TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (10) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment on various other charges. Sentence of death awarded to them by the Designated Court was submitted to this Court for confirmation. The convicts also filed appeals against their conviction and sentence. After hearing elaborate arguments and examining the record, this Court passed the following order: The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court of the offences of Section 3(3), Section 3(4) and Section 5 of the TADA Act are set aside in respect of all those appellants who were found guilty by the trial court under the said counts. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court of the offences under Sections 212 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 12 of the Passport Act and Section 6(1-A) of the Wireless and Telegraphy Act, 1933, in respect of those accused who were found guilty of those offences, are confirmed. If they have already undergone the period of sentence under those counts it is for the jail authoriti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication for review will be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. 2. An application for review shall be by a petition, and shall be filed within thirty days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly the grounds for review. 4. As to the scope of review in criminal proceedings under Rule 1 it has been considered by the Constitution Bench in P.N. Eswara Iyer and Ors. v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India : [1980]2SCR889 . This is how this Court considered its power of review in criminal proceedings: The Rule 1 of Order XL, on its face, affords a wider set of grounds for review for orders in civil proceedings, but limits the ground vis-a-vis criminal proceedings to 'errors apparent on the face of the record'. If at all, the concern of the law to avoid judicial error should be heightened when life or liberty is in peril since civil penalties are often less traumatic. So, it is reasonable to assume that the framers of the rules could not have intended a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and we confirmed the award of death sentence on the review petitioners even so we thought it prudent that we should hear the arguments in review petitions as well. 6. Mr. Natarajan, who appeared for the convict review petitioners, submitted that he was not challenging the finding of guilt of the petitioners and was confining the review petitions only on question of award of death sentence. He said that cases of these four review petitioners were no different from those of A-9 (Robert Payas), A-10 (Jayakumar) and A-16 (Ravi), who were also found guilty under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC along with four review petitioners, but award of sentence of death to them had been altered to imprisonment for life. We may, however, note that in the case of A-1 (Nalini) the confirmation of award of death sentence was by majority and on three other review petitioners it was unanimous. In the case of A-1 (Nalini), one of us Thomas, J. was of the view that A-1 (Nalini) could be saved from the gallows and for that he gave reasons. This view was not shared by two of us (Wadhwa and Quadri, JJ.) 7. Mr. Natarajan again took us to the role of each of the review petitioners and the philoso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffence with intent to strike terror in people or in any section of the people. He said earlier decisions of this Court in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya 1990 CriLJ 1869 ; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Girdhari Parmanand Vadhava v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 11 SCC 179, were not considered in proper perspective by this Court. He made following submissions: 1. The well-settled principle that a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequence of his act. The greater the probability of a consequence, the more likely it is that the consequence was foreseen and, if that consequence was foreseen, the more likely it is that that consequence was also intended. 2. A crucial part of the reasoning in Niranjan Singh's case 1990 CriLJ 1869, as also in Girdhari's case (1996) 11 SCC 179, has not been adverted to at all and has been overlooked. 3. There is clear mis-appreciation of the ratio of this Hon'ble Court's judgment in Hitendra Vishnu 1995 CriLJ 517 . The authority supports the case of the prosecution that the offence committed is a terrorist act with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferent matter if to strike terror some innocent persons were killed. In that case the intention would be to strike terror and the killings would be to achieve that objective. In that case the intention was to liquidate Raju and Keshav and thereby achieve the objective of gaining supremacy in the underworld. The consequence of such violence is bound to cause panic and fear but the intention of committing the crime cannot be said to be strike terror in the people or any section of the people." 12. In Girdhari Parmanand Vadhava v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 11 SCC 179, this Court again referred to the aforesaid observations made by this Court in Niranjan Singh's case. It was thus the submission of Mr. Sorabjee that in the present case where so many innocent persons had been killed the intention could be gathered that the accused had committed the crime with intent to strike terror in the people or any section of people. Mr. Natarajan in his reply submitted that there was no quarrel with the statement of law as propounded by this Court, but he said that mens rea was vital in the criminal trial and this Court on evidence came to the conclusion that the accused did not commit the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... favour of preferring imprisonment for life to death penalty as for any particular accused, I think it would be a proper premise for the Bench to review the order of sentence of death in respect of that accused. Such an approach is consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution as it helps saving a human life from gallows and at the same time putting the guilty accused behind bars for life. In my opinion, it would be a sound proposition to make a precedent that when one of the three judges refrains from awarding death penalty to an accused on stated reasons in preference to the sentence of life imprisonment that fact can be regarded sufficient to treat the case as not falling within the narrowed ambit of "rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed". 20. I may add as an explanatory note that the reasoning is not to be understood as a suggestion that a minority opinion in the judgment can supersede the majority view therein. In the realm of making a choice between life imprisonment and death penalty the above consideration is germane when the scope for awarding death penalty has now shrunk to the narrowest circle and that too only when the altern....