TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the murder of Haren Pandya and the attempt on Jagdish Tiwari formed part of a larger criminal conspiracy attracting liability under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and the Indian Penal Code, (ii) whether the confessional statements recorded under section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 were voluntary and admissible and were sufficiently corroborated, and (iii) whether any ground was made out for further investigation or re-investigation.
Issue (i): whether the murder of Haren Pandya and the attempt on Jagdish Tiwari formed part of a larger criminal conspiracy attracting liability under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and the Indian Penal Code.
Analysis: The evidence of the meetings, movement of accused persons, procurement and exchange of weapons, use of mobile phones and SIM cards, recoveries of arms and motorcycles, and the chain of events before and after the two attacks established a coordinated conspiracy. The ocular account of the eye-witness to the murder was found to be supported by the medical, forensic and ballistic material. The discrepancies highlighted from the post-mortem and scene evidence did not displace the prosecution version, because the medical material did not completely rule out the eye-witness account and the bullet trajectory and injuries were explained by the evidence. The Court held that the High Court had erred in upsetting the trial court's findings on murder and conspiracy for the main accused who were proved to have played active roles in the execution and facilitation of the plan.
Conclusion: The conspiracy and murder charges were proved against the principal accused and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were restored in their cases.
Issue (ii): whether the confessional statements recorded under section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 were voluntary and admissible and were sufficiently corroborated.
Analysis: The safeguards in section 32 were held to have been observed in substance, including warning, reflection time, recording by the competent police officer, production before the Magistrate and subsequent judicial custody. The Court found that the retractions were belated and did not inspire confidence. The confessions were also corroborated by independent evidence such as recoveries, hotel registers, mobile records, test identification proceedings, and other witness testimony. The Court further held that a confession of one accused was not admissible against a co-accused merely by reason of joint trial, but the maker's own confession remained usable against him where the statutory requirements were complied with.
Conclusion: The confessional statements were treated as admissible against the makers, and their voluntary and corroborated character was upheld.
Issue (iii): whether any ground was made out for further investigation or re-investigation.
Analysis: The plea for further investigation was founded largely on newspaper reports, a later statement made in another case, and speculative allegations of political involvement. The earlier challenges seeking further investigation had already been rejected and the matter had attained finality. The materials relied upon did not constitute a sufficient basis for reopening the case, particularly when the criminal appeals had been comprehensively heard on merits and the prosecution evidence was found reliable. The Court also held that the writ petition was not bona fide and could not displace the final adjudication on the criminal appeals.
Conclusion: No case for further investigation or re-investigation was made out, and the writ relief was declined.
Final Conclusion: The Court restored the convictions of the principal accused, maintained the limited orders concerning the remaining accused, rejected the plea for reopening the investigation, and finally disposed of the connected criminal appeals and writ petition accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case of criminal conspiracy proved by a continuous chain of direct, circumstantial, forensic and confessional evidence, an eye-witness account cannot be rejected unless the medical evidence completely rules it out; and a confession recorded under the special statute remains admissible against its maker when the prescribed safeguards are substantially complied with and the confession is independently corroborated.
TaxTMI 
