TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court reverses TADA(P) Act conviction citing lack of evidence.</h1> The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellant in a case involving charges under the TADA(P) Act. The court found that there was no direct ... - Issues Involved:1. Evidence connecting the appellant to the incident2. Conviction under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA(P) Act without being charged3. Charge under Section 3(5) of TADA(P) Act for an offence not in existence at the time of the incident4. Fairness of Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination5. Application of mind by the Designated CourtSummary:1. Evidence connecting the appellant to the incident:The Supreme Court found that there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged incident of killing the victim. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, and several key witnesses either turned hostile or provided testimony that did not implicate the appellant. For instance, P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, did not know who kidnapped and killed his brother, and P.W.2, who was declared hostile, denied any knowledge of the incident.2. Conviction under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA(P) Act without being charged:The appellant was convicted u/s 3(2)(i) of the TADA(P) Act, although he was not charged under that section. The Court noted that a charge under Section 3(2)(i) and a charge under Section 3(5) of the TADA(P) Act are different and one is not encompassed by the other. The Court emphasized that the requisite intention for a terrorist act, as defined in Section 3(1), was missing in this case.3. Charge under Section 3(5) of TADA(P) Act for an offence not in existence at the time of the incident:The appellant was charged under Section 3(5) of the TADA(P) Act, which was inserted in 1993, while the incident occurred in September 1991. The Court held that the appellant could not be charged for an offence that was not in existence at the time of the alleged commission.4. Fairness of Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination:The Court found that the examination of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was unfair. The questions put to the appellant did not reflect the evidence on record, particularly the question about his membership in ULFA, which was not supported by any witness testimony. The Court emphasized that Section 313 examinations are meant to benefit the accused by allowing them to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.5. Application of mind by the Designated Court:The Supreme Court criticized the Designated Court for failing to apply its mind both at the stage of framing charges and at the time of convicting the appellant. The Court reiterated the importance of scrutinizing the material on record and ensuring that the stringent provisions of the TADA(P) Act are applied correctly. The Court cited the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur to highlight the duty of the Designated Court to ensure that the evidence strictly falls within the parameters of the Act before framing charges or convicting an accused.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of conviction, declaring it unsustainable in law. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
