prosecutionhasprovedthatthesaidactwasdonewithintentiontostrike
aterrorinthemindoftheJainbrothersandbuilderscommunity.Forthe
purpose of striking terror, the sophisticated firearms were used by the
assailantsandthehenchmenoftheaccusedAbuSalem.Thisterroristact
wascommittedpursuanttotheconspiracyhatchedinOctober/November,
1994atDubai.Theobjectoftheconspiracywastoeliminateoneofthe
Jain brothers, if they fail to obey the commands and dictates of the
UnderworldDonAbuSalemandAneesKaskartosurrendertheirproperty.
Whilecommittingthevariousactswiththehelpoffirearms,theassailants
havecausedthedeathofPradeepJainandalsoattemptedtocausethe
deathofPW13SunilJain.Theterroristactshaveresultedintothedeath
ofPradeepjain.Whilecommittingtheterroristacts,severalotheroffences
have also been committed. Accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi
Hasanpursuanttotheobjectoftheconspiracyknowinglyfacilitatedthe
commission of the terrorist act and all other acts preparatory to the
terrorist act. Accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan as such
werethemembersoftheterroristgang,whichwasinvolvedinterrorist
act,asstatedabove.Inthiscase,therefore,theprosecutionhasprovedthe
offencespunishableu/sec.3(2)(i),3(2)(ii),3(3)andSection3(5)ofthe
TADA(P)ActagainstaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasan.
472]
Theprosecutionhaswithdrawnthechargesu/sec.5of
theTADA(P)Actandu/sec.386and387oftheIndianPenalCodeagainst
accusedAbuSalem.Inthiscase,theprosecutionhasprovedthataccused
MehendiHasan,aspertheinstructionsofaccusedAbuSalem,tookthe
462
462
delivery of the firearms near Shalimar Hotel, Bhendi Bazar area and
handedoverthefirearmstoShaukatKadianearRamdeoHotelatSion.
Byleadingthisevidence,theprosecutionhasprovedthataccusedMehendi
HasanpossessedthefirearmsnamelyPistolsusedinthecommissionofthe
crime.Itisundisputedfactthatitbecameunauthorizedpossessionofthe
firearms i.e. pistols by accused Mehendi Hasan because at the relevant
time,MumbaiwasdeclaredasaNotifiedArea.Possessingafirearmi.e.
Pistolina'NotifiedArea'isasubstantiveoffenceu/sec.5oftheTADA(P)
Act. In this case, by leading the cogent evidence, the prosecution has
provedthataccusedMehendiHasanpossessedthefirearmsnamelyPistols
inthe'NotifiedArea'. AccusedMehendiHasanis,therefore,guiltyofan
offencepunishableu/sec.5oftheTADA(P)Act.
473]
chargesu/secs.449,450and452oftheIndianPenalCodeagainstaccused
AbuSalem.Inthiscase,theprosecutionhasprovedthatpursuanttothe
conspiracy,on07/03/1995atabout8.30p.m.,Salim RashidShaikh @
SalimHaddi,UdayPawar,SanjayKadam,RajeshIgave(allnowdead)and
wantedaccusedSunilNaircommittedthehousetrespassholdingfirearms
andhavingmadeapreparationforassaultwithintenttokillJainbrothers
and strike terror in builder community. Accused Mehendi Hasan was
partytotheconspiracy. Hesharedthecommonobjectoftheconspiracy.
The housetrespass to commit the various offences was committed
pursuanttotheobjectofthecriminalconspiracy,whichwashatchedin
Dubai in October/November, 1994. In this case, the prosecution has
463
463
474]
Inthiscase,accusedMehendiHasanandaccusedV.K.
Jhambarechargedfortheoffencespunishableu/secs.386and387ofthe
Indian Penal Code r/w. sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The
prosecution has proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence that
accused Abu Salem pursuant to the object of the conspiracy extorted
ransombyputtingtheJainbrothersinfearofdeathandgrievoushurt.
InitiallythethreatswereextendedtocommitmurderofoneoftheJain
brotherstoextortransomfromthem.Similarly,aftercommittingmurder
of Pradeep Jain, accused Abu Salem did not snap the conspiracy and
continued the spell of threats to extort money from Jain brothers by
putting themin fearofdeathorofgrievous hurt. Byputtingthe Jain
brothersinfearofdeathorgrievoushurt,accusedAbuSalemwithaccused
MehendiHasanandaccusedV.K.Jhamb,forcedtheJainbrotherstohand
over three flats from Mamta Cooperative Society in lieu of ransom
amount. Theprosecutionhasprovedthatthisactwasdonepursuantto
464
464
465
Affirmative.MyfindingonPointNo.9intheNegative.
ARGUMMENTSONTHEPOINTOFSENTENCE
ACCUSEDNO.1ABUSALEM
475]
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorShriNikamonthefirst
dateofargumentsubmittedthatmaximumpunishmentprovidedu/sec.
302ofI.P.C.andu/sec.3subsection(2)subclause(i)oftheTADA(P)Act,
1987isDeathorImprisonmentforLife.Onthefirstdateofhisargument,
ld.SPPShriNikamferociouslysubmittedforawardingdeathsentenceto
accused Abu Salem. However, after the arguments of the defence
Advocate Shri Sudeep Pasbola, Ld.SPP took a complete somersault and
submittedthatinthiscasetheDeathSentenceisoutofquestion.Ld.SPP
ShriNikamsubmittedthatthe solemnsovereignassurancegivenbythe
thenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterofIndiaShriL.K.Advanicannotbe
construedasaobstructionorusurpationofthepowersofthisCourtto
award the appropriate sentence under the law. Ld.SPP Shri Nikam
submittedthatsovereignsolemnassurance/guaranteegivenisapplicable
in the matter of execution of the sentence and not in the matter of
awardingorapplicationofthesentencebytheCourt.Ld.SPPShriNikam
submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 34C of the Indian
ExtraditionAct,1962 andtheprovisionsofsec.302oftheIPC,accused
AbuSalemisliabletobepunishedwithimprisonmentforLife. Ld.SPP
Shri Nikam submitted that the solemn sovereign assurance/guarantee
given by the then Hon'ble Deputy Prime Minister of India cannot be
construedasguarantee/UndertakingstatingthatnoCourtinIndiawould
466
466
awardthepunishmentprovidedbythelawinforceinIndia.Ld.SPPShri
Nikam submitted that in this case the solemn sovereign
assurance/guarantee givenbytheUnionofIndiawouldcomeintoplay
afterawardingthepunishmentbythisCourtasprovidedunderlawand
notbeforethat.
476]
467
AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthattheguaranteemustbeconstruedin
literalsense.InthesubmissionofLd.AdvocateShriPasbolainviewofthe
solemnsovereignassurance/guaranteegivenbythethenHon'bleDeputy
Prime Minister of India, the hands of this Court are tied to award the
punishmentmorethan25years,thoughtheprovisionsofsec.34Cofthe
IndianExtraditionAct,theprovisionsofsec.302oftheIPCandsec.3sub
section(2)subclause(i)oftheTADA(P)Actaremandatory.
477]
mentionattheoutsetthatitisveryticklishissueandassuchwarrantsa
verydifficultandbalancingexerciseatthebehestofthisCourt.Prideand
prestigeofourcountryisinvolved.Therefore,inthiscase,ifany,decision
istakencontrarytothespiritoftheIndianLawsandalsocontrarytothe
spiritofthesolemnsovereignassurancegivenbythethenHon'bleDeputy
PrimeMinisterofIndiaShriL.K.AdvaniandunderstoodbytheHon'ble
Supreme Court of Justice, Portugal in its Judgment dated 27/01/2005,
thenveryseriousrepercussioncouldfollow.
478]
Undertaking/guaranteegivenbythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinister
ofIndiaShriL.K.Advaniandconsiderationandacceptanceofthesame
afterdoingthreadbareanalysisbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofJustice,
Portugal could take one to the true spirit of the solemn sovereign
assuranceandalsotruespiritinwhichitwasunderstoodandacceptedby
theJudicialForumsinPortugal.FirstIwouldliketoreproducethesolemn
468
468
sovereignassurance/guaranteegivenbythe thenHon'bleDeputyPrime
Minister of India Shri L. K. Advani dated 17/02/2002. The assurance
readsthus:
Attheoutset,Iwouldliketoexpressmydeepappreciationfor
yourletterofOctober4,2002inresponsetotheletterofour
ExternalAffairsMinisterofSeptember23,2002regardingthe
returnofAbuSalemAbdulQayoomAnsaritoIndia. Inyour
letter, you had advised that a formal extradition request be
presented which would fulfill the requirements of Portuguese
law.Accordingly,theconcernedauthoritiesinIndiahavebeen
in the process of preparing the required formal extradition
requestforpresentationtothePortugueseside.
Inthiscontext,wehavebeeninformedthatunderPortuguese
Law,anoffendercannotbeextraditedtotherequestingcountry
iftheoffenceoroffensescommittedattractthevisitationofeither
the death penalty or imprisonment for an indefinite period
beyond 25years. AstheoffensesAbu SalemAbdulQayoom
Ansariischargedwithoraccusedofwouldattractthedeath
penalty and life imprisonment under Indian law, a solemn
sovereignassuranceisrequiredtoenablehisextraditionfrom
PortugaltoIndia.
469
469
Further,Article72(1)oftheConstitutionofIndiaprovidesthat
''ThePresidentshallhavethepowertograntpardons,reprieves,
respites or remissionsof punishment or tosuspend,remit or
commutethesentenceofanypersonconvictedofanyoffence''
inallcaseswherethepunishmentorsentenceisforanyoffence
470
470
provisions,Section432and433oftheCodeofCriminal
ProcedureofIndia1973conferpowerontheGovernment,to
commuteasentenceoflifeimprisonmenttoatermnotexceeding
14years.
471
479]
471
entiretywouldshowthatitwasgivenafterconsideringtheexistinglegal
provisions. In this assurance the provisions of sec. 34C of the Indian
ExtraditionAct,1962havebeenreproduced.Byreproducingsec.34Cof
theIndianExtraditionAct,1962,itwasmadeclearthatinviewofthe
provisions ofsec.34Cof the Indian Extradition Act,1962,no Court in
India would be empowered in this case on extradition of accused Abu
Salemtoawarddeathpenaltytohim. Perusalofsec.34CoftheIndian
ExtraditionAct,1962wouldrevealthatitprovidedtwomandates. The
first mandate is that in case of extradition of fugitive criminal, who is
involved in the commission of the extradition offence punishable with
deathinIndia,onhissurrenderheshallnotbeliableforpunishmentof
death.Thesecondmandateofsec.34CoftheIndianExtraditionAct,1962
providesthatincaseofsuchextraditionoffencespunishablewithdeath,
then in place of death penaltysuchfugitive criminal shall be liable for
punishmentofimprisonmentforlifeforthatoffence.Itmaybementioned
atthisstagethattheprovisionsofsec.34CoftheIndianExtraditionAct,
1962hasaoverridingeffectovertheprovisionsofsec.302oftheI.P.C.
andsec.3subsection(2)subclause(i)oftheTADA(P)Act,1987,asfar
as it relates to the awarding of death penalty. Sec. 34C of the Indian
Extradition Act, 1962 has provided alternative punishment i.e.
imprisonment for life in place of death penalty. It may, therefore, be
mentioned that sec. 34C of the Indian Extradition Act, 1962 has no
overridingeffectovertheprovisionsofsec.302oftheI.P.C.andsec.3(2)
(i) of the TADA(P) Act, 1987 so far as it relates to the punishment of
472
472
480]
So,inviewoftheprovisionsofsec.34CoftheIndian
ExtraditionAct,1962,awardingofdeathpenaltyquaaccusedAbuSalem
isoutofquestion. Itmaybementionedthatfurtherpartofthesolemn
sovereignassurancegivenbythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterof
India Shri L.K. Advani would speak volume about maintenance of the
independenceoftheJudiciaryandadirectindicationthattheGovernment
ofIndiawouldnotgiveanysolemnsovereignassurancethatnoCourtin
India shall award punishment of life imprisonment to the accused Abu
Salem. In further part of assurance, reference has been made to the
provisionsofArticle72(1)oftheConstitutionofIndiatoemphasisthat
ThePresidentofIndiahaspowertograntpardon,reprieves,respitesor
remissionsofpunishmentortosuspend,remitorcommutethesentenceof
anypersonconvictedofanyoffence''.Ithasbeenfurtheremphasizedthat
thepowersofArticle72oftheConstitutionofIndiaistobeexercisedon
theadviceoftheGovernmentandnotbythePresidentactingonhisown
andthattheadviceoftheGovernmentisbindingontheHeadoftheState.
IthasbeenspecificallystatedandemphasizedthatThePresident'spower
under the Article 72 is a constitutional power and is beyond judicial
473
473
review. Thispartofthesolemnsovereignassurancemakesitclearthat
whateverdecisionHisExcellencyThePresidentofIndiatakesinthematter
ofpardon,reprieves,respitesorremissionsofpunishmentortosuspend,
remitorcommutethesentenceofanypersonconvictedofanyoffence,is
finalanditcannotbequestionedintheCourtoflawmeaningtherebyitis
beyondjudicialreview.
481]
Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatfirstby
reproducingsec.34CoftheIndianExtraditionAct,1962, itwasmade
clear that in view of the overriding effect of sec. 34C of the Indian
ExtraditionAct,deathpenaltycannotbeawardedinthissetoffactsby
IndianCourts. Whiletakingcareofthelifeimprisonment,theexercise
undertakenthereafterisverymaterial.Byundertakingthisexercise,itwas
madeclearthatexecutionofthesentenceofpunishmentawardedbythe
Court in India is within the exclusive powers and domain of the
Government. Any decision taken by the Government or even for that
matterbyThePresidentofIndiaisbeyondjudicialreview.So,theobject
ofincorporationofArticle72oftheConstitutionofIndiaandsecs.432
and433oftheCr.P.C.istoassurethattheUnionofIndiawouldensure
474
474
thatwhileexecutingthesentenceorpunishmentimposedbytheCourtin
India,theUnionofIndiawouldexerciseitspowersandbringdownthe
punishmentconsistentwiththesolemnsovereignassurancegiventothe
GovernmentofPortugal. Thelastparaoftheassuranceisveryclear. In
this part, it has been specifically mentioned that on the basis of the
provisionsoftheConstitutionofIndia,theIndianExtraditionAct,1962
and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
GovernmentofIndiasolemnlyassurestheGovernmentofPortugalthatit
willexerciseitspowers conferred by the Indian laws to ensure that if
extraditedbyPortugalfortrialinIndia,AbuSalemAbdulQayoomAnsari
andMonicaBediwouldnotbevisitedbydeathpenaltyorimprisonment
for a term beyond 25 years. It is plain and simple solemn sovereign
assurancebythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterofIndiaShriL.K.
Advanithatinhiscasedeathpenaltyisoutofquestionandifanyother
punishmentisawardedasperlawbyIndianCourts,thentheGovernment
ofIndiawouldexercisethepowersundertheConstitutionofIndia,the
IndianExtraditionAct,1962andtheCodeofCriminalProcedureofIndia,
1973. Itis,therefore,crystalclearthatwhilegivingthisassurancethe
independenceofthejudiciaryhasbeentakencareof.Atthesametimea
solemnsovereignassurancehasbeengiventhatdespite maintainingthe
independenceofIndianjudiciaryinthematterofapplicationorawarding
ofpunishment,theGovernmentofIndia,HisExcellencyThePresidentof
Indiaisvestedwiththepowerstocomplythesolemnsovereignassurance
givenbythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterShriL.K.Advani.Inmy
opinion,thissolemnsovereignassurancecannotbeconstruedinanyother
475
475
way.Onthebasisofthesolemnsovereignassurance,itcannotbesaidand
gathered that it is an assurance that the no Courts in India would not
awardthepunishmentprovidedundertheIndianCriminallaw.
483]
wouldaward/applythepunishmentbeyondtheperiodof25yearseven
for the offences providing the punishment for imprisonment for life, it
wouldhavetheeffectofindirectlyamendingtheprovisionsofsec.302of
the IPC, sec. 3(2)(i) of the TADA(P) Act, 1987, which provide the
punishmentofimprisonmentforlife. Theabovestateddiscussionwould
coverthescope,natureandeffectoftheassuranceanditsbindingnature.
484]
Thenextimportantquestionishowandinwhatmanner
andsensethisassurancewasconstrued,appreciatedandacceptedbythe
Portuguese Authorities, Portuguese Government and Portuguese Courts.
Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofJustice,Portugaldated27/01/2005submittedthatin
thiscasetheextraditionwasallowedafteracceptingthesolemnsovereign
assurance given by the Union of India and, therefore, the punishment
beyond the period of 25 years cannot be awarded. Ld. Advocate Shri
PasbolatookmethroughtheparaNos.10.1onwardsoftheJudgmentof
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofJustice,Portugaldated27/01/2005.Thisis
thefinalJudgmentwherebytheissueofthesolemnsovereignassurance
givenbythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterofIndiaanditseffects,
binding nature and consequences were considered threadbare in the
476
476
contextofseparationofthepowersofthreebranchesoftheGovernmentof
India. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofJustice,PortugalinitsJudgment
dated27/01/2005hasgivenadeepthoughttothecontentsofthesolemn
sovereignassurance.Inthiscontext,IwouldliketoreproducePara12.2at
Page90fromEnglishtranslationoftheJudgmentoftheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofJustice,Portugaldated27/01/2005.Itreadthus:
Given that the Government of the Indian Union cannot guarantee that
such sentence will not be applied by its (independent) courts, one can only
request it to provide a guarantee that, should such sentence be imposed,
then, in order to restrict it, it will resort to all legal measures available
(pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment or similar
measure).
485]
aftermakingthreadbareanalysisofthesolemnsovereignassurancegiven
bythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterofIndiaShriL.K.Advani.The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofJustice,Portugalacceptedthepositionthatthe
GovernmentofIndiacannotassurethatsuchsentencewillnotbeapplied
byitsCourts.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofJustice,Portugalhasobserved
intheJudgmentthattheassurancehastobegiventhatsuchsentencewill
not be applied or executed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Justice,
Portugal considered this assurance in the matter of execution of the
sentenceandnotinthecontextoftheapplicationofthesentence. The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtof Justice,Portugal,has acceptedthe assurance
afterbeingsatisfiedthattheGovernmentofIndiaisnotwithoutpowerto
477
477
provisionsofsec.3subsection(2)subclause(i)oftheTADA(P)Actare
mandatory.Similarly,theprovisionsofsec.34CoftheIndianExtradition
478
478
479
479
ACCUSEDNO.4MEHENDIHASAN
487]
Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthatthecaseofaccused
Mehendi Hasan falls within the rarest of rare category and, therefore,
accusedMehendiHasanisrequiredtobevisitedwithdeathpenaltyu/sec.
302oftheIPCandsec.3subsection(2)subclause(i)oftheTADA(P)
Act,1987.Ld.SPPsubmittedthataccusedMehendiHasanwasinvolved
intheconspiracysinceinception.Ld.SPPsubmittedthattheroleplayedby
accusedMehendiHasanintakingtheconspiracytoitslogicalendisvery
vital. Ld.SPPpointedoutthataccusedMehendiHasanwasthetrusted
soldier of accused Abu Salem. He unhesitatingly complied with all the
commands of accused Abu Salem. Ld. SPP submitted that accused
Mehendi Hasan delivered the weapons to the assailants. Similarly,
complied with the commands of accused Abu Salem. Ld. SPP further
submitted that accused Mehendi Hasan is of major age. He knew the
consequencesoftheiracts. Ld.SPPsubmittedthatthereisnoguarantee
thathewouldnotrepeatthesimilaroffence,ifheisletoffinthiscrime.
There is no possibility of his reform. Ld. SPP submitted that accused
Mehendi Hasan was not acting under duress and domination. He is a
habitualoffender. InthesubmissionoftheLd.SPPabovestatedarethe
aggravatingcircumstancestoawarddeathsentencequaaccusedMehendi
Hasan.
488]
Asagainstthis,learnedAdvocateShriPasbolafortheaccused
submitted that this case is not rarest of rare cases warranting extreme
480
480
penaltyofdeathquaaccusedMehendiHasan. AccusedMehendiHasan
wasnotprincipalparticipantinthecriminalconspiracy. Hewasinthe
hingesofthecriminalconspiracy,whichwasprimarilytoextortthe'Kol
DongriProperty'andmoneyfromJainbrothers.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola
submittedthatthemurderofPradeepJainwasonlyanalternativeplanin
thecriminalconspiracy.AccusedMehendiHasanwasnottogainanything
directlyorindirectlyfromtheobjectofthecriminalconspiracy.Hehasnot
executedtheultimateobjectofthecriminalconspiracy. Hewasneither
present nor planned the actual murder of Pradeep Jain. Ld. Advocate
furthersubmittedthattheroleofaccusedNo.4MehendiHasanisfarlesser
thantheroleoftheotheraccused.AccusedMehendiHasanhasnoserious
oranyothercasependingagainsthim.Inthepast,hewasneithercharged
nortriedforanyseriouscase.Ld.advocatefurthersubmittedthatheisin
custodyforlasttenyears. Thecrimewascommitted20yearsback. He
wasnotnamedasanaccusedduringfirst10years.Ld.Advocatefurther
submittedthatheisafamilyman.Hehaswife,threesons,twoofthem
areschoolgoing.Hehasagedparentsandheisrequiredtomaintainallof
them, who are depending on him. Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola further
submittedthatthereisnoevidencethatheisbeyondreformationandhe
cannotberehabilitatedinthesociety.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmitted
thatthereisnothingonrecordtoshowthatheissuchamenacetothe
society that his existence alone would not benefit the society. In the
submissionoflearnedAdvocateShriPasbolatheabovestatedmitigating
circumstances clearly indicate that this case does not fall within the
categoryofrarestofrarecasetoawarddeathpenalty.Inthesubmissionof
481
481
learnedAdvocateShriPasbolatheaggravatingcircumstancessoughttobe
relied upon by the learned Prosecutor are so fragile to come to a
conclusionthatthiscaseisrarestofrarecategorywarrantingthedeath
penalty.
489]
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolafurthersubmittedthatintheearlier
482
490]
482
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolainsupportofhissubmission
hasreliedupontherecentdecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia
inthecaseofDeepakRaiv.StateofBiharwithJagatRaiandanotherv.
StateofBiharreportedin(2013)10SupremeCourtCases421.Inthis
case,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasconsideredalmostallthe
earlierdecisionsofthe Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaontheissueof
awardingthedeathsentence,requirementandrecordingSpecialreasons
forawardingthedeathsentenceandthefactthatthecasemustfallwithin
thecategoryofrarestofrarecaseforawardingthedeathpenalty.Atthe
outset it is necessary to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiaonthispoint. Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiahasheldthatthejudicialapproachtowardssentencinghas
tobecautious,circumspectandcareful.Thecourtsatallstagestrialand
appellatemustthereforeperuseandanalysethefactsofthecaseinhand
and reach an independent conclusion which must be appropriately and
cogentlyjustifiedinthereasonsorspecialreasonsrecordedbythem
forimpositionoflifeimprisonmentordeathpenalty.TheHon'bleSupreme
Court of India has held that the reasons must be lucid and satisfy the
appellate court that the court below has considered all the factors and
recordedsentence.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatafter
amendmentoftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973,therehasbeenshift
inpenologicaltrend.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatas
perthepresentpenologicaltrendnoticedthelifeimprisonmentmustbe
the rule and death penalty must be an exception. On the point of
recordingspecialreasons,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
483
483
thatthespecialreasonsmustberecordedbythecourtbeforeawarding
deathpenalty.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasobservedthatitis
extremely difficult to catalogue such special reasons for imposition of
death sentence. They have to be construed from the aggravating and
mitigatingfactors. Suchfactorscannotbeconsideredinisolation. Such
factorsareinflexible,absoluteorimmutableandmustbeperceivedonlyas
indicatorswhichthecourtsmustbearinmindwhileawardingsentence.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatdeathsentencecanbe
awardedonlyinrarestofrarecaseswherethereisnoscopeforimposition
ofalessharshsentence.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthat
while applying the testofrarestofthe rarecase andconsideringthe
relevant factors, court must bear in mind; i) the motivation of the
perpetrator, the vulnerability of the victim, enormity of the crime, the
execution thereof and ii) societies abhorrence, extreme indignation and
antipathytocertaintypesofcrimeswhichshakethecollectiveconscience
ofthesociety. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatsuch
circumstancescannotbelaiddownasastraitjacketformulabutmustbe
ascertained from case to case. The legislature has left it open for the
courtstoexaminethefactsofthecaseandappropriatelydecideuponthe
sentenceproportionatetothegravityoftheoffence.
491]
considertheapplicabilityofthelawlaiddownbythe Hon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndia,itisnecessarytoadverttothesomeoftheprovedfactsin
thiscase.AccusedNo.1AbuSalemisthebrainbehindthecrime.Accused
484
484
No.4MehendiHasanwashistrustedsoldier. Initially,accusedMehendi
Hasanworkedwithhimashis(Salem)driver.Ithascomeonrecordthat
accusedNo.4MehendiHasanjoinedaccusedAbuSalemtosatisfyhisday
todayfinancialneeds. Hewasintheneedofemploymenttoearnhis
livelihood. There is no evidence on record that he was a part of any
syndicateororganisedgang.After1993BombayBlastsCase,accusedAbu
SalemabscondedandsettledhisbaseinDubai. Oneday,whenaccused
MehendiHasanwasinneedofmoney,hecalledhim(AbuSalem)atDubai
by taking his telephone number from his office. Accused Abu Salem
satisfiedhisfinancialneedsandcalledhimtoDubai.He(MehendiHasan)
startedworkingwithaccusedAbuSaleminDubai.
492]
meetingwheretheconspiracywashatched. Theevidenceintheformof
confessions would reveal that he(Mehendi Hasan) was not the master
mind behind the conspiracy. Similarly, he did not play vital role in
chalkingoutfurthercourseofactionpursuanttotheconspiracy.Hecame
downtoIndiainJanuary,1995.Itisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionthat
aftercomingbacktoIndiainJanuary,1995,hedidanyactconsistentwith
theobjectoftheconspiracy. Onthecontraryhisconfessionwouldshow
thatwhenhecametoknowthatpoliceweresearchinghiminonecrime,
heleftMumbaiforKolhapur.Hedidnotbotherabouttheconspiracyand
thefulfillmentoftheobjectoftheconspiracyoncehelefttoKolhapur,his
nativeplace.Ithascomeonrecordthatwhentherewashotexchangeof
wordandabusesbetweenaccusedAbuSalemandPradeepJain,accused
485
485
AbuSalemfelttheneedofMehendiHasan. AccusedAbuSalemmadea
phonecalltoMehendiHasananddirectedhimtocometoMumbaifrom
Kolhapur. AftercomingtoMumbai,accusedMehendiHasan,asperthe
instructionsofaccusedAbuSalem,collectedtheweaponsfromaperson
nearShalimarHotel,BhendiBazarandhandedoverthesametoSalim
HaddinearRamdevHotelatSion.Hedidnotparticipateintheincidentof
attackonPradeepJain. ItisseenthataccusedAbuSalemmadeuseof
MehendiHasantofulfillhisplantomurderPradeepJain. Inthiscase,
accusedAbuSalemcannotbevisitedwithdeathpenalty.Heisentitledfor
the benefit of the provisions of sec. 34C of the Indian Extradition Act,
1962.Inthiscase,itis,therefore,apparentonthefaceoftherecordthat
master mindbehindthe crime has escapedthe major penaltyofdeath.
TheroleplayedbyaccusedMehendiHasanisnottheroleofamainactor
orplannerofthecommissionofthecrime.Hisrolehasbeenfoundtobe
ofobedientsoldierandthattoobecauseofhisfinancialconstraints. He
wasinneedofemployment.Hejoinedthebadcompany.
493]
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaintheJudgmentcitedsupratheaccused
MehendiHasancannotbevisitedwithdeathpenalty. Ifweconsiderthe
aggravatingandmitigatingcircumspecttogether,thenonecannotfindthat
the aggravating circumstances would overweigh the mitigating
circumstances.Inthiscase,thereisnomaterialtoconcludethataccused
MehendiHasanhasactedinadiabolical,depravedandbrutalmannerin
the commission of the crime at any point of time. The main shooters
486
486
committedthemurder,aspertheinstructionsofaccusedNo.1AbuSalem
andnotaspertheinstructionsofaccusedNo.4MehendiHasan.Mehendi
Hasan wasjust used as a communication link between Abu Salem and
actualassailantsofPradeepJain.AccusedMehendiHasanisafamilyman.
Hehaswife,threesonsandagedparents.Noevidencehasbeenbrought
on record to show that he is beyond reformation and he cannot be
rehabilitatedinthesociety. Similarly,noevidencehasbeenbroughton
recordtoshowthatheissuchamenacetothesocietythathisexistence
alonewouldnotbenefitthesociety.
494]
Thereisonemorecircumstanceasrightlypointed
outbytheld.AdvocateShriPasbolatonegativethesubmissionof
Ld.SPP that this case falls in the category of 'rarest of rare' cases.
WhileconsideringthecaseofSubhashBindandShekharKadamin
the case of State of Maharashtra v.BharatRaghani andothers
reportedin2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri)377),theHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiahasfoundthatthecasewasnotoftherarestofratecategory
toawarddeathpenalty. Inmyopinion,inthiscase,therearenogreat
dissimilarities between the acts committed by accused No. 4 Mehendi
HasanandtheactscommittedbyaccusedShekharKadamandaccused
SubhashBind. Onthecontrary,itappearsthataccused ShekharKadam
and Subhash Bind with others shot Pradeep Jain for the reward. The
reward was paid to them for execution of the murder. In this case, it
appearsthataccusedMehendiHasanwasnotthebeneficiary. Therefore,
487
487
inmyopinion,inthiscaseaccusedMehendiHasandeservesparitywith
accused Shekhar Kadam and accused Subhash Bind. This is not the
gravestcaseofextremeculpabilitytoawardextremepenaltyofdeath.The
aggravating circumstances placed on record by Ld.SPP could not be
accepted as special circumstances constituting the special reasons for
awardingthedeathpenalty. AsheldbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India, life imprisonment is a rule and death penalty is an exception.
Unlessanduntilthereareexceptionalcircumstancesprovedandbrought
onrecord,lifeimprisonmentmustbepreferredtodeathpenalty.Whether
a particular case falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases is a
questionoffact. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaintheJudgment
citedsuprahasheldthattherecannotbeanystraitjacketformulainthis
regard.So,whetheraparticularcasefallswithinthecategoryofrarestof
rarecasesisaquestionoffact. Whiledecidingthesame,courthasto
considerthecrimeaswellasthecriminal. Thecourthastobalancethe
aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances. Inthiscase,afterconsidering
thematerialplacedonrecord,Idonotseethatthiscasefallswithinthe
categoryof'rarestofrare'casestoawarddeathpenalty.Thepropositionof
law, therefore, squarely applies to the submissions advanced by ld.
Advocate Shri Pasbola. I am not inclined to accept the submissions of
Ld.SPPShriNikamonthebasisoftheaggravatingcircumstancespointed
outbyhimtoawarddeathpenaltyinthiscase.
ACCUSEDNO.5V.K.JHAMB
495]
Ld.SPPShriNikamsubmittedthatthoughaccusedV.K.
488
subsequentactsdonebyhimcouldnotbesaidtobeminoracts.Ld.SPP
submittedthataccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambcouldhavegracefullyavoidedthe
dictatesandcommandsofaccusedAbuSalem. Ld.SPPsubmittedthat
sinceaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhasbeenfoundtohavesharedthecommon
object of the conspiracy to commit the extortion, he deserves the
punishmentuptosevenyearsRigorousImprisonment.Asagainstthis,Ld.
AdvocateShriShivadeforaccusedNo.5submittedthatcaseoftheaccused
No.5cannotbeconsideredonparwithcaseofaccusedAbuSalemand
accusedMehendiHasan. Ld.AdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthatthe
offenceprovedagainstthisaccusedisminoroffence.Hewasnotcharged
forcommissionofanyoftheoffencesundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)
Act. Ld.AdvocateShriShivadefurthersubmittedthattheaccusedis86
yearsold.Hehasnocriminalantecedents.Ld.Advocatesubmittedthathe
isnotabletowalkandheischairbound. Hehasundergonetwoopen
heart surgeries. He is suffering from almost all old age ailments. Ld.
AdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthatconsideringthephysicalconditionof
the accused even ten days stay of this accused in jail would literally
amounttoimprisonmentforlifeordeath.Thenatureoftheailment,the
medicationprovidedtotheaccusedandmedicalattendancerequiredon
daytodaybasishasbeenspecificallymentionedinanapplicationmadeat
Exhibit571toreleasesthisaccusedaccusedonprobation.Ld.Advocate
ShriShivadesubmittedthatthisaccusedwasincustodyfrom22/12/2005
to 25/09/2006. In the submission of ld. Advocate Shri Shivade on
humanitarian ground the accused may be ordered to undergo the
imprisonmentequivalenttotheperiodforwhichhewasinthecustodyi.e.
489
489
forninemonthsandtopayappropriatefineamount,whichmaybeon
higher side. Ld. Advocate Shri Shivade submitted that in this case
consideringalltheabovestatedfacts,asympatheticviewisrequiredtobe
taken.Thesecondplankofhissubmissionisthatconsideringalltheabove
statedfactsthisaccusedmaybereleasedonprobation.
496]
FirstsubmissionmadebyLd.AdvocateShriShivadeneedsto
beconsidered.TheaccusedNo.5hasnotdoneanyovertact.Hesimply
sharedtheobjectoftheconspiracytoextortmoneyfromJainbrothers.He
wasassignedthetakstocompletesaletransactionofthreeflats,which
were given by the Jain brothers to accused Abu Salem in lieu of the
extortionmoney.AccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambhasnotbeenbenefitedinthis
transaction. He has no criminal antecedents. He is on bail. His age,
physicalconditionandnatureofailment,ascanbeseenfromtherecord,is
undisputed. The accused No.5 is not a hardcore criminal. The only
490
490
wrongcommittedbyhimistosuccumbtothecommandsofaccusedNo.1
AbuSalemandgothimselfinvolvedinthetransaction.Hewasinjailfor
ninemonths. Sinceheisnotahardcorecriminal,whileawardingthe
punishmenthiscaseneedstobeconsideredonseparatepedestalandby
applyingseparateconsiderations. Hiscasecannotbeconsideredonpar
withaccusedNo.1AbuSalemandaccusedNo.4MehendiHasan.They
werepartytotheconspiracysinceinception. BeforemurderofPradeep
Jain,accusedNo.4MehendiHasanhadplayedimportantrole. Accused
No. 5 V. K. Jhamb came on the scene after murder of Pradeep Jain.
Therefore, in myview, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambtojail.IfullyagreewiththesubmissionofLd.
AdvocateShriShivadethatifheissenttojailevenforoneday,itwould
amounttodeathsentenceforthisaccused.
498]
Thepunishmentprovidedfortheoffencesu/sec.386of
theIPCisRigorousImprisonmentuptotenyears.Adiscretionhasbeen
vestedwiththecourttoapplyappropriatepunishmentwithinthisrange.
Whileawardingthepunishmenttherecannotbeanystraitjacketformula.
Eachandeverycasehastobeconsideredwhileawardingthepunishment
bytakingintoconsideringthefactsandcircumstancesobtainedonrecord.
Similarly,thenatureofthecrimeandinvolvementoftheaccusedinthe
commissionofthecrimeisoneofthefactorsforconsideration. Inthis
case, therefore, while awarding the punishment to accused No.5 V. K.
Jhamb,arealisticapproachneedstobeadopted.ThecaseofaccusedNo.5
isagenuinecasetotakeasympatheticview.Inmyopinion,therefore,he
491
491
canbeawardedRigorousImprisonmentequivalenttotheperiodforwhich
hewasinthecustodyi.e.from22/12/2005to25/09/2006. Sincethe
Courthastakenalenientviewinthematterofawardingthesubstantive
sentence,thefineamountinthecaseofaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambwould
beonhigherside.
499]
Beforepartingwiththematter,Iwouldliketoplaceon
record,thewordsofappreciationforthepeople,whohaveextendedtheir
whole hearted cooperation and support to me. This case was a roller
coasterrideandaherculeantaskforme.Ld.SPPShriUjjwalNikam,Ld.
AdvocateShriSudeepPasbola,hisjunior Advocate ShriUpadhyay, Ld.
AdvocateShriShivadeandhisjuniorMs.Santhaniextendedtheirfullest
cooperationtome. Ld.ProsecutorandtheAdvocatesappearingforthe
accusedconductedandpresentedthematterinaveryeruditeandgraceful
manner. This Court, therefore, appreciate their contribution. My
stenographer, Seema Tendulkar, who has worked during holidays to
complete the transcription of the Judgment. My Typist Rajeshwari
Narvekarhasbeenverymeticulousinpreparingthenotesandkeepingthe
recordinordertoavoidanysortofinconveniencetome.Myotherstaff
ShriBaile,ShriGole,ShriNanawareandShriBhideexertedtohelpmein
allpossiblewaystoseethatIamnotputinanysortofinconvenience.
500]
TheInvestigatingOfficerShriShengalandhisteamdeserves
thecreditandwordsofappreciationforconductingtheinvestigationina
meticulous manner in such a difficult case. The officers API Shri
492
492
Ghanshyam Nair and PI Shri Sunil Mane all throughout attended this
matter. TheyhavenotonlyextendedtheirassistancetotheLd.SPPbut
also extended maximum cooperation to me in locating the record and
sometimesmakingtherelevantrecordavailabletome.
501]
Onthebasisofmyabovesaidobservations,Iconclude
thattheprosecutionhasprovedthat AccusedNo.1AbeuSalemAbdul
KayyumAnsariisliabletobeconvictedfortheoffencespunishableu/sec.
120BofIndianPenalCode,sec.302andsec.307r/wsec.120Bofthe
IndianPenalCodeandu/secs.3(2)(i),3(2)(ii),3(3),3(5)oftheTerrorist
AndDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Act,1987r/w.sec.120BofIndian
PenalCode.
502]
AccusedNo.4Mohd.HasanMehendiHasanShaikh is
liabletobeconvictedfortheoffencespunishableu/sec.120BofIndian
PenalCode,secs.302,307,386,449,450,452r/w.sec.120Bofthe
IndianPenalCodeandu/sec.3(2)(i),3(2)(ii),3(3),3(5)andSec.5
oftheTerroristAndDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Act,1987r/w.
sec.120(B)ofIndianPenalCode.
503]
AccusedNo.5VirendrakumarBiharilalJhamb isliable
tobeconvictedfortheoffencepunishableu/secs.386r/wsec.120Bof
IndianPenalCode.
493
504]
493
Withthis,Iproceedtopassfollowingorder.
:ORDER:
1]
AccusedAbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsaristandsconvictedfor
Accused AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsaristandsconvicted
fortheoffencepunishableu/sec.307r/w.sec.120BoftheIndianPenal
CodeandsentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentfor25Yearsandto
payafineofRs.1,00,000/(Rs.OneLakh).Indefaultofpaymentoffine,
hehasfurthertoundergoRigorousImprisonmentforOneYear.
3]
Accused AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsaristandsconvicted
fortheoffencepunishableu/sec.3subsection(2)subclause(i)ofthe
TerroristAndDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Act,1987r/w.sec.120B
oftheIndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonment
forLifeandtopayafineofRs.2,00,000/(Rs.TwoLakhs).Indefaultof
paymentoffine,hehasfurthertoundergoRigorousImprisonmentforTwo
Years.
4]
Accused AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsaristandsconvicted
fortheoffencepunishableu/sec.3subsection(2)subclause(ii)ofthe
494
494
TerroristAndDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Act,1987r/w.sec.120B
oftheIndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonment
for25YearsandtopayafineofRs.1,00,000/(Rs.OneLakh).Indefault
ofpaymentoffine,hehasfurthertoundergoRigorousImprisonmentfor
OneYear.
5]
Accused AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsaristandsconvicted
Accused AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsaristandsconvicted
standsconvictedfortheoffencepunishableu/sec.302r/w.sec.120Bof
theIndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentfor
Life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/(Rs.Two Lakhs). In default of
paymentoffine,hehasfurthertoundergoRigorousImprisonmentforTwo
495
495
Years.
8]
convictedfortheoffencepunishableu/sec.3subsection(2)subclause(i)
oftheTerroristAndDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Act,1987r/w.sec.
120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous
ImprisonmentforLifeandtopayafineofRs.2,00,000/(Rs.TwoLakhs).
In default of payment of fine, he has further to undergo Rigorous
ImprisonmentforTwoYears.
10]
convictedfortheoffencepunishableu/sec.3subsection(2)subclause
(ii)oftheTerroristAndDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Act,1987r/w.
sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous
Imprisonmentfor25YearsandtopayafineofRs.1,00,000/(Rs.One
Lakh).Indefaultofpaymentoffine,hehasfurthertoundergoRigorous
ImprisonmentforOneYear.
496
11]
496
497
14]
497
convicted for the offence punishable u/sec. 386 r/w. Sec. 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for
Three Years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand). In
default of payment of fine, he has further to undergo Rigorous
ImprisonmentforThreeMonths.
15]
convicted for the offence punishable u/sec. 449 r/w. Sec. 120B of the
IndianPenalCodeandsentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentforFive
YearsandtopayafineofRs.10,000/(Rs.TenThousand).Indefaultof
paymentoffine,hehasfurthertoundergoRigorousImprisonmentforSix
Months.
16]
convicted for the offence punishable u/sec. 450 r/w. Sec. 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for
Three Years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. Ten Thousand). In
default of payment of fine, he has further to undergo Rigorous
ImprisonmentforThreeMonths.
17]
convicted for the offence punishable u/sec. 452 r/w. Sec. 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for
Three Years andtopaya fine of Rs.10,000/(Rs.TenThousand). In
498
498
AccusedVirendrakumarBiharilalJhambstandsconvictedfor
the offences punishable u/sec. 386 r/w sec. 120B of the Indian Penal
CodeandsentencedtosufferRigorousImprisonmentfortheperiodfor
whichhewasinthecustodyi.e.from22/12/2005to25/09/2006andto
payafineofRs.5,00,000/(Rs.FiveLakhs).Indefaultofpaymentoffine,
hehasfurthertoundergoRigorousImprisonmentforTwoYears.
19]
Substantivesentencesaredirectedtorunconcurrently.
20]
Setoffbegiventotheaccusedpersonsagainstthesubstantive
sentencesawardedtothemfortheircustodyperiodinthistrialfromthe
dateoftheirarrest.
21]
AccusedNo.4MohammedHasanMehendiHasanShaikhand
Bailbondof accusedNo.5VirendrakumarBiharilalJhamb
standscancelled.
23]
depositedbytheaccusedpersonspursuanttotheabovesaidorder,shallbe
499
499
paidovertothewidowofPradeepJaini.e.Smt.JyotiJain(PW9),after
theAppealperiodprovidedagainstthisorderisover.
24]
th
25 February,2015
(G.A.SANAP)
Judge
(DesignatedCourtforTADA)
BombayCityCivil&SessionsCourt,
GreaterMumbai.
500
500
501
501