Sunteți pe pagina 1din 501

Judgment in TADA Spl

Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

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.

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

CORAM:HISHONOURJUDGESHRIG.A.SANAP
(DesignatedCourtforTADA)(C.R.No.54)
DATED:25thFebruary,2015.

: :JUDGMENT::

1]

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bharat

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

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]

The accused, who are facing the charges before me,

were absconding,whentheearliertrial i.e.TADASpl.CaseNo.22of


1995 was conducted. With this apt 'Introduction' of the scenario, it is
necessarytoadverttothefactsofthiscase.
6

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

3]

25th February, 2015

AccusedNo.1 AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsari

stands charged for the offences punishable u/sec. 120B of Indian


PenalCode (hereinafterreferredtoas'theI.P.C.), sec.302and
sec.307r/wsec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeandu/secs.3(2)(i),
3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5) of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities
(Prevention)Act,1987 (hereinafterreferredtoas'theTADA(P)
Act)r/w.sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCode.
4]

Accused No.4 Mohd. Hasan Mehendi Hasan

Shaikh standscharged fortheoffencespunishableu/sec.120Bof


theIndianPenalCode,secs.302,307,386,387,449,450,452r/w.
sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and u/secs. 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii),
3(3), 3(5) and Sec. 5 of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities
(Prevention)Act,1987r/w.sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCode.

5]

Accused No.5 Virendrakumar Biharilal Jhamb

standschargedfortheoffencespunishableu/sec.Secs.386and387
r/w120BoftheIndianPenalCode.

::
FACTSINBRIEF::

6]

Intheyear1938,apieceoflandbearingSurveyNo.40,

situatedatKolDongri,SaharRoad,Andheri(East),Mumbai,wasinitially
7

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

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]

One Subhedarsingh Ramdassingh Yadav (tried in TADA Spl.

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

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]

Accused Abu Salem was a wanted accused in 1993

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

10

25th February, 2015

accordingtothesuggestionsofAbuSalemandAneesIbrahimKaskar. It
wasfurtherdecidedthatinMumbai,ShaukataliMistryalongwithaccused
NaeemKhanwouldholdthemeetingswiththeJainbrothersandinform
themthedetailsofthosemeetingsandtheprogressofthemeetingson
phone.Itwasalsodecidedthatifneedarisesthen,MohammedHasanand
SalimHaddialongwiththeirassociateswouldattackoneofthebrothersof
AshokJain.Thefinalitytotheconspiracywasgiveninthismeeting.As
perthe plan,accusedAbuSalemmade aphonecalltoaccusedNaeem
Khanandinformedhimabouttheirplan,the roleassignedtohimand
furthercourseofaction.
10]

In pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy,

accused Shaukatali approached partners of M/s. Kamla Construction


CompanyandinformedthemthataprominentbuilderfromAhmedabad,
who had good contacts in underworld in Dubai, was interested in
purchasingthepropertyinquestioni.e.openplotinSurveyNo.40atKol
Dongri,Andheri(East),Mumbai,andfurthersuggestedthatM/s.Kamla
Construction Company should surrender their legal rights to the said
builder. The partners of M/s. Kamla construction turned down this
proposal.InSeptember,1994andDecember,1994,theaccusedmanaged
toholdseveralmeetingswiththepartnersofM/s.KamlaConstruction
CompanyattheinstanceofaccusedAbuSalemintheofficeofSolicitor
BharatRaghani. TheJainbrotherswerethreatenedandintimidatedin
thosemeetings,whentheyshowedresistancetogiveuptheirrightsover
the property. The partners of M/s. Kamla Construction Company
11

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

11

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

12

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

13

25th February, 2015

DonoftheUnderworldinMumbai.Thisculminatedintotheunfortunate
incidentofmurderofPradeepJain.
12]

Pradeep Jain was murdered on 07/03/1995. On

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

14

25th February, 2015

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]

The facts placed on record reveals that accused Abu

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

15

25th February, 2015

shockandtraumaduetothemurderofPradeepJain.
15]

AccusedAbuSalemwasafterJainbrotherstomeethis

demands. He made phone calls to Ashok Jain and threatened Jain


brothers of dire consequences, if his demands were not complied with.
Ashok Jain told Abu Salem that they were in financial difficulties and,
therefore,theywouldnotbeinapositiontocomplyhisdemands.Accused
AbuSalemhadadifferentplaninhismindand,therefore,tofulfillhis
greed,hesuggestedJainbrotherstosellsomeoftheirpropertyandsatisfy
hisdemands.JainbrothershadabuildingknownasMamtaCooperative
Society at SherEPunjab Colony, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East,
Mumbai.Inthatbuilding,Jainbrothershadsomevacantflats.Inorderto
get rid of Abu Salem, they agreed to hand over three flats in the said
buildingtoAbuSalem. AbuSalemconsentedforthesaiddealandtold
JainbrothersthathismanV.K.Jhamb,accusedNo.5, wouldmeetthem
andtakethekeysoftheflats. JainbrotherswereacquaintedwithV.K.
Jhamb, as he has been residing in their vicinity. It is the case of the
prosecution thatAbuSalemexplainedentiretransaction toaccusedV.K.
JhambandtoldhimthathismanNaeemKhanwouldmeethimtoseethe
flats.AccusedAbuSalemcontactedNaeemKhan(Approver)andtoldhim
aboutthetransactionandgavehimphonenumberofV.K.Jhambandtold
himtomeetV.K.Jhambandgoandseetheflats.Accordingly,NaeemKhan
contactedV.K.Jhamb.HewenttotheresidenceofV.K.Jhamb.V.K.Jhamb
hadalreadycollectedthekeysoftheflatsfromJainbrothers.NaeemKhan
wenttoMamtaCooperativeSociety andsawtheflats. Afterseeingthe
16

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

16

25th February, 2015

flats, he contacted accused Abu Salem and informed him that the flats
wereingoodconditionandcouldfetchgoodprice.
16]

Accused No.5 V. K. Jhamb was assigned the role to

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

17]

17

25th February, 2015

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

absconding. The involvement of accused Riyaz Siddiqui and Mehendi


Hasan was disclosed during the course of interrogation of accused Abu
SalemandaccusedNaeemKhan(Approver).

19]

Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatduringthe

course of interrogation initially six accused persons namely Bharat


Raghani,RajanFernandis,SubhedarsingYadav,ShaukataliMistry,Subhash
@VakilRamkumarBindandShekharKadamwerearrested. Theywere
acquittedbytheDesignatedCourt. Intheappeal,theHon'bleSupreme
Court of India, set aside the order of acquittal qua Subhedarsingh
RamdassinghYadav,Subhash@VakilRamkumarBindandShekharKadam
andconvictedthem.Subhash@VakilRamkumarBindandShekharKadam
have been sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life and
Subhedarsingh Ramdassingh Yadav has been sentenced to undergo
RigorousImprisonmentfortwoyearsandfineofRs.5,000/.

18

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

20]

18

25th February, 2015

Accused Abu Salem was extradited to India from

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

19

25th February, 2015

didnotcomplythetermsandconditionsofthepardonand,therefore,on
thecertificateoftheSpecialProsecutor,thepardongrantedtohimwas
forfeitedandhehadbeenrelegatedtothepositionoftheaccused.Itmay
be noted at this stage that as per the mandate of law, accused Riyaz
Siddiquiisbeingtriedseparately.
22]

My learned predecessor, on the basis of the evidence

compiledinthechargesheet, framedchargeagainsttheaccused. The


chargewasreadoverandexplainedtoaccusedAbuSalem,MehendiHasan
andV.K.Jhambinvernacular.Theaccusedpleadednotguiltyandclaimed
to be tried. The defence of the accused is that they have been falsely
implicatedinthiscasebyplantingfalsewitnesses.
23]

Inordertobringhometheguiltagainsttheaccused,the

prosecution has led voluminous oral and documentary evidence. It is


necessarytotakeBirdseyeviewoftheevidenceledbytheprosecution.
Prosecutionhasexamined25witnessesviz;PW1ShriMohammedNaeem
Khan (Approver)(Exh319), PW3 Shri Vasant Ramnath Sharma
(Exh330), PW4 Shri Sitaram Namdeo Nikalje (Exh332), PW5
Mohammed Shabir Munawaruddin Malik (Exh339), PW6 Rizwan
Mehmood Khan(Exh355), PW7 Shri Arshad Kamal Shaikh (Exh.356),
PW8 ShriMurjiAnadaPatel(Exh.357), PW9 Smt.JyotiPradeepkumar
Jain (Exh.369), PW10 Shri Nawal Yeshpal Bajaj(Exh.375), PW11 Shri
Shivaji Tulshiram Bodkhe (Exh379), PW12 Shri Dattatraya Rajaram
Karale (Exh.384), PW13 Shri Sunil Brijlal Jain (Exh.394), PW14 Shri
20

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

20

25th February, 2015

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]

The important documents relied upon by the

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]

I have heard learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri

UjjwalNikamfortheState. LearnedAdvocate ShriSudeepPasbolafor


accusedNos.1AbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsariandaccusedNo.4Mohd.
21

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

21

25th February, 2015

HasanMehendiHasanShaikhandlearnedAdvocateShriSrikantShivade
for accused No.5 Virendrakumar Biharilal Jhamb. I have perused the
writtennotesofargumentssubmittedbythedefenceAdvocates.
26]

In view of the facts, circumstances and evidence

broughtonrecord,followingpointsfallformydeterminationandIrecord
myfindingsthereonforthereasonstofollow.
:
POINTSFORDETERMINATION:

Sr.No.

POINTS

1.

Whether the prosecution proves that the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

2.

22

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that the


previoussanction,ascontemplatedu/sec.
20A(2)oftheTADA(P)Act,wasaccorded
by the Commissioner of Police, Greater
Mumbai before filing the charge sheet in

IntheAffirmative

thisCourtundertheprovisionsofSections
3(2)(i),3(2)(ii),3(3),3(5)andSection5
oftheTADA(P)Act?

23

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

3.

23

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that


accused Abu Salem Abu Qayyum Ansari,
Mohammed Naeem Abdul Rahim Khan
(approver), Mohammed Hassan Mehendi
HasanShaikhandaccusedSubhashBind
andShekharKadam(bothalreadytriedin
TADA Spl.C.No.22/1995 and convicted.)
alongwith wanted accused Anis Ibrahim
Kaskar, Sunil Shashidharan Nair, Rajesh
Igave (deceased), Uday Pawar (dead),
Sanjay Kadam (dead), Salim Rashid
Shaikh dead and others, between
November 1994 and 7/3/1995 at Dubai IntheAffirmative
agreedtodoanillegalactwithaintention
toderivehugeprofitbyillegalmeansand
forthatpurposeagreedtostriketerrorin
JainbrothersandBuildercommunityand
tocompelJainbrotherstosurrendertheir
rights over 'Kol Dongri Property' and to
payextortionamountofRs1croresand
therebyaccusedAbuSalemAbuQayyum
Ansari and accused Mohammed Hassan
MehendiHasanShaikhhavecommittedan
offence punishable u/sec. 120B of the
IndianPealCode?

24

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

4.

24

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that


pursuant to the criminal conspiracy
hatchedbyaccusedonorabout7.03.1995
atabout8.30p.m.,accusedSalimRashid
Shaikh @ Salim Haddi, Uday Pawar,
Sanjay Kadam and Rajesh Igave (now
dead) and wanted accused Sunil Nair
committedthehousetrespassbyentering
into the office of Kamla Constructions
Company in order to commit and by

IntheAffirmative

using firearms committed murder of


PradeepJainandmadeanattemptonthe
life of Sunil Jain with the intention of
striking terror in the builder community
and to compel Jain Brothers to pay
extortion amount of Rs. 1 crores and
thereby the accused Abu Salem, Mohd
Hasan Mehendi Hasan Shaikh have
committedoffencepunishableU/Sec.120
B of IPC r/w. Sec.3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3),
3(5)ofTADAPAct1987.

25

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

5.

25

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that in


pursuance of the conspiracy on or about
7.03.1995atabout8.30p.m.,attheoffice
of Kamla Construction Company,
accused Salim Rashid Shaikh @ Salim
Haddi,UdayPawar,SanjayKadam,Rajesh
Igave (all four now dead) and wanted
accusedSunilNaircommittedthe house
trespass holding firearms and having IntheAffirmative
madeapreparationforassaultwithintent
to kill Jain brothers and strike terror in
builder community and compel Jain
brotherstopaytheextortionamountand
thereby the accused Mohmed Hasan
Mehendi Hasan Shaikh has thereby
committed an offence punishable U/Sec.
120Br/w.Secs.449,450and452ofthe
I.P.C.

26

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

6.

26

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution further proves


that in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy on or about 7.03.1995 at
about 20.10 hours (8.30 p.m.), accused
Salem Rashid Shaikh @ Salim Haddi,
Uday Pawar, Sanjay Kadam and Rajesh
Igve(allnowdead)andwantedaccused
SunilNairenteredattheofficeof M/s.
Kamla Construction Company and fired IntheAffirmative
fire arm shots at Pradeep Jain with
intention to cause his death or with the
knowledgethatthefirearmshots would
causehisdeathandPradeepJaindieddue
tofireramshortsandtherebytheaccused
Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari and
accused Mohammed Hasan Mehendi
HasanShaikhhavecommittedanoffence
punishable u/sec. 302 r/w sec. 120B of
theIndianPenalCode?

27

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

7.

27

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that in


pursuanceofthecriminalconspiracy,onor
about 7.03.1995 at about 20.30 hours
(8.30 p.m.) at the office of Kamla
Construction Company, accused Salem
Rashid Shaikh @ Salim Haddi, Uday
Pawar,SanjayKadamandRajeshIgave(all
nowdead)andwantedaccusedSunilNair
firedfirearmshotsatSunilJainwithsuch IntheAffirmative
intention and knowledge and under the
circumstances i.e. by that act they had
causedthedeathofSunilJain,theywould
havebeenguiltyofmurderandthatthey
have caused grievous hurt to Sunil Jain
andtherebytheaccusedAbuSalemAbdul
Kayyum Ansari and Mohammed Hasan
MehandiHasanShaikhhavecommittedan
offense punishable U/s. 307 r/w Section
120(B)ofIndianPenalCode.

28

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

28

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that the


accused Mohammed Hasan Mehandi
HasanShaikh,duringtheperiodbetween
2nd day of March, 1995 and 7th day of
March,1995atGreaterMumbaipossessed
arms and ammunitions specified in
Column 2 and 3 of Category I and

IntheAffirmative

CategoryIII(A)oftheArmsRules,1962in
thenotifiedareaofGreaterMumbaiand
thereby he has committed an offense
punishableU/sec.5ofTADA(P)Act,1987.

29

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

9.

29

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that in


pursuance of the criminal conspiracy
accused Mohammed Hasan Mehandi
Hasan Shaikh, V.K. Jhamb convicted
accusedSubhashBindandShekharKadam
alongwithwantedaccusedAneesIbrahim
Kaskar, Sunil Shashidharan Nair, Rajesh
Igave,UdayPawar,SanjayKadam,Salem
Rashid Shaikh (last four now dead),

IntheNegative

committed the criminal intimidation by


threateningtokillJainbrothersinorderto
commit extortion and thereby accused
MohammedHasanMehandiHasanShaikh
andV.K.Jhambhavecommittedanoffense
punishableU/s.120Br/wSection387of
theIndianPenalCode.

30

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

10.

30

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that in


pursuance of the criminal conspiracy
accusedAbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsari,
Mohammed Hasan Mehandi Hasan
Shaikh, convicted accused Subhash Bind
and Shekhar Kadam along with wanted
accused Anees Ibrahim Kaskar, Sunil
Shashidharan Nair, Rajesh Igve, Uday
Pawar, Sanjay Kadam, Salem Rashid IntheAffirmative
Shaikh(lastfournowdead), compelled
Jain brothers to pay and did commit
extortiontothetuneofRs.10lakhsand
threeflatsinMamtaCooperativeSociety,
SherEPunjab Colony, Andheri (East), by
threatening to kill Jain brothers and
thereby accused Mohammed Hasan
MehendiHasanShaikhhascommittedan
offensepunishableU/s.120Br/wSection
386oftheIndianPenalCode.

31

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

11.

31

25th February, 2015

Whether the prosecution proves that in


pursuance of the criminal conspiracy
accusedAbuSalemAbdulKayyumAnsari,
Mohammed Hasan Mehandi Hasan
Shaikh, convicted accused Subhash Bind
and Shekhar Kadam along with wanted
accused Anees Ibrahim Kaskar, Sunil
Shashidharan Nair, Rajesh Igve, Uday
Pawar, Sanjay Kadam, Salem Rashid IntheAffirmative
Shaikh (last four now dead) and V.K.
Jhamb compelled Jain brothers to
surrender three flats in Mamta Co
operative Society, SherEPunjab Colony,
Andheri(East),inlieuofextortionmoney
by threatening to kill Jain brothers and
thereby accused V. K. Jhamb has
committedanoffensepunishableU/s.120
B r/w Section 386 of the Indian Penal
Code.

:REASONS:
27]

Pradeep Jain was murdered on 07/03/1995. The Inquest

PanchanamaisatExhibit363.ThePostmortemReportofPradeepJain
32

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

32

25th February, 2015

isat Exhibit361. The'causeofdeath'mentionedinthePostmortem


Reportis,deathduetofirearminjuries(unnatural). ThePostmortem
Report has been admitted by the defence. Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola
concededthatPradeepJaindiedahomicidaldeath. AssuchIhaveno
hesitation to hold that Pradeep Jain died a homicidal death. Sunil
Jain(PW13) was injured in the incident. One bullet targeted his arm
causingaseriousinjurytohim. Thelearnedadvocateappearingforthe
accusedhasadmittedtheInjuryCertificateofSunilJain.ItisatExhibit
558.TheInjuryCertificatehasbeenreliedupontobringhomethecharge
u/sec.307oftheIndianPenalCode.
28]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

33

25th February, 2015

waswithoutanylegalauthorityand,therefore,thatbyitselfissufficientto
vitiatetheprosecutioninitiatedagainsttheaccused.
29]

As against this, Ld. SPP Shri Ujjwal Nikam submitted

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

34

25th February, 2015

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]

The same issue was raised again in 2009 by same

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

35

25th February, 2015

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

evidenceofPW1. PW1NaeemKhanisanApproverinthiscase. Itis


seen on perusal of the record that learned Advocate Shri Shivade
appearingfortheaccusedNo.5raisedtheobjectiontotheadmissibilityof
theevidenceofPW1atthetimeofrecordingevidenceonthegroundthat
thepardon grantedtothiswitnessiswithoutrecordinghisstatementas
mandated by Sections 306 subsection (4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Ld.
Advocate appearing for the accused No.5 raised the objection for non
36

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

36

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

37

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

38

25th February, 2015

35]

In the case of Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of

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]

This Court is the Designated Court constituted as per

the provisions of Section 9 of the TADA(P) Act, 1987. As per the


provisions of the TADA (P) Act, chargesheet is filed directly in the
Designated Court and the cognizance of the offences is taken by the
DesignatedCourt.Inviewofthisspecialprocedureinthiscasetherewas
noquestionofconductinganyproceedingbeforetheChiefMetropolitan
Magistrate.TherewasnoquestionofcommitmentofacasetothisCourt.
TheapproverhadforwardedhisapplicationthroughjailtotheIOstating
interaliathathewasreadytobecomeapolicewitnessinthiscase,ifheis
39

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

39

25th February, 2015

givenapardon. Saidapplicationisat Exhibit322 dated07/07/2006.It


wasforwardedfromjailtoACPShriShengal,IO,inthiscase. IOShri
Shengal through prosecutor made an application before this Court on
14/07/2006requestingthisCourttosecurepresenceoftheaccusedbefore
this Courtandtoascertain the willingness expressedbythe accusedto
becomeanapproverandtenderapardon,ifheisstillreadytobecomean
approver. The production of the accused was sought by order dated
14/07/2006. My then learned predecessor by a speaking order dated
21/07/2006 recorded all the relevant facts. My Ld. predecessor was
satisfiedthattheaccusedwasreadyandwillingtodiscloseallthetrueand
correct facts within his knowledge with regard to the crime. My Ld.
predecessorwasoftheopinionthatinordertoestablishtheoffenceofthe
criminalconspiracy,whichwashatchedingreatsecrecy,theevidenceof
the approver would be vital and important. It is, therefore, seen on
perusal of the record that the pardon was tendered by this court after
being satisfied that the accused was ready to make a full and true
disclosure of the facts within his exclusive knowledge about the
commissionofthecrimeandwhichwerefoundnecessarytobringhome
thechargeofconspiracy.Byundertakingtheexercise,asmentionedabove,
theprovisionsofSection307oftheCr.P.C.werestrictlycompliedwith.In
thebackdropofthislegalandfactualposition,thereisnosubstanceinthe
objectionraisedonbehalfoftheaccused.Theobjectionthereforehasto
be turned down. The Ld. SPP Shri Nikam has substantiated the
submissions on the basis of factual and legal position discussed herein
above.
40

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

37]

40

25th February, 2015

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]

Ld. SPP Shri Ujjwal Nikam submitted that DCP Shri

RajnishSeth,PW24,grantedtheoralapprovaltoPW25ShriRavindra
41

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

41

25th February, 2015

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

Section 20Asubsection (2)ofthe TADA(P)Act,oncompletion of the


investigation in the crime against the present accused, PW23 the then
CommissionerofPolice,Mumbai,grantedthesanctionfortheprosecution
42

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

42

25th February, 2015

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

TADA(P)ActbyPW23is concerned,Ld.Advocate ShriPasbola for the


accusedsubmittedthatinthesanctionorderat Exhibit462, PW23has
43

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

43

25th February, 2015

statedcertain facts. Inthe submission of Ld.Advocate ShriPasbola the


factsnarratedinthesanctionorderbyPW23arethenewfactsbasedon
thefurtherinvestigation.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatperusal
ofthesanctionorderatExhibit462wouldshowthenonapplicationof
mindbyPW23and,therefore,thesaidSanctionOrderhasbeenvitiated.
42]

FirstIwoulddealwiththecaseoftheprosecutionon

the point of approval accorded, as contemplated by the provisions of


Section 20A subsection (1) of the TADA (P) Act, 1987 by PW24 Shri
RajnishSeth.Thequestionthatneedstobeaddressedandansweredis
whetherthepriorapprovalwasgrantedforrecordingtheFIRagainstthe
accusedundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.Inthiscase,thewritten
approvalwasadmittedlygrantedafterregistrationofthecrimeunderthe
provisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.However,itisthecaseoftheprosecution
that PW24 and PW25 were present in the Cooper Hospital where the
deceasedandinjuredSunilJainwereshiftedandinthehospitalPW24,
DCP Shri Rajnish Seth conducted necessary enquiry and got himself
acquaintedwithbroadfactsandfeaturesoftheoffencecommittedbythe
accused.PW25ShriRavindraGanpatraoShindewasalsopresentinthe
hospital. He apprised DCP Shri Rajnish Seth about the information
collectedbyhim.PW25hasstatedthatonbeingsatisfiedwiththefacts
thenbroughttotheknowledgeofPW24disclosedthecommissionofthe
offenceundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Actand,therefore,PW24
accordedtheoralapprovaltoregistertheoffenceundertheprovisionsof
theTADA(P)Act.
44

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

43]

44

25th February, 2015

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]

In the case of Kalpnath Rai v. State through CBI

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

45]

45

25th February, 2015

Inthecaseof StateofA.P.v.A.Sathyanarayanaand

others reportedin 2002CRI.L.J.265(1),theHon'bleSupremeCourtof


Indiahasheldthatpriorapprovalofstatutoryauthorityreferredtoinsub
section (1) of Section 20A of the TADA (P) Act, 1987 is the condition
precedent.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasfurtherheldthatprior
approval need not be in writing and the same can be oral also. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the reason behind
incarporationofthisprovisionsisthatthereissomeamountofcheckby
thesuperiorauthoritybeforeacaseisregisteredunderTADA(P)Act.
46]

InthecaseofMukhtiarAhmedAnsariv.State(N.C.T.

ofDelhi).reportedin2005CRI.L.J.2569(1),theHon'bleSupremeCourt
ofIndiahasheldthatpriorapprovalcontemplatedu/sec.20A(1)ofthe
TADA(P)Actneednotbeinwriting.
47]

In the case of Ashrafkhan alias Babu Munnekhan

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

46

25th February, 2015

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]

In the case of Rangku Dutta alias Ranjan Kumar

Dutta v. State of Assam reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases


(Cri) 964; (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 358, the Hon'ble Supreme
CourtofIndiahasheldthattheprovisionsofSection20Asubsection(1)
oftheTADA(P)ActaremandatoryandthepriorapprovaloftheDeputy
SuperintendentofPolicehastobetakenevenifitisoralapprovalbefore
anyinformationaboutcommissionofthecrimeundertheTADA(P)Act
47

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

47

25th February, 2015

canberecorded.Thefailuretoobtainpriorapprovalisfataltothecaseof
theprosecutionanditvitiatestheentireproceedingsagainsttheaccused.
50]

In order toappreciate thesubmissions ofLd.SPP Shri

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]

It is, therefore, seen that the competent officer

empoweredu/sec.20A(1)oftheTADA(P)Actisnotsupposedtorecord
hisreasonsforgrantingtheapproval.Thesatisfactionoftheofficeratthe
48

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

48

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case, in addition to oral approval granted by

PW24ShriRajnishSethforrecordingthecrimeundertheprovisionsof
the Act, on the written requisition of PW25 Shri Ravindra Ganpatrao
Shinde,heaccordedthewrittenpostfactoapprovalfortheregistrationof
thecrimebyPW25undertheTADA(P)Act.Thewrittenapprovalwas
49

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

49

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

50

25th February, 2015

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]

PW25 Shri Ravindra Ganpatrao Shinde has deposed

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

51

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

52

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

53

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

54

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

55

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

56

25th February, 2015

competent authority as contemplated u/sec. 20A subsection (2) of the


TADA(P)Acttoaccordthesanctionfortheprosecutionoftheaccusedfor
theoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act.Inhisevidence,hehasdeposedthat
he had received the proposal dated 27/02/2006 for the sanction to
prosecute Abu Salem, Riyaz Ahmed Siddiqui, Mehendi Hasan,
Virendrakuma Jhamb and absconding accused Anees Ibrahim and Sunil
ShashidharNair.Hehasdeposedthathestudiedthepaperssubmittedto
him along with the proposal. He has deposed that he had called the
Investigating Officer for personal interview and discussion about the
matterwithhim.Hehasfurtherdeposedthatbyfollowingthisprocedure,
hewassatisfiedthatprimafaciecaseforprosecutionoftheaccusedunder
theTADA(P)Actwasmadeoutand,therefore,heaccordedthesanction
fortheprosecutionon17/04/2006.SanctionOrderisatExhibit462.In
his evidence he has further clarified that he has cited the date as
10/2/2006inthe5thlinefromthebottomonpageNo.1ofhisorder,
whichinfactoughttohavebeen27/2/2006.Hehasdeposedthatsaid
dateiscorrectlymentionedinthetoplineunderthecaption'Reference'.
HisevidencehasbeenassailedonthegroundthattheSanctionaccorded
byhimismechanicalandonthesayoftheInvestigatingOfficer.Itappears
onperusalofthecrossexaminationthathisevidenceisfurtherassailedon
thegroundthathehasonlysignedthedraftsanctionorderbroughttohim
bytheInvestigatingOfficer.Inhiscrossexaminationhehasadmittedthat
as per his order the investigation was handed over to AntiTerrorism
Squad(in short ATS) in C.R. No. 144 of 1995 registered at D.N. Nagar
PoliceStation.HehasfurtheradmittedthatJointCommissionerofPolice,
57

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

57

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

58

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

59

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

60

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

61

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

62

25th February, 2015

becondemnedonthebasisofthepositiveevidencebroughtonrecord.
64]

In order to appreciate the submission advanced on

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

63

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

64

25th February, 2015

thatAbuSalem toldhim tocontinue meeting withShaukatMistryand


inform him about the developments in Mumbai. PW1 Naeem Khan
(Approver)agreedtoactaccordingly.Thiswitnessfurtherdisclosedthat
the conspiracy hatched in Dubai and the persons present in the
conspiratorialmeetingwasbroughttohis(PW1ApproverNaeemKhan)
knowledgeandnoticebyAbuSalem.AbuSalemalsoinformedPW1the
jobandtheroleassignedtohimtofulfilltheobjectofthesaidconspiracy.
66]

PW1 has further deposed about the events unfolded

afterwards. He has deposed that in December, 1994 Abu Salem again


calledhimfromDubaiandhegavehimphonenumberofAshokJain.Abu
SalematthattimetoldhimtomeetAshokJainashehasalreadytold
AshokJainaboutPW1.AspertheinstructionsofhismasterAbuSalem,
PW1madeaphonecalltoAshokJainandwenttohisresidence.Hemet
AshokJainandSunilJainandfromtheresidencetheywenttoKolDongri,
Andheri(East),Mumbai. Hehasfurtherdeposedthattheobjectofthe
visittoKolDongriwastoseetheplot.PW1sawtheKolDongriplot.He
hasfurtherdeposedthatwhilecomingbacktotheresidence,AshokJain
toldhimthatthoughheistheownerofthesaidpropertyhavingallthe
originaldocumentsoftitleandpossessionoftheplot,stillShaukatMistry,
SubedarSinghYadavandRajanFernandeswerepressurizinghiminthe
nameofAbuSalem. PW1hasfurtherdeposedthatonhisrequest,Jain
brotherstoldhimthattheywouldprovidephotocopiesoftheTitleDeed
within two to three days. He has further deposed that as per the
instructionsofAbuSalem,hemadeaphonecalltohimandprovidedhim
65

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

65

25th February, 2015

thedetailaccountofthevisit.Thisishisevidenceabouthisfirstvisitto
JainbrothersandthepropertyonthesayofaccusedAbuSalem.
67]

It is seen on perusal of his evidence that PW1, after

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

66

25th February, 2015

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]

He has further deposed about the episode of the

meeting,personspresentinthemeetingandtheactualhappeningsatthe
67

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

67

25th February, 2015

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]

PW1 has also deposed that again after two to three

dayshereceivedaphonecallfromAbuSalemandAbuSaleminformed
himthatafterseventoeightdaystherewillbeanothermeetinginthe
68

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

68

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

69

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

70

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

71

25th February, 2015

Jain. NowherePW1hasdeposedaboutthechangeoftheplanbyAbu
Salem. ThisevidenceofPW1ApproverNaeemKhanwouldshowthat
AbuSalemwantedJainbrotherstoeitherpartwiththeirpropertyandget
someamountfromotherpartyoriftheywerenotreadytodoso,then
satisfyhisdemands.ThisevidenceofPW1showsthataccusedAbuSalem
wasalsodirectlydealingwithJainbrotherstoforcethemtosuccumbto
hisdemands.
72]

PW1 has further deposed that in January, 1995 he

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]

PW1 further deposed about happenings in February,

1995.HehasdeposedthatintheendofFebruary,1995,againhereceived
a phone call from Abu Salem and informed him to meet one Mehendi
72

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

72

25th February, 2015

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]

PW1 has further deposed in his evidence about one

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

73

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

74

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

75

25th February, 2015

Colony and visited Mamta Cooperative Society. The person, who


accompaniedhim,showedthreeflatsbearingNos.602,605and606.The
keys of all the three flats were also with said Jhamb Sahab. After
inspecting the three flats, they returned to Juhu. PW1 informed Abu
Salemonphonethatalltheflatsweregoodandcouldfetchgoodprice.
77]

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]

Further part of his (PW1) evidence deals with his

leaving India,staying inDubaiandhave somebusinessthere. Healso


speaksaboutthearrestandinterrogationbyATSOfficers.Healsospeaks
aboutthewillingnessexpressedbyhimtoconfessthecrime. PW1also
deposedaboutthedecisiontakenbyhimtobecomeanApproverandto
giveevidenceintheCourt.
79]

TheorderpassedbythisCourtdated21/07/2006needs

tobementionedatthisstage.TheInvestigatingOfficer,onreceiptofan
applicationfromtheaccused,madeanapplicationbeforethisCourtfor

76

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

76

25th February, 2015

production of the accused before Court to verify the correctness of the


statementmadebythiswitness. Accordingly,productionoftheaccused
wasorderedbythisCourt.Byspeakingorderdated21/07/2006,taking
noteoftheapplicationmadebytheaccused,enquirymadebytheCourt
and the satisfaction arrived at by this Court, this Court accepted the
statement made by PW1 that he was ready to make a true and full
disclosureofthecrime.Afterbeingsatisfied,thisCourttenderedpardon
totheaccused.Theaccusedacceptedthepardononaconditionthathe
wouldmakeatrueandfulldisclosureofthecrimeknowntohim.

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

77

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

82]

78

25th February, 2015

Itistritelawthatcrossexaminationisadoubleedge

weapon. The crossexaminer, therefore, must be very carefully while


conductingthecrossexamination.Iftheweaponofthecrossexamination
is not properly handled by crossexaminer, then the same can inflict a
serious injury to the crossexaminer and ultimately to the case of the
accused.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethatifthewitnessgivescertain
admissionsduringthecourseofcrossexaminationandthoseadmissions
arefoundtohaveabearingwiththefactsoftheprosecution,thenthose
admissionscannotbeignored.Inthiscase,therearevitaladmissionsgiven
bytheApproverandIwillanalyzethoseadmissionsonebyone.

83]

The main attack in the crossexamination is to

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

79

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

84]

80

25th February, 2015

IhavegonethroughtheevidenceofPW1NaeemKhan

(Approver) and perused the omissions and the improvements. Even if


thoseomissionsandimprovementsaretakenintoaccount,theevidenceof
the Approver would not change the tenor of his unimproved statement
withregardtohisinvolvementinthecommissionofthecrimeandalsothe
roleplayedbyhiminthecommissionofthecrime.Therefore,onaccount
oftheomissionsandimprovementsbroughtonrecordinthestatementof
theApprover,hisevidencepersecannotbetermedasunreliable. Itis
furtherpertinenttonotethatthiswitnesswasarrestedafter101/2years
ofthecommissionofthecrime. Hisnamewassurfacedwhenthecrime
wasregisteredin1995. Intheearlierchargesheethewasshownasa
wantedaccused. Hisdelayedappearanceonthesceneisalsooneofthe
contentiousissuesraisedbythedefenceandthesamewouldbediscussed
separately.
85]

Inhisevidencehehasadmittedthatforthefirsttimein

November,1994he was contactedbyAbu Salem andhe was informed


abouttheconspiracyandtheroleassignedtohimintheconspiracy. On
thebasisofthematerialbroughtonrecord,itissubmittedbydefencethat
thisevidenceofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver)iscontrarytotheearlier
caseoftheconspiracyoftheprosecutionandeventhepresentcaseofthe
conspiracyoftheprosecution. Ithasbeendemonstratedbeforemethat
PW1NaeemKhan(Approver)hasspokenabouttheconspiracyandthe
eventsoccurredafterNovember,1994.Butaccordingtothedefence,itis
thepositivecaseoftheprosecutionandtheevidenceoftheotherwitnesses
81

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

81

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

82

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

83

25th February, 2015

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]

In his evidence, PW1 has deposed about his

acquaintancewithaccusedAbuSalem. Inhisevidencehehasdisclosed
abouttheactivitiesandthedaredevilnatureofAbuSalem.Hemustbe
awareofthefactthatAbuSalemwouldgotoanyextentandeliminate
anybody. PW1followedthedictatesofAbuSalemwithoutbotheringto
84

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

84

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

85

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

88]

86

25th February, 2015

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]

His (PW1)evidence has been severely criticized by

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

87

25th February, 2015

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

his contacts with the F.E.R.A., Customs and DRIAuthorities. PW1has


statedthathewasintheircontacttill1996.Hehasfurtheradmittedthat
before leaving India, he did not consult any of the officer from FERA,
88

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

88

25th February, 2015

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]

The question was raised why Approver Naeem Khan

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

89

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

90

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

91

25th February, 2015

brothersdirectly. HewasfollowingtheinstructionsofAbuSalem. Itis


clearfromhisevidence. IthascomeonrecordinhisevidencethatAbu
Salem was in contact with Jain brothers and was dealing with them
directly. The deals settled between Abu Salem and Jain brothers were
informedtohimandhewasdirectedtodotheneedfulinthemattereither
forarrangingmeetingsorcollectingmoneyfromJainbrothers.PW1has
deposedinhisevidencethatAbuSaleminformedhimthatthematterwith
JainbrotherswassettledforRs.onecroreandtheyhadagreedtopayRs.
tenlakhspermonth. Therefore,ifthisstatementofPW1NaeemKhan
(Approver)isreadinjuxtapositionwiththeultimatesettlementwithJain
brothers,thenitappearsmostnatural. Intheordinarycourseofnature,
there ought to have been some discussion on the settlement of some
ransomamount. Onperusalofhis(PW1)crossexamination,itappears
that there was some talk between him and Abu Salem on the point of
settlement. HehasadmittedthathedidnotknowwhyAbuSalemhad
settledthematteronlyforRs.onecrore. PW1hasadmittedatPage66
Para94thatAshokJaintoldhimthathewillgiveRs.tenlakhspermonth.
HehasadmittedthatafterthefirstinstallmentofRs.tenlakhs,AshokJain
did not pay next installment. In my view, during searching cross
examinationonalltheabovestatedpoints,PW1hasgivenmostrational
andprobableanswers. Hedidnotbaffle. Onthecontrary,theanswers
givenbyhimwouldmakeitclearthathewasinknowofallthethings
connectedwiththeconspiracy,itsobjectandtheroleassignedtohimand
theothersintheconspiracy.

92

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

93]

92

25th February, 2015

Learned Advocate pointed out to me the Portion

marked 'B' from the statement of the witness PW1 recorded on


17/12/2005andsubmittedthatthiswitnesshasgivenacompletegobyto
his case of conspiracy in November, 1994. It is admitted fact that his
statement was recorded by the Police Officer on 17/12/2005. In his
statementhehadstatedthatinNovember,1993,aphonecallwasmadeto
himbyAbuSalemandhehadinformedhimabouttheconspiracyandthe
objectoftheconspiracy.Inhiscrossexamination,thewitnesshasstated
thattheconspiracywasnothatchedin1993.Inhisfurtherstatement,the
witness has stated before Court that the episode of conspiracy and the
phonecallmadetohimbyaccusedAbuSalemtookplaceinNovember,
1994andnotinNovember,1993. Theobjectofconfrontingthewitness
withsomeimprovedstatementorcontradictionistoofferanopportunity
tothewitnesstoexplainthecorrectposition,ifheisabletodoso. The
secondobjectistoprovethestatementandmakeuseofthesaidstatement
asevidencebeforeCourt. Ihaveminutelyperusedtheevidenceofthis
witness and the Portion marked 'B', which is marked as Exhibit437.
Excepttheyearoftheconspiracy,allotherthingsstatedbythewitnessin
his statement as well as before Court are consistent. The explanation
offered by this witness appears probable. It is not the case of the
prosecutionthatanyconspiracywashatchedin1993. Similarly,itisnot
thedefenceoftheaccusedthattherewasaconspiracybutitwasin1993.
Therefore,thiscontradictionwithregardtothe'Year'oftheConspiracyhas
been properly explained. The statement of the witness about the
93

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

93

25th February, 2015

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]

In order to demonstrate that this PW1 is a planted

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

94

25th February, 2015

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]

On the basis of this Passport, a submission has been

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

95

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

96

25th February, 2015

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]

On perusal of his evidence in entirety it would show

thatthefactsnarratedbyhimdiscloseintrinsicaccountoftheconspiracy.
Thiswitnesshasdisclosedcertainrelevantfactsinhiscrossexamination
forthefirsttimeandthosefactslendassurancetothestatementsmadeby
97

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

97

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case,on considering the evidence of PW1 in

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

98

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case, PW1 not only withstood in the cross

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

101]

99

25th February, 2015

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]

This witness (PW1 Approver Naeem Khan) had no

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

100

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

101

25th February, 2015

established that PW1 is particeps criminis and being a particeps


criminis he is the most natural witness. On minute scrutiny of his
evidence,Ihavenotcomeacrossanymaterialtodoubthisinvolvementin
thecommissionofthecrimeandhiscredibility.PW1cannotbesaidtobe
aunreliablewitnessmerelybecauseofhiscriminalbackgroundandhis
owninvolvementinthiscrime.
105]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

102

25th February, 2015

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]

It may be mentioned that PW13 Sunil Jain has

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

103

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

104

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

108]

105

25th February, 2015

At this stage, it is necessary to mention that after

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]

PW1 in his evidence provided vivid details of the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

106

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

107

25th February, 2015

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]

After considering the evidence of the Approver

independently,itisnecessarytoconsiderthelawlaiddownbythevarious
decisionsonthesubjectoftheevidenceoftheApprover.Inthecaseof
Saravanabhuvanvs.StateofMadras,AIR1996SCC(Cri.)1273,(cited
108

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

108

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

114]

109

25th February, 2015

InthecaseofShankaraliasGauriShankarandothers

vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)


1252,theHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthattheapprover/accomplicea
guilty associate in crime is a competent witness. Section 133 of the
Evidence Act lays down that the conviction based on uncorroborated
testimonyofanaccompliceisnotillegalbuttheruleofguidanceindicated
in Illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act has provided the
settledpracticetorequirecorroborationofevidenceofanaccompliceand
whichhasnowvirtuallyassumedtheforceofaruleoflaw.TheHon'ble
Supreme Court of India has further held that ordinarily the approver's
statementhastobecorroboratedinmaterialparticularsbridgingclosely
thedistancebetweenthecrimeandthecriminalandlendingtheneedand
assuranceforacceptanceofhistestimony.Thecorroborationneednotbe
of a kind which proves the offence against an accused. It would be
sufficientifitconnectstheaccusedwiththecrime. Whatisrequiredis
that there should be sufficient corroborative evidence to show that the
approverisspeakingthetruthwithregardtotheaccusedwhomheseeks
toimplicate.Suchcorroborationshouldbeonmaterialparticularsandqua
eachaccused. Butitisnotnecessarythatthereshouldbeindependent
corroboration of the material circumstance and it need not consist of
evidencewhichstandingalonewouldbesufficienttojustifytheconviction.
Thereshouldbeadditionalevidencebywayofcorroborationrenderingthe
storyofanaccompliceprobablytrueandthatitisreasonablysafetoact
uponsuchevidence. Theindependentcorroborationneednotalsocover
the whole of the prosecution story or even whole of the material
110

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

110

25th February, 2015

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

Rajasthan reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 599, the Hon'ble


SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatonthepointofconvictionbasedon

111

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

111

25th February, 2015

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]

In the case of Rampal Pithwarahidas vs. State of

Maharashtra 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 851, the Hon'ble


Supreme Courtof India has held thatthe courts have generally looked
uponwithsuspicionthestatementofanapproverbecauseheisconsidered
tobeapersonoflowmoralandnotawhollytrustworthypersonwhofor
thesakeofearningpardonforhimselfiswillingtoletdownhiserstwhile
accomplicesandthereforebeforerecordingconvictioncourtsinsistupon
independent corroboration of his testimony. After satisfying the test of
particeps criminis and reliability of the evidence of the approver, the
secondimportanttestrequiredisthattheevidenceoftheapprovermustbe
corroboratedbyindependentevidence.

112

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

118]

112

25th February, 2015

In the case of Balwant Kaur vs. Union Territory of

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]

In the case of Bhiva Doulu Patil vs. State of

Maharashtra reportedin AIR1963SupremeCourtCases599(V50C


93), theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatthereshouldbe
corroborationinmaterialparticularsandsuchcorroborationmustbequa
eachaccused.
120]

InthecaseofRameshwarS/oKalyanSinghv.TheStateof

Rajasthan reportedin A.I.R.(39)1952SupremeCourt54, theHon'ble


113

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

113

25th February, 2015

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]

Inthecaseof MrinalDasv.StateofTriputa reported

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

114

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

124]

115

25th February, 2015

CONFESSIONSANDOTHEREVIDENCE
Inthiscasetheprosecutionhassoughttorelyonthe

ConfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasantoprove
thechargesagainstthemandalsoforthepurposeofcorroborationtothe
evidenceofPW1ApproverNaeemKhan. Beforegoingtoconsiderthe
evidence of other witnesses, I propose to deal with the Confessions of
accusedMehendiHasanandaccusedAbuSalemandalsotheevidenceof
theconcernedDeputyCommissionersofPolice,whohaverecordedtheir
confessionsandtheevidenceoftheInvestigatingOfficer.
125]

Ld. Spl.P.P. Mr. Ujjwal Nikam submitted that the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

116

25th February, 2015

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]

Learned Advocate Mr. Pasbola submitted that the

evidence brought on record in this case would show that the socalled
Confessionsoftheaccusedwereobtainedbyilltreatment,torture,threat
117

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

117

25th February, 2015

and coercion. As far as accused Mehendi Hasan is concerned, Ld.


AdvocateMr.Pasbolasubmittedthattherearetwoversionsmadebythe
Police Officers about the date of his arrest. In the submission of
Ld.AdvocateMr.PasbolatherecordindicatesthataccusedMehendiHasan
wastakenincustodyfourtofivedaysbeforetheactualdateofhisarrest
shownintherecordofPolice.Ld.Advocate Mr.Pasbolasubmittedthat
accused Mehendi Hasan was not at all ready and willing to make a
confession.Onthebasisoftherecord,Ld.AdvocateMr.Pasbolapointed
out that when accused Mehendi Hasan was produced before DCP Mr.
RajeshKumarMor,hedeclinedtomakeaconfessionand,therefore,he
was kept for two days in lockup of Mahim Police Station. In order to
substantiate this submission, reliance has been placed on documentary
evidence. Ld. Advocate Mr. Pasbola submitted that when this accused
Mehendi Hasan declined to make a confession before DCP Mr. Rajesh
KumarMor,hewasbroughtbackfromthelockupofMahimPoliceStation
andhewasbeatenblackandblue. Ld.AdvocateMr.Pasbolasubmitted
thatafterhisrefusaltomakeaconfessionbeforeDCPShriRajeshKumar
More,hewasbeatenmercilesslyandhewasforcedtosigntheconfession,
whichwaspreparedbytheOfficersonthebasisofthematerialcollected
by them during the course of investigation. Ld. Advocate Mr. Pasbola
submittedthatafterremandofaccusedMehendiHasantojudicialcustody,
hewenttojailandgotsettled.HethenwrotealettertothisCourtplacing
onrecordallthefactstranspiredduringthecourseofhisPoliceCustody.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Pasbola submitted that this statement made by the
accusedintheapplicationforwardedtotheCourthasbeensupportedby
118

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

118

25th February, 2015

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]

Accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan,

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

119

25th February, 2015

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

Officers on the point of date of the arrest of accused Mehendi Hasan,


learned Advocate for the accused submitted that the defence of the
accusedthathewastakenincustodyon08/12/2005appearsprobable.
Thedateofthearrestoftheaccusedassumesimportanceinthebackdrop
ofthedefenceoftheaccused.Anymanipulationinthedateofthearrest
of the accused, if found on record, would certainly reflect upon the
voluntarynatureoftheconfessionandmayleadtoacceptthedefenceof
theaccused.TheevidenceofPW19AssistantCommissionerofPoliceShri
Datta Sambhaji Dhavale, PW20 Assistant Police Inspector Shri Dinesh
Parshuram Kadam and PW21 Inspector of Police Shri Sunil Laxmanrao
Deshmukhisrelevantonthisaspect.Itisseenonperusaloftheevidence
120

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

120

25th February, 2015

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]

In his evidence PW21 PI Shri Sunil Deshmukh has

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

121

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

122

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

123

25th February, 2015

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]

At this stage it is necessary to mention that in his

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

124

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

125

25th February, 2015

denied the existence of these documents. However, the tenor of his


answers suggestthatthese documents werenotpreparedin connection
withthe process of recording of confession of accused MehendiHasan.
Learned Advocate Shri Pasbola drew my attention towards the letters
dated26/12/2005and30/12/2005andalsotheletterdated30/12/2005
andsubmittedthatintheselettersDCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMorhas
candidlyadmittedthataccusedMehendiHasanwasproducedbeforehim
for recording his confessional statement as per the order of Joint
CommissionofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshi.Itisseenonperusalofthe
lettersdated26/12/2005,30/12/2005and30/12/2005writtenbyDCP,
ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMorthataccusedMehendiHasanwasproduced
before him for recording his confession. The letter of DCP ZoneV Shri
RajeshKumarMordated26/12/2005andtwolettersdated30/12/2005
cannotbereadinisolationwiththematerialevidenceplacedonrecordby
theprosecution. Onthebasisofthesaidevidence,thedefence ofthe
accusedthathewasproducedbeforeDCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMor
forrecordinghisconfessioncannotbeaccepted.

134]

Attheoutsetitisnecessarytoseethecontentsofthe

letter of Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi dated


26/12/2005 at Exhibit449. This letter was addressed to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, ZoneV Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor by the Joint
CommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshi.InPara2ofthisletter,it
was specifically mentioned that the accused persons have been kept
separatelyanditwasdecidedthattheyshouldbeinterrogatedbySenior
126

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

126

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

135]

127

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

128

25th February, 2015

Rajesh Kumar Mor is itself based on wrong assumption or adding


something in the letter of the Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P.
Raghuwanshi,whichwasnotthere.
136]

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]

At this stage, I may refer to the documents at

Exhibit446, Exhibit447 and Exhibit448 to find out the procedure


129

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

129

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

130

25th February, 2015

The instructions given by the Senior Officer to a Junior Officer to


interrogateaccusedduringthecourseofinvestigationandnominationof
anycompetentofficertorecordaconfessionaretwodifferentthings. It
appears that DCP, ZoneV Shri Rajesh Kumar Mor misconstrued the
instructionsoftheJointCommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshi.It
is further apparent on the face of the record that there is no further
correspondencemadebytheDCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMoreabout
theprogressofhisinterrogation.Ifhehadconductedanyproceedingfor
recordingconfessionoftheaccused,hewassupposedtomaintainarecord
andforwardthesametotheJointCommissionerofPolice,A.T.S.ShriK.P.
Raghuwanshi.Iftherehadbeenanycorrespondenceorlettertoshowthat
DCP,ZoneVShriRajeshKumarMorinformedtheJointCommissionerof
PoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshithattheaccusedduringthecourseofhis
interrogation declined to confess the crime, then, the defence of the
accused ought to have been accepted without diluting further on any
aspectofthematter.
138]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

131

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

132

25th February, 2015

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]

There is one more circumstance to disbelieve this

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

133

25th February, 2015

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]

The question whetherthe confession is voluntaryand

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

134

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

135

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

136

25th February, 2015

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]

The evidence of PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe has been

assailedonthebasisofthevariousadmissionsgivenbyPW11DCPShri
Bodkhe in his crossexamination. It is submitted that this witness has
admittedincleartermsthatthemandatoryprovisionsofSection15sub
section(2)oftheTADA(P)Actwerenotcompliedwith.Itissubmitted
137

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

137

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

138

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

139

25th February, 2015

periodtoreflectoverhisdecisiontill09/01/2006.Theaccusedunderstood
it.
148]

After these questions and answers, the DCP Shri

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

140

25th February, 2015

is submitted that instead of words Jabardasti Nahi Hai (Not under


compulsion),theOfficeroughttohaveusedthewordBandhankarakNahi
Hai(Youarenotbound).ThereplyofthelearnedProsecutoristhatthe
meaningofwordsJabardastii.e.CompulsionandBandhankaraki.e.
Boundisthesame. Nodifferentmeaningcanbeattributedorderived
from both these words. Learned Prosecutor submitted that what is
important is that the accused should be made known of this statutory
warninginthelanguageunderstoodbyhim.LearnedSPPsubmittedthat
theanswergivenbytheaccusedwastheconfirmationofthefactthathe
understood that he was not under compulsion to make a statement.
Ld.SPP submitted that the two parts of the question cannot be read
separately.Itissubmittedthatifboththepartsarereadtogether,thennet
resultwouldbethatitisastrictcomplianceoftheprovisionsofSection15
subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act,1987.
149]

Atthisstage,itisnecessarytoseewhatisthemeaning

of word Jabardasti (compulsion) according to the DCP Shri Bodkhe,


PW11. IthascomeonrecordinhisevidenceatPage212ParaNo.31
that,accordingtohim,thewordJabardasti(compulsion)means,threat,
coercion and pressure.

As per this meaning of word

Jabardasti (compulsion), according to the witness PW11 DCP Shri


Bodkhe,he has conveyedtothe accusedthathewas notunder threat,
coercionorpressuretomakeastatement.Inthebackdropofthismeaning
of word Jabardasti(compulsion) understoodand stated by PW11DCP
ShriBodkhe,itisnownecessarytofindoutwhatisthedifferencebetween
141

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

141

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

142

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

143

25th February, 2015

thatthispreliminaryenquirymadebytheOfficertoascertainthefreewill
ordesireoftheaccusedtoconfessthecrimewithoutanypressure,threat,
coercionorallurementwasinconformitywithlaw.
152]

Answertoaboveissuetakesmetosecondparaof

the confession which was recordedon 09/01/2006. In his preliminary


remarks, theOfficerhasobservedthattheaccusedwasproducedbefore
him on 09/01/2006 at 17.30 hours in his office for recording his
confessional statement as per the provisions of the TADA(P) Act. The
second part of the proceeding on 09/01/2006, before starting actual
recordingofconfession,seemstobearecordmadebytheOfficeronthe
basisofhispreliminaryenquirymadewiththeaccused.Heensuredthat
nobody was within the hearing distance when he was conducting the
proceeding.Thepart3referstotheinformationgivenbytheOfficertothe
accusedthathewasnolongerinthepolicecustodyandthenproceededto
askhimthequestionsinHindilanguageandrecordedthesameinHindi
language.Onthesamedaytheaccusedexpressedhiswillingnesstomake
astatement.TheOfficerinformedhimthatsufficientcoolingofftimewas
giventohimandstillhewasnotundercompulsiontomakeastatement.
Theaccusedconfirmedthatthereflectiontimetothinkoverhisdecisionto
makeaconfessionwassufficient. TheOfficerinformedhimthathewas
notrecordinghisconfessionbyforceorcompulsion. TheOfficerfurther
enquired with the accused whether anybody lured him during the
reflectionperiod.Theaccusedansweredthathewasmakinghisstatement
voluntarily.Nobodyhasluredhim.AgaintheOfficerwarnedtheaccused
144

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

144

25th February, 2015

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]

It is seen that the enquiry made by the Officer on

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

145

25th February, 2015

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]

A searching crossexamination of PW11 DCP Shri

Bodkhe was conductedwithintenttodemonstrate thatthe paper work


donebyhimwassimplyarecordcreatedasperthewishanddesireofthe
InvestigatingOfficer.Anattempthasbeenmadeinhiscrossexamination
to suggest that he did not comply with various other mandatory legal
requirements. Similarly, an attempt has been made in the cross
examination to point out that this witness has shown smartness by
admitting the compliance of various other legal requirements, but in
second breath offered some explanation or the other, which in the
submission of the defence Advocate is not acceptable. I have already
observedintheearlierpartofmyJudgmentthatcrossexaminationisa
double edge weapon. The crossexaminer must be very careful while
handling this weapon, otherwise the possibility of self inflicting injury
cannotberuledout.The admissions given bythe witness either in the
ExaminationinChieforinthecrossexaminationcannotbeignored.The
admissionhastobeunderstoodandgivenameaninginthecontextin
which it has been made. The admission can be used to discredit the
146

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

146

25th February, 2015

witnessaswellastolendassurancetocertain factualposition. Inthis


case, when Exhibit382 was placed on record and proved as it is, the
crossexaminer was supposed to confine his crossexamination to the
statementsmadeinExhibit382andparticularlytheproceedingrecorded
bytheOfficerwithregardtohispreliminaryenquirybeforestartingthe
actualconfession.TheOfficernoteddownthefactstookplacebeforehim.
In his ExaminationinChief, the Officer did not travel beyond what is
statedinthedocumentatExhibit382.Thedefencecrossexaminedover
enthusiasticallywithintentandhopetocatchthewitnessunawareand
tooktheriskbyaskingcertainquestions.Butthewitness,whohappened
tobetheOfficer,whohimselfconductedtheproceedings,givenanswersto
allthequestions.Withthisobservations,itisnownecessarytoseethose
admissionsandthecrossexamination. Theadmissioncanbeusedboth
waystodiscreditthewitnessaswellasifitisfoundacceptable,itcanbe
usedtomakethedefenceoftheaccusedimprobable.
155]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

147

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

156]

148

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

149

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

150

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

151

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

152

25th February, 2015

inisolationwiththemeaningofwordJabardastiderivedbythisCourt.
Similarly,theOfficerseemstohavegiventhisanswereitherundersome
misconception or his understanding. The Certificate/ Memorandum
appendedtotheconfessionalstatementclearlymentionsthathegavea
specificstatutorywarningtotheaccusedthathewasnotboundtomake
confessionandifhedoessoitwouldbeusedagainsthimintheCourtof
law.
160]

AtPage207Para26hehasadmittedthathedidnot

conduct any physical examination of the accused. However, he has


admitted that he had orally asked the accused whether he has any
complaintoranyinjuryonhisperson.Thisfactisnotmentionedinthe
confessionExhibit382. However,whileconsideringalltheseadmissions,
itappearsthatthewitnessPW11DCPShriBodkhehasgiventheanswers
toallthequestions. Hedidnotavoidorrunawayfromthequestions.
Wherever he has forgotten to mention, he has answered accordingly.
Whereverhethoughtitwasnotnecessarytomention,hehasanswered
accordingly.
161]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

153

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

162]

154

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

155

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

156

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

157

25th February, 2015

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]

I have already discussed the facts noted in the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

158

25th February, 2015

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]

In the context of the aforesaid discussion and before

adverting to the settled legal position on the point of compliance of


mandatoryrequirementswhilerecordingconfessionu/sec.15ofTADA(P)
Act, it is necessary to bear in mind certain important facts. Accused
MohammadHasanMehendiHasan@Sunnywasarrestedon15/12/2005.
HewasproducedbeforethisCourt. On15/12/2005hedidnotmakea
complaintofanyilltreatmentortortureatthehandsoftheATSOfficers
beforethisCourt. On15/12/2005thisaccusedwasremandedtopolice
custody till 03/01/2006. On 03/01/2006 the accused was produced
beforetheCourt.On03/01/2006theaccuseddidnotmakeacomplaint
ofilltreatmentortortureatthehandsoftheATSOfficerduringtheperiod
ofhispolicecustody.ThisfactcanbeborneoutfromtheRoznamaofthis
Courtdated03/01/2006. On03/01/2006hewasremandedtofurther
policecustodytill17/01/2006. Asperthecaseoftheprosecutionon
05/01/2006duringthecourseofhisinterrogationbyInvestigatingOfficer
ShriShengal,heexpresseddesiretoconfessthecrime. Accordingly,on
07/01/2006 he was produced before PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe for
recording his confessional statement. PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe granted
cooling off period to the accused to reflect over his decision to make
confessionalstatementtill09/01/2006.On09/01/2006PW11recorded
159

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

159

25th February, 2015

theconfessionoftheaccused.TheaccusedMehendiHasanwasthensent
back to Borivali Police Station Lockup with instructions to the Police
OfficerPSIShriHardastoproducetheaccusedalongwiththeconfession
beforelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,Mumbai.
168]

On10/06/2006,aspertheordersofDCPShriBodkhe,

the accused along with the packet/envelope containing his confessional


statementwas producedbefore ChiefMetropolitan Magistrate,Mumbai.
Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate appears to have made thorough
enquirywiththeaccusedonthepointofhisconfession.Therecordofthe
proceedingbeforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistrateisat Exhibit382A
(colly.).OnhisproductionbeforelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,
the accused had an opportunity to place his grievance of illtreatment,
tortureandbeating,ifany,tohimatthehandsoftheATSOfficersandby
DCPShriBodkhe(PW11)forextractingconfession. Therecordreveals
thatonenquirybytheChiefMetropolitanMagistratewithhimabouthis
confessionalstatement,hedidnotmakeanycomplaintofilltreatmentor
torture either at the hands of the ATS Officers during the course of
interrogationorDCPShriBodkhe(PW11)whilerecordinghisconfession.
169]

Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatduringthe

courseofcrossexaminationofPW22,ACPShriKisanNarayan Shengal
hasadmittedthatduringthenightof10/01/2006hehadpaidnightvisit
toBorivaliLockupwheretheaccusedwaslodged. Onthebasisofthis
admission,whichiscontainedinhisevidenceatPage480FPara65,itis
160

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

160

25th February, 2015

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

make agrievance aboutilltreatment,torture, threatetc.,when he was


produced before this Court on 10/01/2006 after the proceeding before
learnedChiefMetropolitanMagistratewasover. Atthisstageitmaybe
mentionedthatonthebasisofsomemisconceivedadmissionsofPW11
DCPShriBodkheandPW22ACPShriShengal,aimpressionistriedtobe
createdthattheATSOfficerstookcustodyoftheaccusedintheCourtof
thelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrateandproducedhimbeforethis
161

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

161

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

162

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

163

25th February, 2015

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

namely preliminary part for ascertaining voluntary willingness to make


confessionandthesecondpartcontainingactualconfessionalstatement.
Itwasacontinuousonestatement.Inthiscase,onthispointtheHon'ble
Supreme Court of India has held that neither Section 15 nor Rule 15
contemplatesrecordingofaconfessionalstatementintwopartsorgiving
164

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

164

25th February, 2015

time to the person making a confession to think over and reconsider


whetherhestillwantstomakeitinspiteofbeingtoldthatheisnotbound
to make it and that it can be used against him. It is held that if the
recording police officer feels assured after giving the statutory warning
thatthepersonwhowantstomakeaconfessionisdoingsovoluntarilyhe
maynotgiveanytimeforreconsiderationandinthatcasetherewouldbe
onlyonecontinuousstatement.Inthiscaseitisheldthattherequirement
of law is that before recording the confession the police officer should
ascertainbyputting questionstothemakerofitthatheismaking the
confessionvoluntarilyandheshouldalsoexplain tohimthatheisnot
boundtomaketheconfessionandthatifhemakesitthatcanbeused
againsthimasevidence.
174]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

175]

165

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

166

25th February, 2015

atmosphere. The recording officer had disclosed his identity as the


Superintendent of Police. It was also made a subject of criticism to
contendthatthiswouldhavecausedthemindoftheaccused.Inthiscase
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthattheofficerhad done
nothingwrongbydisclosinghisidentity.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
IndiahasheldthatwhilerecordingconfessionundertheTADA(P)Act,
compliance of Section 15 subSection (2) is mandatory. The Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatthefailuretofollowtheguidelines
laid down by the Bombay High Court u/sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. and/or
principlesoffairnesslaiddownbytheSupremeCourtofIndiainKartar
Singh's case would not be fatal to such confession. The mandatory
requirementofstatutorywarningtotheaccused,ascontemplatedu/sec.
15subSection(2)oftheTADA(P)Act,issinequanonforrecordingthe
confessionundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.
176]

ImaynowrefertheJudgmentsrelieduponbythelearned

Advocate forthe accused. In the case of Ayyubvs.StateofU.P.with


AbdulJabbarv.StateofU.P. reportedin 2002SupremeCourtCases
(Cri)673,thePoliceOfficer,whohadrecordedtheconfession,hadfailed
towritedownthecertificateinaccordancewithSubrule(3)(b)ofRule15
oftheTADARules,1987.Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia
hasheldthatastheconfessionmadeu/sec.15oftheTADAActismade
admissible in evidence, the strict procedure laid down therein for
recordingconfessionistobefollowed.Anyconfessionmadeindefianceof
thesesafeguardscannotbeacceptedbythecourtasreliableevidence.The
167

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

167

25th February, 2015

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]

In the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

168

25th February, 2015

person making the confession that he was not bound to make the
confessionandifhedoesso,theconfessionhemaymakemaybeused
againsthimandthathebelievedthatthisconfessionwasvoluntarilymade
anditwastakeninhispresenceandrecordedbyhimandwasreadoverto
thepersonmakingitandadmittedbyhimtobecorrectanditcontaineda
fullandtrueaccountofthestatementmadebyhim.
178]

At this stage, it may be noted that in this case the

certificate and memorandum appended to the confession of accused


Mehendi Hasan contains all the requirements of the certificate and
memorandum. Infactthe officerhas appended the proforma certificate
provided under Rule 15 of the TADA Rules. Here, it appears that by
appendingthecertificateintheforminwhichithasbeenprovidedbythe
Rulecannotbethecircumstanceagainsttheprosecution.Thesubmission
canbemadebothways. Ifacertificateisdittointhe form,thenitis
criticizedbeingamechanicalexercisebytheofficer.TheCourthastosee
theessenceandthecomplianceofthemandatoryrequirements. Inthis
case,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatthecomplianceof
Rule 15 subrule (3) subclause (b) of the TADA Rules must be made
strictly. In this case I do not find that writing of the certificate and
memorandumbytheofficerinthelanguageofproformawouldamount
the exercise of the powers by the officer mechanically and the non
complianceoftheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act.
179]

ThedecisioninthecaseofLillialiasJagdeepSinghv.
169

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

169

25th February, 2015

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

confessional statement, nor deposedwhile giving evidence in the Court


thatitwasexplainedtotheaccusedthathewasnotboundtomakethe
confession as required u/sec. 15 subsection (2) of the TADA (P) Act.
Similarly,inthiscase,onemoredefectnoticedwasthatthefailureofthe
Superintendent of Police to prepare memorandum at the end of the
statementas requiredunder Rule 15 subrule (3) subclause (b) of the
TADARules.Inthiscasetheconfessionwasheldinadmissibleforwantof
complianceofthemandatoryprovisionsofSection15subsection(2)of
theTADA(P)Act. Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas
heldthatSection15subsection(2)oftheTADA(P)Actrequiresthatthe
PoliceOfficershallbeforerecordinganyconfessionundersubsection(1)
170

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

170

25th February, 2015

explaintothepersonmakingitthatheisnotboundtomakeaconfession
andthat,ifhedoesso,itmaybeusedagainsthimandsuchpoliceofficer
shallnotrecordanysuchconfessionunlessuponquestioningtheperson
makingit,hehasreasontobelievethatitisbeingmadevoluntarily.Ifthis
mandatoryrequirementisfulfilled,thenonlytheconfessioncouldbeheld
tobeadmissible.
181]

In the present case, the certificate and memorandum

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

171

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case the mandatory statutory warning was

administered to accused Mehendi Hasan by PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe.


Similarly, PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe has appended elaborate
certificate/memorandumtotheconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasan.The
MemorandumappendedtotheconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasanis
reproduction of the proforma of the certificate/memorandum provided
underRule15oftheTADARules. Reproductionofcertificateprovided
underTADARulescouldnotaffectthevoluntarynatureorotherwiseofthe
confession. The failure of the officer to note down certain words or
phrasesinhiscertificatecanbemadethebasisofattacktochallengethe
confession.Itmaybementionedthatonthispointthedefencecanargue
thematterbothways.Whileconsideringthecomplianceofrequirement,
Court has to see the evidence of the Recording Officer in totality in
juxtapositionwiththerelevantfactsnoteddownintheconfessionbythe
Recording Officer with regard to the compliance of the mandatory
provisions. TheOfficerPW11DCPShriBodkhehascompliedwiththe
172

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

172

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

173

25th February, 2015

with the mandatory provisions of Section 15 subsection (2) and Rule


15(3)(2)oftheTADA(P)RulesandRule15oftheTADA(P)Rules.Inthe
backdropofthissettledlegalposition,thesearchingcrossexaminationof
PW11DCPShriBodkhetopointoutthathedidnotcomplywithvarious
otherrequirementsisofnosubstance.Thesettledlegalpositiondoesnot
permitmetoacceptthesubmissionsadvancedbylearnedAdvocateShri
Pasbolafortheaccusedinasmuchasthosesubmissionsgocountertothe
lawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaintheJudgment,
citedsupra.Inthiscase,onthebasisofthecogentandreliableevidence,
theprosecutionhasprovedthattheconfessionmadebyaccusedMehendi
Hasanwasvoluntary.TheprosecutionhasfurtherprovedthatPW11DCP
ShriBodkhe hascompliedwiththemandatoryprovisionsasheldtobe
necessarybytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia.Therefore,onthispoint,
the submissions advanced by learned Advocate Shri Pasbola deserves
rejection.ThesubmissionsadvancedbylearnedSPPShriNikamdeserves
acceptance.Itisnownecessarytodwelluponthesecondimportantaspect
namelytruthfulnessoftheconfessionmadebyaccusedMehendiHasan.
184]

Inordertofindoutthetruthfulnessoftheconfession

madebyaccusedMehendiHasan,firstCourthastoseebroadspectrumof
theconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasanandsecondlythecorroborative
evidence tothe statementmadebythe accusedin his confession. The
broadspectrumoftheconfessionofaccusedMehendiHasanisasfollows.

174

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

174

25th February, 2015

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)

He(Mehendi Hasan) used to sell gold and silver to Marwadi


personsalongwithAbuSalemandalsousedtodooddjobsforhim
(Salem).HeusedtodriveAbuSalemsMaruti800car.

iii)

After 1993 Bombay Bomb Blasts he fled away to Belgaum as


Mumbai Police was hunting for accused Abu Salem for his
involvement in the Bombay Bomb Blasts case and he (Mehendi
Hasan)residedthereforayear.

iv)

AftercomingbacktoMumbai,heusedtogotoAndheriattheoffice
ofAbuSalem.IntheofficeofAbuSalemhewas informedbySamir
MoghalthatcoaccusedAbuSalemwassearchingforhimandalso
providedAbuSalem'sDubaiphonenumber009714226670.

v)

HecontactedAbuSalemonphoneandtoldAbuSalemthathewas
inneedofmoney.OntheinstructionsofaccusedAbuSalem,he
wenttohisofficeandobtainedRs.10,000/fromSheelaandatthe
175

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

175

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

xi)

176

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

177

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

178

25th February, 2015

him.AccordinglyhewenttherealongwithSalimHaddiat4.00p.m.

andtheremetNaeemTR(Approver).HealsointroducedSalim
HadditoNaeemTR.AtthattimeNaeemTR(Approver)gavehim
Rs.OnelakhinthesaidHotelandthereaftertheyalltalkedwith
AbuSalemfromSTDBoothandinformedhimaboutreceiptofthe
amountandfromthereheandSalimHaddiwenttoChembur.

xxi) HeagaincontactedAbuSalemonphonefromChembur.Abu Salem


instructedhimtopayRs.80,000/(Rs.EightyThousand)toSalim
HaddiandMehendiHasandiditaccordingly.
xxii) OnthenextdayMehendiHasanagainmadeaphonecalltoAbu
Salem.AbuSalemtoldhimtogotoShalimarHotel,BhendiBazar

fortakingdeliveryofweapons.Ontheverydayinthenoon,
MehendiHasanwenttoShalimarHotelandtookdeliveryof
weaponsfromonepersonoutsidehotelandinformedthisfactto
AbuSalem.MehendiHasantookthesaidweaponswhichwere
packedinpolythenebagandkeptinsweetboxanddeliveredthe
sametoSalimHaddinearRamdeoHotel,Sionatabout5.00p.m.
onthesameday.

xxiii) AtthattimehealsotoldSalimHaddithatAbuSalemwasenraged
andwantedtokillPradeepJaininanyconditionasPradeepJainhas
abusedAbuSalem.
xxiv) SalimHaddiaskedMehendiHasantoprovide personwhocould
identifyPradeepJainandheimmediatelymadeaphonecalltoAbu
179

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

179

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

180

25th February, 2015

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]

Second part of his confession deals with his visit to

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

181

25th February, 2015

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]

The third and last important part of his confession is

abouthisactivitiesinMumbaiaftercomingbacktoMumbaiinJanuary,
1995.Inthisthirdpart,hehasstatedabouttheexecutionofthemurder
ofPradeepJain.HehasstatedabouttheinstructionsgiventohimbyAbu
SalemtokillPradeepJainbecausePradeepJainhadabusedhimonphone,
themeetingwithNaeemTR(Approver)andcollectionofmoneyfromhim
beforemurder,takingthedeliveryofweaponsaspertheinstructionsof
AbuSalemnearShalimarHotel,BhendiBazarandhandingoverofthe
sametoSalimHaddinearRamdeoHotel,Sion,at5.00p.m.onthesame
dayandtheinstructionsgivenbyhimtoSalimHadditokillPradeepJain
182

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

182

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

183

25th February, 2015

by the accused has provided a stupendous account studded with vivid


detailsaboutthehatchingoftheconspiracy,theobjectoftheconspiracy,
thepersonspresentintheconspiratorialmeeting,theroleassignedtoeach
onepresentintheconspiracyandwhowerenotpresentintheconspiracy
tofulfilltheobjectoftheconspiracy,theactsdonebyhimandAbuSalem
andparticularlybyhimonthesayofAbuSalemaftercomingbacktoIndia
in January, 1995 and arranging weapons and coordinating with the
assassinatorsandprovidingweaponstothemforcommissionofmurderof
PradeepJain.
190]

While deciding/assessing the voluntary nature and

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

184

25th February, 2015

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]

PW11 DCP Shri Bodkhe was not concerned with the

investigation in the crime. The facts narratedby the accusedMehendi


Hasaninhisconfession,asstatedabove,speaksabouttheirpersonallife,
involvementintheothercrimes,hatchingofconspiracyinDubaietc. It
maybenotedatthisstagethatitwouldnothavebeenpossibleforDCP
ShriBodkhe,PW11,toimagineandconcoctallthedetailsonhisown.
DCPShriBodkhePW11wasnotsupposedtoknowallthevividdetails
providedbyaccusedMehendiHasaninhisConfessionalStatement.Thisis
onemoreaspectwhichcanlendassurancetothefactthatPW11DCPShri
BodkherecordedthefactsnarratedbeforehimbyaccusedMehendiHasan
personally known to him. DCP Shri Bodkhe PW11 by no stretch of
imaginationcouldbesaidtohavepersonalknowledgeofalltheminute
detailsprovidedbyaccusedMehendiHasaninhisconfession.
192]

IthasnotbeensuggestedtoPW11DCPShriBodkheor

anyotherofficerthatduringthisperiodaccusedMehendiHasanhadnot
gonetoDubai.Evenifitisassumedthattherewassuchsuggestion,then
185

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

185

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

186

25th February, 2015

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]

It is now necessary to deal with the aspect of the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

187

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

196]

188

25th February, 2015

Learned Advocate Shri Pasbola appearing for the

accusedsubmittedthatfromthe date oftaking his custodybythe ATS


Officers the accused was apprehensive of illtreatment, torture, threat,
thirddegreemethodduringthecourseofinterrogationbytheATSOfficers
andwhichhehadplacedonrecordinhisapplication.LearnedAdvocate
ShriPasbola submittedthatfromdayoneofproduction of the accused
beforethisCourt,hewasapprehensivethathewouldbetorturedorforced
to confess the crime and, therefore, the accused through his Advocate
madeanapplicationstatingthereinthathehadnointentiontoconfession
thecrimeandifanysuchstatementisproducedonrecordandreliedupon
bytheprosecution,thesameshallbedeemedtohavebeenobtainedby
forceandcontrarytothewishesoftheaccused. LearnedAdvocateShri
Pasbolasubmittedthatthecustodyperiodoftheaccusedwasmorethan
fiveweeksand,therefore,thesamewouldweighinfavouroftheaccused
andonthebasisofthesameaconclusioncanbedrawnthatthedecision
makingprocessoftheaccusedwasseverelyaffected. LearnedAdvocate
ShriPasbolasubmittedthattheaccusedneverexpresseddesiretoconfess
thecrime.LearnedAdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthattheATSOfficers
made lot of efforts to pressurize accused Abu Salem and made him
uncomfortableduringthecourseofhiscustodyperiodtosuccumbtotheir
wishes. Learned Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that between
28/12/2005 to morning of 31/12/2005 accused Abu Salem was not in
Mumbai. HewastakentoBengluruforconductingNarcoAnalysisTest,
BrainMappingTestandLieDetectorTest.LearnedAdvocateShriPasbola
submittedthataccusedAbuSalemconsentedforthoseTestsandtheresult
189

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

189

25th February, 2015

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]

The second plank of the submission of the learned

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

190

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

191

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

192

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

193

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

194

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

195

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

196

25th February, 2015

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]

In the next paragraph the DCP Shri Karale (PW12) has

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

197

25th February, 2015

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]

Perusalofthe firstpartofthe confession revealsthat

PW12 DCP Shri Karale took abundant precaution to ensure the


complianceofthemandatoryprovisionsofSection15subsection(2)of
theTADA(P)Act. PW12DCPShriKaralealsoensuredthatappropriate
warning andinstructions aregiven toaccusedAbuSalem tomake him
awareofrealstateofaffairs.TheonlyaspectthatPW12DCPShriKarale
has missed and which has been made a bone of the contention is the
198

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

198

25th February, 2015

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]

With this finding, it is now necessary to consider the

preliminarypartoftheproceedingrecordedbytheDCPShriKaralePW12
before starting the actual confession and the objections raised by the
defencetodiscardtheconfessionintotoandtheevidenceofPW12DCP
199

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

199

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

200

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

201

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

202

25th February, 2015

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]

It is submitted that by using the word Anivarya (vfuok;Z)

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

203

25th February, 2015

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

and grueling crossexamination to test his credibility on almost all the


aspects deposed to by him in his ExaminationinChief and also the
confessionrecordedbyhim.Onthispoint,therelevantcrossexamination
isatPage241Para31. PW12DCPShriKaralehasadmittedthatitis
necessarytoimpressupontheaccusedthathewasnotboundtomakea
confession. He has admitted that the Marathi (meaning) synonym for
wordNotBoundisBandhankarakNahin(ca/kudkjd ugh).PW12DCPShri
204

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

204

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

205

25th February, 2015

Bandhankarak (ca/kudkjd) is, binding, restrictive, obligatory,


coercive. One of the English meanings of the Marathi word
Anivarya(vfuok;Z)is,compulsory.Itis,therefore,necessarytofindout
Marathi meaning of the word compulsory. For this purpose, I have
referred the Oxford EnglishMarathi Dictionary (EngrajiMarathi
Shabdakosh) by author Ramesh V. Dhongde, New Edition 2003, 17th
Impression October, 2012. The Marathi meaning of English word
compulsoryatPage152ofthesaidDictionaryis,KelachPahijeAasa,
Anivarya, Saktine, Kayadyanusar Aavashyak, Bandhankarak.

(^ds y kp ikfgts vlk*( ^vfuok;Z * ^lDrhus s ^dk;n;kuq l kj vko';d* ^ca / kudkjd*).


I have also referred the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Twelfth
Edition,EditedbyAngusStevenson&MauriceWaite,Reprinted2012,to
findoutthemeaningofEnglishwordCompulsory.Themeaningofword
CompulsoryatPageNo.295ofthesaidDictionaryis,requiredbylawor
arule,obligatory,involvingorexercisingcompulsion,coercive.
+
213]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

206

25th February, 2015

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

the accused to reflect over his decision to make a confession. In the


submissionofthelearnedAdvocatefortheaccusedasprthelawatleast
24hoursreflectionperiodmustbegrantedbytheofficertotheaccusedto
thinkoverhisdecisiontomakeaconfessionornot.ThelearnedAdvocate,
207

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

207

25th February, 2015

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]

Learned Advocate for the accused relying upon the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

208

25th February, 2015

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]

The second Judgment relied upon by the learned

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

209

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

210

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

211

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

219]

212

25th February, 2015

In this case, there is one more circumstance, which

would weigh in favour of the prosecution on this point. As per the


direction of PW12 DCP Shri Karale, accused Abu Salem was produced
beforehimat10.30p.m.on02/01/2006.PW12DCPShriKaraledidnot
takeitforgrantedthattheperiodofreflectiongrantedtoaccusedAbu
Salemwassufficient.Thisfactcanbeseenonperusaloftherecordofthe
proceedingofsecondpartbeforerecordingtheactualconfession. The
question No. 2 is very important. PW12 DCP Shri Karale reminded
accusedAbuSalemthathehadgivenhimcoolingoffperiodtothinkover
hisdecision.Hemadeenquirywiththeaccusedwhetherhewouldliketo
havemorecoolingofftimetothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeconfession.
Theaccusedstatedthatreflectiontimegiventohimwassufficient.Inmy
view,thisisaveryimportantcircumstanceinthiscase.PW12DCPShri
Karaledidnottakeitforgrantedthatreflectionperiodof10to12hours
granted to accused Abu Salem was sufficient and on that assumption
proceededtorecordtheconfessionoftheaccused.Hemadeenquirywith
the accused. The accused stated before him that the reflection time
granted to him was sufficient. In my view, this evidence is more than
enoughtoconcludethatthereflectiontimeof10to12hoursgrantedto
accusedAbuSalem,inthefactsandcircumstancesobtainedonrecord,was
sufficientandadequate.Theaccuseddidnotmakeanygrievanceaboutit.
Itcan,therefore,safelybesaidthatthedecisionmakingprocessofthe
accusedAbuSalemwasnotinanywayaffectedandassuchtherewould
benoquestionofcausinganyprejudicetotheaccusedbygranting10to
12hoursreflectionperiodtothinkoverhisdecisiontomakeconfession.
213

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

213

25th February, 2015

Inviewofthefactsandcircumstancesandtheevidencebroughtonrecord,
inmyhumbleopinion,thepropositionoflawlaiddownintheJudgments
relied upon bythe learnedAdvocate for the accusedis of nohelp and
assistancetothecaseoftheaccused.
220]

Learned Advocate for the accused pointed out that

PW12 DCP Shri Karale has given his certificate/memorandum on a


separatepagethoughhalflastpageoftheconfessionwasblank. Inthe
submissionofthelearnedAdvocatethisisastrongcircumstancetomake
thedefenceoftheaccusedprobable,thatPW12DCPShriKaralecopied
the confessional statement already prepared by the ATS Officers and
obtainedthesignaturesoftheaccusedonthesameandlateronprepared
hiscertificate/memorandumonaseparatepage.Firstandforemost,itis
necessary to see whether the certificate/memorandum appended to the
confessionoftheaccusedisinconformitywithRule15subrule(3)sub
clause (b) of the TADA Rules. I have gone through the certificate/
memorandum. Ongoingthroughthecertificate/memorandum,whichis
in Marathi language, I am fully convinced and satisfied that the
certificate/memorandumisinstrictcomplianceoftheprovisionsofRule
15(3)(b)oftheTADARules. Now,themainquestion thatneedstobe
addressed is with regard to the issue sought to be raised because his
certificateisonaseparatepage.
221]

Inordertocometoaappropriateconclusiononthispoint,itis

necessarytoseetheevidenceofPW12DCPShriKarale. Therelevant
214

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

214

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

215

25th February, 2015

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]

In order to substantiate the submission that the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

216

25th February, 2015

three tests were conducted on this accused between 28/12/2005 till


30/12/2005.TheaccusedwasbroughtbacktoMumbaiinthemorningof
31/12/2005. It is undisputed that the result of the said three tests is
negative.Theaccuseddidnotgiveanyanswertothequestionduringthe
courseofthoseteststoincriminatehiminthecrimeinanymanner.Itis
pointedoutthatduringthecourseofthesaidthreetests,thechemicals
andvariousdrugsmighthavebeeninjectedinthebodyoftheaccused
and,therefore,withoutascertainingwhethertheeffectofthosedrugsand
chemicalshaserased,PW12DCPShriKaralestartedinterrogationofthe
accused. It is submitted that when the accused expressed his desire,
accordingtotheInvestigatingOfficeron31/12/2005,duringthecourseof
his interrogation in the afternoon, is a indication to suggest that the
accusedmustbeundertheinfluence ofdrugsandchemicalsornotina
positiontotakeadecisionduetoinjectionsofthedrugsandchemicalsin
hisbody. Itisalsopointedoutthatwhentheresultofallthetestswas
negative,there was noreason forthe accusedtoseparatelyexpresshis
desiretoconfessthecrime.Itissubmittedthattheperiodofcustodywas
quitelong. Theaccusedwasalsosubjectedtointerrogationduringthe
custodyperiod. PW12DCPShriKaraledidnotaskaccusedAbuSalem
separatelythat,whenitoccurredforthefirsttimetohimtoconfessthe
crime. Inordertowriggleoutofthissituation,ld.SPPpointedoutthat
therewasalonggapofabout24hoursbetweenthetestsconductedonthe
accused and the desire expressed by the accused to confess the crime
duringthecourseofinterrogation.Ld.SPPpointedoutthattheconfession
of the accused was recorded on 02/01/2006 and, therefore, from
217

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

217

25th February, 2015

31/12/2005 to 02/01/2006 the accused had an opportunity to quietly


thinkoverhisdecisiontoconfessthecrime.
224]

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

immediately summoned by DCP Shri Karale PW12 for recording his


confession.Thefactswereassubmittedbythedefence,theninatearing
hurry,keepingallotherworkaside,DCPShriKaralePW12wouldhave
causedproductionoftheaccusedbeforehimon31/12/2005itself.Buthe
did not do that. He caused production of the accused before him on
02/01/2006.PW12DCPShriKaralewasalsoquestionedonthisdelayof
218

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

218

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

219

25th February, 2015

am not disposed to accept the submission of the defence that decision


making process of the accused was severely affected in peculiar
circumstancesbroughtonrecordand,therefore,thedesireexpressedby
theaccusedtomakeconfessionandrecordedbeforetheDCPShriKarale
(PW12)couldnotbesaidtobevoluntary.
226]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

220

25th February, 2015

by PW12 DCP Shri Karale in his crossexamination about these points


raised by the defence Advocate. While considering the confession of
accusedMehendiHasan,Ihavemadecertainobservationswithregardto
the crossexamination being double edge weapon and the effect of the
admissionsgivenduringthecourseofcrossexaminationbothways.Inthis
case, all the facts, which have not been brought on record and which,
accordingtothedefence,weremissedbyPW12DCPShriKaralewhile
ascertaining the desire of making voluntary confession by accused Abu
Salem,havebeenbroughtonrecordincrossexamination.
227]

Itistruethatintheletterdated31/12/2005addressed

by the Joint Commissioner of Police Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi while


nominating PW12 DCP Shri Dattatray Karale to record confession, the
phraseology used by him is 'direction' and not 'instruction' to record
confession.PW12DCPShriKaralehasadmittedthisfactinallfairnessin
his crossexamination. However, he has added that the exercise
undertaken by him is not because of the direction of the Joint
CommissionerofPoliceShriK.P.Raghuwanshitorecordconfessionofthe
accused. In this case, instead of using word 'direction' the Joint
CommissionerofPolice,ATS,couldhaveusedtheword'instruction'while
referring the accused to PW12 DCP Shri Karale for recording his
confession.Itmaybenotedthatsimplybecauseofuseofword'direction'
in the correspondence to PW12 DCP Shri Karale by the Joint
Commissioner of Police Shri K. P. Raghuwanshi would not make the
confessionamerefarce. IfPW12hadproceededstraightawaytorecord
221

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

221

25th February, 2015

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]

Perusal of the confession would reveal that before

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

ii)

222

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

223

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

230]

224

25th February, 2015

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]

This fact would indicate that PW12 DCP Shri Karale

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

225

25th February, 2015

answers given by this witness in his crossexamination,after recall,are


very important and on the basis of those answers one can jump to a
conclusionthatthisOfficertookallpossiblecaretoensurethataccused
Abu Salem was made comfortable. He was kept in a lockup where
nobodycouldpressurizeandthreatenhim. ThisOfficeronhisownpaid
visittotheBorivaliLockup. Heensuredtheproductionoftheaccused
beforetheMagistrateonthenextdatewiththeenvelopeoftheconfession.
232]

Besides, presuming for the sake of argument that all

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

226

25th February, 2015

Investigating Officer, in this case. On the basis of the above said


discussion,Iamoftheviewthatonthebasisoftheevidenceadducedby
PW12DCPShriKaraleandthefactsfoundfromtheconfessionofaccused
AbuSalem,itcansafelybesaidthattheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem
was recorded by complying with all the mandatory provisions of law.
Before recording confession, the Officer PW12 DCP Shri Karale was
satisfiedthataccusedAbuSalemwasmakingtheconfessionvoluntarily.
233]

In order to ascertain the voluntary nature and

truthfulness of the confession, it is necessary to bear in mind certain


undisputedfactsinthiscase. Inmyopinion,theundisputedfactswould
play a pivotal role in this case. All the undisputed facts have to be
considered in juxtaposition with the submissions made by the defence
AdvocatethattheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemwasthenetresultof
duress, threat, coercion, pressure, inducement, illtreatment, promise,
allurement.Imaynowreferthosefacts.
234]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

227

25th February, 2015

Police Station. AccusedAbu Salem was produced before this Court on


24/11/2005. Ontheapplicationofthen InvestigatingOfficerACPShri
Dhawale,hewasremandedtoPoliceCustodytill02/12/2005. Accused
AbuSalemisahighprofilecriminalandatthattimewantedinvarious
cases. It appears from the record that with might and money at his
commandhecouldaffordtheservicesofadvocatesfromdayoneofhis
productionbeforethisCourt.AdvocateappearingforaccusedAbuSalem
on24/11/2005,ferociouslyopposedtheprayermadebytheATSOfficers
forpolicecustodyremandofaccusedAbuSalem.
235]

On 24/11/2005, the Advocate appearing for accused

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

228

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

229

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

230

25th February, 2015

The record reveals that mypredecessor on production of accusedAbu


Saleminthechambermadeenquirywiththeaccused.Duringthecourse
ofsaidenquirytheaccusedmadeagrievancethatsomanyofficerswere
interrogating him and because of which sometimes he used to become
restless.AccusedAbuSalemdidnotmakecomplaintofanyilltreatment,
tortureorbeatingatthehandsofthepolice. Consideringthisgrievance
made by the accused, my predecessor directed the Investigating Officer
that he himself and/or PI Shri Deshmukh should only interrogate the
accusedandnootherofficershouldinterrogatetheaccusedandadjourned
theproceeding. Itis,therefore,apparentonthefaceoftherecordthat
statements made in the application dated 25/11/2005 by advocate Mr.
Saraogiwerefoundfactuallyincorrect.Itmaybenotedthatthisisclear
indicationthateverynowandthenanattemptwasmadebytheAdvocate
for the accused to place on record certain facts, which either did not
happenorexist.ItiscrystalclearthataccusedAbuSalemhadthebenefit
oflegaladvicefromdayoneofhisproductiontotakecareofhiscaseand
allcaserelatedaspects.
238]

On30/11/2005AdvocateforaccusedAbuSalemmade

an application seeking direction to the appropriate authorityto register


complaintaboutunauthorizedvisitofbrotherofPradeepJaini.e.Sunil
Jainandhiscompanionsandalsopresenceofeightofficersforthepurpose
of interrogation and threats given by Sunil Jain to the accused. The
Prosecutorfiledreplytothesaidapplicationon02/12/2005denyingall
thestatementsmadeintheapplication.Itwascontendedinthereplythat
231

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

231

25th February, 2015

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]

On 05/12/2005, Shri Abu Lais and Shri Taqiuddin,

brothers of accused Abu Salem, made an application through Advocate


ShriSaraogitoallowthemtomeetaccusedAbuSalemtoknowhiswelfare
and his condition. By order dated 9/12/2005 this Court granted
permissiontoAbuLais,brotherofaccusedAbuSalem,tomeethim. On
232

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

232

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case, the investigation was a real challenge


233

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

233

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

234

25th February, 2015

Karale PW12 instructed the Investigating Officer ACP Shri Shengal


(PW22) to produce accused Abu Salem before him for recording his
confession on 02/01/2006. The DCP Shri Karale (PW12) recorded
confessionofaccusedAbuSalemon02/01/2006.Asperthedirectionof
DCPShriKarale(PW12),on03/01/2006accusedAbuSalemalongwith
the envelope containing the confession of accused Abu Salem was
producedbeforelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,MumbaibyPIShri
Mathadhikari of Borivali Police Station. On production of the accused
before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, the learned
Magistrate made enquiry with accused Abu Salem. The record of
proceeding conducted before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
revealsthataccusedAbuSalemdidnotmakeacomplaintofbeating,ill
treatment, torture, coercion, pressure, inducement, promise, allurement,
threatduringthecourseofinterrogationbytheATSOfficersaswellasby
theDCPShriKaralePW12whilerecordinghisconfession. Itisseenon
perusal of the record of the proceeding before the learned Chief
MetropolitanMagistratethataccusedhaspartlyadmittedtheconfession
and partly denied the confession. As far as this issue is concerned, I
propose todeal withthe same separatelywhile addressing the issue of
retractionoftheConfessionsbyaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendi
Hasan.
243]

Aftercompletionoftheproceedingbeforethelearned

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, PI Shri Mathadhikari produced


accusedAbuSalem beforethisCourt. PerusalofroznamaofthisCourt
235

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

235

25th February, 2015

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]

There is one more circumstance, which needs to be

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

236

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

237

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

238

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

247]

239

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

240

25th February, 2015

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]

At this stage, it is necessary to point out another

importantcircumstance having bearingwiththe defenceofthe accused


thathisstatementwasdraftedbytheATSOfficersanditwassimplycopied
byDCPShriKarale(PW12). ThestatementofJyotiJain(PW9)was
recordedon30/11/2005beforethe confessionofthecrimebyaccused
Abu Salem on 02/01/2006. In her statement, PW9 Jyoti Jain had
disclosedtheincidentoccurredonthe13th dayceremonyofthedeathof
herhusbandPradeepJain.AccusedAbuSalemhasnotadmittedthisfact
inhisconfession. IftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemwasconcocted
and/orpreparedonthebasisofthematerialcollectedduringthecourseof
investigationbytheATSOfficers,then theATSofficerswouldnothave
missedtoincorporatethisimportantfactintheconfessionofaccusedAbu
Salem.NothingwouldhavepreventedtheATSOfficersfromincorporating
thisfactintheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem.Itmaybementionedthat
iftheconfessionhadbeentheconcoctionofthepolice/ATSOfficers,then
inallcertainty,theywouldhaveincorporatedthisfactintheconfessionof
accusedAbuSalembecausebythattimetheATSofficersknewthatthis
241

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

241

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

242

25th February, 2015

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]

This would now take me to consider the actual

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

243

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

244

25th February, 2015

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)

His aides and Anees were supplying revolvers, pistols and


bulletsinBhendiBazarofficeandheusedtoprovidethese
weapons to shooters through accused Sunny @ Mehendi
Hasan (coaccused in this case), his associates/aides Salim
Haddi, Salim Tukaram, Uday Pawar, Rajesh Igwe, Sanjay
Kadam,ShekharKadam,ShubashBind,SunilNair,Gajjabali,
Brijesh Kumar @ Tiger, Rafiq @ Papu, Nizam and several
other personswhowereworkingathisandAneescommand.

vi)

HewasgivingdescriptionofaccusedSunnytothepersons
deliveringgoods.SalimHaddiandHasanAli@Sunnyused
tomakephonecallstohimfromChembur.Heusedtokillthe

245

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

245

25th February, 2015

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)

Coaccused Hasan Ali @ Sunnyinformed him that he was


being searched by police and, therefore, he made
arrangements to call Hasan Ali @ Sunny to Dubai in
September,1994.

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

246

25th February, 2015

YadavatKolDongriwaspurchasedbyAshokJain,ownerof
KamlaConstructionsbymakingmeagerpaymenttomilkmen
andhaveconstructed3to4buildingsandwasalsoinsisting
allthosemilkmentovacateremaininglandwithoutpaying
anyconsiderationtothem.ShaukatMistryalsoinformedhim
that,ifthesaidlandwastakeninpossessionandsoldtosome
other builder, the accused Abu Salem would get profit of
croresofrupees.
xii)

On being informed about this fact by Shaukat Mistry, he


decidedthat,ifAshokJaindoesnotfollowhim,thenanyof
hisbrotherswouldbekilledinordertofrightenAshokJain.

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

Mohd. Hasan @ Sunny alongwith Salim Haddi and other

247

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

247

25th February, 2015

personswillattackanyoftheJainbrothers.

xv)

After this meeting, he informed Naeem T.R. i.e. Approver


abouttheirplanonphone.

xvi)

Aspertheirplan,hestartedthreateningAshokJainandhis
brothersonphone.RiyazSiddiquiwasmakingphonecallsto
JainbrothersandwaskeepingAbuSaleminformedaboutit
and was advising Jain brothers to follow Abu Salem's
commands.

xvii)

Naeem Khan (Approver) and Shaukat Kadia were meeting


Jain brothers in Mumbai and were informing him (Abu
Salem)aboutallthedetailsofthemeetingonhisDubaiphone
No.009714226670and009714242939.

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

xx)

248

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

xxiii)

249

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

xxvii)

250

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

251

25th February, 2015

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)

Immediately after receiving the information about the


property from Sunil Jain, Abu Salem made a call to his
acquaintancein

Mumbai i.e. accused V. K. Jhamb at

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

252

25th February, 2015

Jhambtoselltheflatsasearlyaspossible.Healsoinformed
Sunil Jain to sell the flats and immediately handover the
moneytoJhamb.
xxxiv)

Accused Jhamb Builder was also informing him about the


dailydevelopmentsandhadalsofinaliseddealoftwoflatsfor
Rs.28 lakhs. After the sale of two flats, accused Jhamb
BuildertookthatamountfromSunil Jain andsenttoAbu
SalemthroughHawalatheconsiderationofthesaidtwoflats.
JhambBuilderalsosentRs.14lakhsreceivedaftersaleofthird
flatin1997throughHawala.

xxxv)

In the last part of his confession he has stated that he


repeatedlythreatenedSunilJainnottogotoCourtandgive
evidenceinthematterofPradeepJain'smurder. ButSunil
JaindidnotobeyhiscommandstostayawayfromtheCourt
and,therefore,heagainstartedthreateningSunilJaintopay
Rs.20lakhswhichhehadallegedlyspentforseekingacquittal
ofhismeninPradeepJainmurdercase.Helateroncameto
knowthatSunilJainhadlodgedthecomplainttothepolice
againsthim.

252]

ItmaybenotedthattheconfessionofaccusedAbu

Salem can conveniently be divided into six parts. In his confession,


accusedAbuSalemhasconfessed/admittedalltherelevantfactsquathe
crime.Thefirstpartoftheconfession,whichiscoveredbypointNo.1to8
isthenarrationabouthispastlifeandhiscriminalactivitiesingeneral.It
253

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

253

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

254]

254

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

255

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

256

25th February, 2015

hehadallegedlyspentforseekingacquittalofhismeninPradeepJain
murdercase.
259]

After considering the broad spectrum of the confession of

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

257

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

258

25th February, 2015

targetingthe Builder communityandthe film fraternity. AccusedAbu


SalemwasavillageboyfromstateofUttarPradeshcametoMumbaiin
searchofsomejobwithhisapparels.Withinashortspanhisstature,he
hadgrowntosuchanextentthathestartedrulingaparticularareaof
Mumbaiwiththemoneyandmightathisdisposal.Itcanbeseenfromhis
(AbuSalem)confessionthathehasmurderedPradeepJainbystayingin
Dubai.
261]

Our Mumbai Police Force is compared with Scotland Yard

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

259

25th February, 2015

stature and it went unnoticed by Mumbai Police Force, which draws


comparisonwithScotlandYardPoliceisunfathomable,mindbogglingand
verydisturbing.DespitehavingsuchcommittedPoliceForce,thequestion
thatmustbebotheringthecommonmanisastowhytheseUnderworld
gangs,TerroristsgangsandUnderworldDonsaremushroominginthis
Cosmopolitan City, which believes in peace and prosperity. After
considering the factual matrix of this matter, two prominent questions
botheringmemostare;i) WhytheUnderworldgangs,Terroristsgangs
andUnderworldDonsarenotnippedinthebudandwhytheyareallowed
toassumelargerthanlife stature andimage;and ii)WhoseBabythe
Underworld gangs, Terrorists gangs and the Underworld Dons, is ?
Leaving all the above stated hard realities, facts and questions for
speculationandintrospectionoftheconcerned,Imaycomebacktothe
confessionofaccusedAbuSalem.

262]

The disclosure made by accused Abu Salem in his

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

260

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

261

25th February, 2015

accusedMehendiHasan.Ld.SPP ShriUjjwal Nikam submittedthatthe


letterforwardedfromthejailbyaccusedMehendiHasantothisCourt,
whichisnumberedasM.A.No.14of2006,isnotaretractionapplication.
Ld.SPPsubmittedthatbythisletteraccusedMehendiHasanhadprayed
forhisdischargefromthiscaseandtosavehimandhisfamilyfromthe
malicious prosecution by the Police or the ATS. Ld.SPP submittedthat
accusedMehendiHasanhasmadeastatementabouttheretractionofhis
confessionduringthecourseofhisexaminationu/sec.313oftheCr.P.C.
InthesubmissionofLd.SPPthisretractionatthebelatedstageisafter
thoughtandunderthelegaladviceandassuchcannotbeaccepted. As
against this, Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that in the letter
addressedtotheCourt,whichhasbeenregisteredasM.A.No.14of2006,
accused Mehendi Hasan has narrated all the facts, which led to the
extractionofconfessionbytheofficersofATS.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola
submitted that the statements made in the letter about the episode of
productionofthisaccusedbeforeDCPShriRajeshKumarMorhavebeen
fully corroborated by the documentary evidence placed on record by
accused Mehendi Hasan. Ld.Advocate Pasbola submitted that the role
playedbyaccusedMehendiHasanis peripheral and,therefore,without
givingmuchimportancetohisconfession,hisretractionofwhateverhe
hasallegedlystatedinhisconfessionhastobeaccepted.
264]

Whiledealingwiththeevidenceoftheprosecutionon

the issue of voluntary and true nature of the confession of accused


MehendiHasan,Ihavemadeathreadbareanalysisandappreciationofthe
262

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

262

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

263

25th February, 2015

atthehandsoftheDCPShriBodkhe,whorecordedhisconfession. The
applicationM.A.No.14of2006wasreceivedbythisCourtfromjailon
27/01/2006.Perusalofthisapplicationwouldrevealthatthisapplication
wasdraftedon20/01/2006.Itcan,therefore,beseenthatafterexpiryof
tendaysfromremandingthisaccusedtojudicialcustody,he,forthefirst
time,madesomegrievance.
265]

The record reveals that accused Mehendi Hasan had

engagedthelawyerin this case.On17/01/2006,throughhisAdvocate


accused Mehendi Hasan made two applications. First application was
madeseekingdirectiontotheJailAuthoritiestoallowaccusedMehendi
Hasantohavethehomefood.SecondapplicationwasmadebyAdvocate
foraccusedMehendiHasanseekingpermissiontomeettheaccusedalong
withhisfamilymembersinjail.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethatin
boththeseapplications,theAdvocateappearingfortheaccuseddidnot
make a grievance about illtreatment, torture etc. to accused Mehendi
Hasanatthehandsofthepoliceeitherduringthecourseofinterrogation
orbytheDCPShriBodkhePW11whenhewasproducedbeforehimfor
recordingconfession.TheapplicationM.A.No.14of2006wasreceivedby
this Court on 27/01/2006. On receipt of this application, this Court
directed the Registrar(Sessions) of this Court to provide copy of the
applicationtotheprosecutionaswellastotheAdvocateappearingforthe
accused.
266]

ItisnecessarytoseewhattranspiredbeforethisCourt

onproductionofaccusedMehendiHasanfromjailon31/01/2006.Inthe
264

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

264

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

267]

265

25th February, 2015

On 17/01/2006, when accused Mehendi Hasan was

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

the application forwarded by accused Mehendi Hasan from jail and


received by this Court on 27/01/2006 was not in fact a retraction
application.Itwasanapplicationwithaprayertodischargehimfromthis
crimeforthegroundsstatedintheapplication.
269]

IncaseofaccusedMehendiHasan,itcanbeseenthat
266

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

266

25th February, 2015

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

thecaseof Shankariav.StateofRajasthan reportedin 1978Cri.L.J.


Page1251(1),submittedthatthecomplaintofilltreatmentmadebythe
accusedwhilerecordinghisstatementu/sec.313oftheCr.P.C.hastobe
termed as afterthought retraction. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held that if the accused retracts his confession by
makingacomplaintofilltreatmentatthestageofrecordinghisstatement
u/sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., such a retraction has to be termed as after
thought retraction. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances
267

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

267

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

268

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

269

25th February, 2015

afterthought and under legal advice and, therefore, much weightage


cannot be given to it. Ld.SPP further submitted that the confession of
accusedAbuSalemhasbeenfullycorroboratedbytheconfessionmadeby
accused Mehendi Hasan and viceversa. Ld.SPP further submitted that
thereisotherindependentevidencetocorroboratethestatementsmadeby
accusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionalstatement.
272]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

270

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

271

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

272

25th February, 2015

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]

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Bharat

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

273

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

274

25th February, 2015

object of Rule 15 subrule (5) of the TADA Rules is to safeguard the


interest of the maker of the confession by directing the confessional
statementtobetakenoutofthehandsofthepolicesothattherecouldbe
nosubsequentinterpolation.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheld
thatRule15subrule(5)oftheTADA(P)Rulesdoesnotascribeanyrole
totheChiefMetropolitanMagistrateortheChiefJudicialMagistrateof
eitherperusingthesaidstatementormakinganyendorsementorapplying
hismindtothesestatements. Itisheldthatitmerelyconvertsthesaid
CourtsintoapostofficeforfurthertransmissiontotheDesignatedCourt
concerned.Therefore,theobjectoftheruleistoseethatthestatement
recordedu/sec.15oftheActleavesthecustodyoftheconcernedofficerat
theearliestsothatthestatementhasasaferprobativevalue.TheHon'ble
Supreme Court of India has precisely dealt with the role of the Chief
JudicialMagistrateortheChiefMetropolitanMagistrateascontemplated
under Rule 15 subrule(5) of the TADA Rules. So, this is the second
Judgmentonthispoint.
277]

In order to consider the applicability of the law laid

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

275

25th February, 2015

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

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is contrary to the law laid down by the


Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaintheabovereferredJudgments.Asper
thelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,onproductionof
accusedAbuSalembeforethelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate,he
wassupposedtofindoutwhethertheconfessionmadeisvoluntaryand
276

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

276

25th February, 2015

not by applying any torture, threat, inducement, promise, allurement,


beating, force, coercion, illtreatment, harassment,undue influence etc..
The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is not empowered to record
statementoftheaccusedafresh.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas
heldthatthe power torecordthe confession of the accusedasperthe
schemeoftheTADA(P)Actvestswiththecompetentofficerasmentioned
inSection15oftheTADA(P)Act. Theobjectoftheproductionofthe
accusedbeforeMagistrate,afterrecordingtheconfession,istoprovideone
morechecktoensurethattheconfessionmadebytheaccusedisvoluntary
and it is not the result of any torture, illtreatment, inducement,
allurement,promise,threat,coercion,harassmentetc..Inviewofthelaw
laiddownbytheHon'leSupremeCourtofIndia,theonlyconcernofthe
Magistrateistoverifywhethertheaccusedwassubjectedtoilltreatment,
beating,coercion,threat,torture,inducement,promiseetc.beforeandat
thetimeofrecordingofhisconfession.

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

277

25th February, 2015

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]

Therefore, by applying the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as mentioned above, this exercise


undertakenbythelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistratetoreadovereach
andeverysentencefromtheconfessionoftheaccusedtohimandofferan
opportunity to the accused to comment upon the same and record the
sameisillegalexerciseandcontrarytothelawlaiddownbytheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndia.Itmaybenotedthatwhenaparticularexerciseis
foundtobecontrarytotheprovisionsoflawandthelawlaiddownbythe
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia,thensuchexercisecannotbeacceptedas
278

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

278

25th February, 2015

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]

Accused Abu Salem had an opportunity to make a

grievance of illtreatment, torture, threat, inducement, coercion,


allurement,beating,harassment,promiseetc.formakingtheconfession,
whenhewasproducedbeforethelearnedChiefMetropolitanMagistrate.
Aconfession,whichis causedbyinducement,threat,coercion,bearing,
allurement,promise,harassment,tortureetc.isnotavoluntaryconfession.
Ifthereisnogrievanceofanyilltreatment,torture,inducement,threat,
allurement,beating,harassment,promise,formakingaconfessionandif
the said confession is otherwise proved before Court, then the only
irresistibleconclusionisthatthesaidconfessionisvoluntaryconfession.I
haveconsideredtheevidenceledbytheprosecutiononthepointofthe
aspectoftrueandvoluntarynatureoftheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem
andmadethreadbareanalysisofotherevidence.Ihaveobservedthatthe
279

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

279

25th February, 2015

confession made by accused Abu Salem is not caused by threat,


inducement,promise,coercion,allurement,beating,illtreatment,torture,
undueinfluence,harassmentetc.andassuchitisavoluntaryandtrue
confessionmadebyaccusedAbuSalem.
282]

In reply to the above stated two decisions, learned

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

280

25th February, 2015

reportedin 2014ALLMR(Cri)2627 isofnohelpandassistancetothe


caseofaccusedAbuSalem.
283]

Inthis case,accusedAbuSalem is facingthe charges

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

281

25th February, 2015

accused as to whether his statement was recorded by the DCP. The


accusedansweredthesaidquestionintheaffirmativeandhissignatures
were obtained on the application in confirmation of his admission of
havingmadeastatementbeforetheDCP.InthiscasetheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiarelyingupontheconfessionoftheaccusedinthebackdrop
ofthisprocedurefollowedbytheACMMconvictedtheaccused. Ihave
minutelyperusedtheJudgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiain
thecaseof DevenderPalSinghcitedsupra. Ihavenotcomeacrossany
observationfromthisJudgmentthattheprocedurefollowedbytheACMM
was contrary to the mandates of Rule 15(5) of the TADA (P) Rules.
Therefore,thepropositionoflawlaiddownonthisissuebytheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiainthiscaseisofnohelpandassistancetothecase
oftheaccusedbeforeme.

285]

Besides, presuming for the sake of argument that the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

282

25th February, 2015

opportunity, as and when he was produced before this Court, to make


complaintthathewasbeingsubjectedtotorture,illtreatment,coercion,
beating,threattoconfessthecrime.AccusedAbuSalemdidnotdothat.I
havealsodealtwithoneimportantundisputedfactandinmyview,this
factwouldweighinviewoftheconclusionthattheconfessionofaccused
Abu Salem was not caused by inducement, threat, promise, coercion,
beatingandallurement.AccusedAbuSalemfromdayoneofhisarrestin
thiscrimehadthebenefitoflegaladvice. Mypredecessorhadgranted
permissiontooneofthelawyersoutofthethreelawyersnamelyMr.A.M.
Saraogi, Mr. O.A. Siddiqui and Mr. Rashid Ansari mentioned in the
applicationdated24/11/2005tomeetaccusedAbuSalemoneveryday
forfifteenminutesbetween8.00a.m.to8.30a.m..Thereisnogrievance
thattheadvocatewasnotallowedtomeetaccusedAbuSalem.Ifthisis
thefactualposition,thenatthebelatedstage,itcannotlieinthemouthof
accused Abu Salem that though he had an opportunity and best legal
advice, he could not make the grievance of illtreatment, torture and
beating at the hands of the police during his police custody. Such a
statementcannotbeacceptedintheteethoftheundisputedfactsandthe
factsprovedinthiscaseonthebasisofconcreteandcogentevidence.

286]

ItisnecessarytomentionthatevenbeforelearnedChief

Metropolitan Magistrate accused Abu Salem has partly admitted his


confessionandpartlydeniedit.Thisfactwouldindicatethatheismaking
thisCourttobelievethatpartofhisconfessionisvoluntaryandpartofthe
confessionisnotvoluntary. Itmaybementionedthatthesubmissionof
283

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

283

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case, accused Abu Salem was remanded to

judicial custody on 03/01/2006 by this Court. On 10/01/2006,


InvestigatingOfficerACPShriShengal(PW22)madeanapplicationfor
grantingpolicecustodytothisaccusedtill22/01/2006. Thisapplication
wasopposedtoothandnailbytheaccused.Inreplytothisapplicationthe
accused made a grievance that his confession was caused by threat,
promise, coercion, undue influence, allurement, beating, torture,
harassment,illtreatment.Mylearnedpredecessorwasrequiredtopassa
detail order to deal with rival contentions. The order passed by my
learnedpredecessordated12/01/2006wouldspeakforitselfaboutthe
fallacious nature of the allegations made by accused Abu Salem. My
284

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

284

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

285

25th February, 2015

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]

Here, at this stage I must make a mention of brave

decision of my then learned predecessor, which I am told was severely


criticised. On29/11/2005accusedAbuSalemwasproducedbeforemy
learned predecessor on the basis of the allegation of illtreatment and
torture caused to him during the course of interrogation by the
Investigating Officer. The record reveals that my learned predecessor
whennoticedthattheaccusedwasuncomfortableinmakingstatementin
openCourtbeforehisAdvocateandtheInvestigatingOfficer,mylearned
predecessorcausedproductionoftheaccusedinthechamberandmade
enquirywiththeaccused.Itisseenthatthisactonthepartofmylearned
predecessor did not go down well with the people, but my learned
predecessordidnotbotheraboutit.Mylearnedpredecessormadeenquiry
286

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

286

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

287

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

288

25th February, 2015

theconfessionbyaccusedAbuSalem.Itisnownecessarytoconsiderthe
citationsrelieduponbylearnedSPPShriUjjwalNikamonthepointofthe
evidentiaryvalueoftheconfession,admissibilityoftheconfessionagainst
the accused and coaccused, value of the retracted confession and the
natureofthecorroborationrequiredincaseofretractedconfession.
292]

InthecaseofMohd.AyubDarvs.StateofJammu&

Kashmir, reported in 2010(3) Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 1350, the


Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatifconfessionisvoluntaryand
truthful and relates to accused himself, no further corroboration is
necessaryandconvictioncanbebasedsolelythereon.Suchconfessionis
admissibleassubstantivepieceofevidence.Itisfurtherheldthatevenif
otheroralevidencegoescountertotheconfession,yetconvictioncanbe
foundedonvoluntaryandreliableconfession. Inthiscase,theHon'ble
Supreme Court of India has further held that merely because the
guidelinesinKartarSingh,(1994)3SupremeCourtCases569,werenot
fullyfollowed,thatbyitselfdoesnotwipeouttheconfession.
293]

In the case of Hem Raj Devilal v. State of Ajmer

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

294]

289

25th February, 2015

Inthecasebeforeme,theconfessionsmadebyaccused

Abu Salem and Mehendi Hasan are detailed confessions. In their


confessionstheyhaveunfoldedalmostallthefacts,whichwerewiththeir
specialandexclusiveknowledge. TheRecordingOfficerswerenotina
positiontoknowallthedetails,whichcouldotherwisebeknowntothese
accused. Therefore, thepropositionoflawlaiddownthisJudgment
squarelyappliestothefactsofthiscase.
295]

In the case of Subramania Goundan v. State of

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

296]

290

25th February, 2015

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]

In the case of Bharat v. State of U.P. reported in

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

291

25th February, 2015

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]

In view of my finding that the confessions made by

accusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanarevoluntaryandtrue
andtheconfessionshavenotbeencausedbyanythreat,inducementor
promise.Therefore, thepropositionoflawlaiddowninthisJudgment
squarelyappliestofactsofthiscase.Inthiscase,thereisotherevidenceto
corroboratetheconfessions.
299]

In the case of Shankar alias Gauri Shankar and

othersv.StateofTamilNadu reportedin 1994SupremeCourtCases


(Cri) 1252, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the
292

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

292

25th February, 2015

confession should be a voluntary one, that means not caused by


inducement,threatorpromise.Whetheraconfessionisvoluntaryornotis
essentiallyaquestionoffact.Whenajudicialconfessionisretracted,the
courtshallholdthatapartfromthestatementbeingvoluntary,itshouldbe
trueandshouldreceivesufficientcorroborationinmaterialparticularsby
independentevidence.TheHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldthattherule
ofprudencenamelyrequiringcorroborationdoesnotmeanthateachand
every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the
participation of the accused in the crime must be separately and
independently corroborated. It is sufficient if there is general
corroborationoftheimportantincidents. Itisfurtherheldthatitisnot
illegaltobaseaconvictiononanuncorroboratedconfessionofanaccused
personbutasaruleofprudencewhichhassanctifieditselftotheruleof
law,thecourtsdolookforcorroborationbeforeactinguponandaccepting
the retracted confession and what amount of corroboration would be
necessaryinacasewouldbeaquestionoffacttobedeterminedinthe
lightofthecircumstancesofthecase.
300]

In view of the facts and evidence obtained on record

and discussed by me, the proposition of lawin this Judgment squarely


appliestothefactsofthiscase. Inthiscase,thereisotherevidenceto
corroboratetheconfessionsbyaccused.
301]

In the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty alias

Lakshmi Narasimhan reported in 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)


1177,theHon'bleApexCourthasheldthatjudicialconfessiondoesnot
293

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

293

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case, neither accused Abu Salem nor accused

MehendiHasanmadeacomplaintofilltreatmentortortureatthehands
oftheInvestigatingOfficerorbycompetentofficerswhilerecordingtheir
confessions before learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on their
294

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

294

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

295

25th February, 2015

thecompetentofficers. Asfarasthe minordefectspointedoutbythe


learnedAdvocatefortheaccusedareconcerned,thesamecanbetaken
care of by applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiainthiscase.
306]

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]

The learned Advocate has placed reliance on the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

296

25th February, 2015

confession cannot be said to be voluntary. In this case, the Hon'ble


SupremeCourtofIndiahasconsideredalmostalltheprovisionsunderthe
TADA (P) Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the
confession recorded u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act is admissible as a
substantivepieceofevidence. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahas
referredtheJudgmentinthecaseofStatevs.Nalinireportedin(1999)5
Supreme Court Cases 253. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has
furtherheldthattheconfessionoftheaccusedrecordedu/sec.15ofthe
TADA (P) Act cannot be treated as weak piece of evidence requiring
corroboration merely because the same is made to and recorded by a
Police Officer. It is further held that if the said confession is properly
recordedsatisfyingthemandatoryprovisionsofSection15oftheTADA(P)
Act and the TADA Rules and if the same is found by the court to be
voluntaryandtruthfulinnature,thenconvictionoftheaccusedcanbe
recordedonthebasisofthesaidconfession.TheHon'bleSupremeCourt
ofIndiahasheldthatwhethersuchconfessionrequirescorroborationor
not,isamatterforthecourtconsideringsuchconfessionkeepinginmind
factsofeachcase. Thecorroborationrequiredinrelationtotheuseof
confessionagainstthemakerisofageneralnature,unlessthecourtcomes
totheconclusionthatsuchcorroborationshouldbeonmaterialfactsalso
becauseofthefactsofaparticularcase.Thedegreeofcorroborationso
requiredisthatwhichisnecessaryforaprudentmantobelieveinthe
existenceoffactsmentionedintheconfessionalstatement.Onthepoint
ofuseofconfessionagainstacoaccused,theHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India has held that the confessional statement of an accused recorded
297

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

297

25th February, 2015

u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act is a substantive piece of evidence even


againstacoaccusedprovidedtheaccusedconcernedaretriedtogether.It
isheldthatwhensuchconfessionalstatementistobeusedagainstaco
accused, is as a matter of caution, a general corroboration should be
soughtfor.However,incaseswherethecourtissatisfiedthattheprobative
valueofsuchconfessionissuchthatitdoesnotrequirecorroborationthen
itmaybaseaconvictiononthebasisofsuchconfessionofthecoaccused
withoutcorroboration.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahascautioned
thatbutthisisanexceptiontothegeneralruleofrequiringcorroboration
whensuchconfessionistobeusedagainstacoaccused.
308]

The proposition of law laid down in this decision

insteadofextendingahelpinghandtotheaccused,itsupportsthecaseof
theprosecutioninthebackdropofthefactsprovedinthiscase. Ihave
consideredindetailthefactualaspectsquatheconfessionsofaccusedAbu
SalemandaccusedMehendiHasanandevidenceofPW11Shri Bodkhe
andPW12ShriKarale.
309]

Learned Advocate Shri Pasbola appearing for the

accused submitted that the confession made by the accused is itself a


dentedpieceofevidence.Theconfessionmadebytheaccusedcannotbe
reliedupon,unlessitiscorroboratedbytheotherevidence.Ld.Advocate
ShriPasbolaadmittedthatthecorroborationmaybeofageneralnature.
Ld.AdvocateShriPasbola,therefore,submittedthatonedented pieceof
evidence, which itself requires a corroboration, cannot be used to
298

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

298

25th February, 2015

corroboratetheconfessionoftheaccused,whichisalsoadentedpieceof
evidencerequirescorroboration.
310]

ThepointraisedbytheLd.AdvocateShriPasbolaneeds

to be addressed in the backdrop of the provisions of Section 15 of the


TADA(P)ActandRule15oftheTADARules.Similarly,theCourthasto
bearinmindthesettledlegalpositionquatheconfessionoftheaccused
recorded under the provisions of the TADA (P) Act. It is settled legal
positionthattheconfessionoftheaccusedrecordedu/sec.15oftheTADA
(P)Actisasubstantivepieceofevidence.TheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
Indiahasheldthatsincetheconfessionoftheaccusedrecordedunderthe
TADA (P) Act is a substantive piece of evidence, the conviction of the
accusedcanbebasedonthesame.Thereisnoneedofanycorroboration.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatwhenquestioncomesto
usetheconfessionoftheaccusedagainstthecoaccused,then,byapplying
theruleofprudence,theCourtmustlookforageneralcorroborationto
the confession from other material. The confession of the accused
recordedundertheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act,asheldbytheHon'ble
Supreme Court of India, cannot be treated on par with the confession
recordedincaseofanoffenceundertheIndianPenalCodeandbythe
Magistrate.Thislegalpositionmustbeborneinmindwhileappreciating
and dealing with the submissions advanced by learned Advocate Shri
Pasbolaappearingfortheaccused.Asfarastheruleofprudencerequiring
ageneralcorroborationtousetheconfessionoftheaccusedagainsttheco
accused, I fully agree with ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola. But the main
299

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

299

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

300

25th February, 2015

(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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

301

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

302

25th February, 2015

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]

The point or issue raised by learned Advocate Shri

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

303

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

304

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

305

25th February, 2015

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]

It is now necessary to see whether there is any

differenceinthecaseoftheprosecutionintheearlierpartoftrialandthis
trialonthepointoftheconspiracy,theobjectoftheconspiracyandthe
personsinvolvedintheconspiracy.Itmaybementionedatthisstagethat
withslightvariationinthefacts,someimportantfactsarecommon.The
commonthingsare, i) thedisputeovertheKolDongriPropertyofM/s.
306

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

306

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

307

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

308

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

309

25th February, 2015

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

were pressurized to surrender the property in favour of 'M/s. Labh


Constructions'. Itisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionthatatanypointof
timeaccusedAbuSalemandhisassociatesthreatenedorpressurizedJain
310

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

310

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

311

25th February, 2015

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]

It may be noted that if the Investigating Officer had

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

312

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

313

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

314

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

315

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

316

25th February, 2015

SPPandthe learnedAdvocatesappearing fortheaccused. Mylearned


predecessorbyaSpeakingOrderdated16/04/2007sustainedtheprayer
madebythelearnedProsecutorforframingthechargeagainsttheaccused
for the conspiracy u/sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code with other
offences.
326]

The accused felt aggrieved by this order dated

16/04/2007andchallengedthe samein the Hon'ble Supreme Courtof


India by filing Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006. The basic
allegation/contentionofaccusedAbuSalembeforetheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiawasthatthechargesframedagainsthimfortheoffences
wereinbreachoftheorderofextraditionanditamountedtobreachofthe
Rule of Speciality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decided the
Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2006 vide its Judgment and Order dated
10/09/2010andheldthattherewasnobreachoftheRuleofSpeciality.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiafurtherheldthataccusedAbuSalem
couldhavebeentriedforsuchoffenceswhicharelesserinnaturethanthe
offencesforwhichtheextraditionhasbeengranted.TheHon'bleSupreme
Court of India has categorically held that there was no breach of the
provisionsofSection21(b)oftheIndianExtraditionAct,1962.
327]

TheaccusedAbuSalemhasbeenchargedinthiscase

u/sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeontheallegationthatinconspiracy
withtheotheraccused,betweenNovember,1994to7th March,1995at
DubaiandatGreaterBombay,agreedtostrikeaterrorinJainbrothersand
317

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

317

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

318

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

319

25th February, 2015

SolicitorGeneralneedacceptanceandultimatelyconfirmedthedecisionof
theDesignatedCourtframingthechargeagainstaccusedAbuSalem.The
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahascategoricallyheldthattherewasno
breachofRuleofSpeciality.AsfarasthiscaseagainstaccusedAbuSalem
isconcerned,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasconfirmedtheorder
of this Court framing the charge againstthe accusedAbu Salem u/sec.
120BofIndianPenalCodeandotheroffences.
330]

It is necessary to see the material placed before the

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]

The Court of Appeals of Lisbon had initially turned

down the prayer for extradition of accused Abu Salem for offences
providingthepunishmentofdeathandimprisonmentforlife.Therefore,
320

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

320

25th February, 2015

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]

On going through the record placed before me, it is

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

321

25th February, 2015

16/04/2007 framing charges against accused Abu Salem including the


chargeofconspiracywaschallengedbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India. TheHon'ble Supreme Courtof India,afterconsideringallthese
factsandtheobjectionraisedbyaccusedAbuSalem,confirmedtheorder
ofthisCourtdated16/04/2007wherebythechargeu/sec.120Bandfor
otheroffenceswasframedagainsthim. IntheJudgmentoftheHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiadated10/09/2010,arisingoutoftheorderpassed
bythisCourtdated16/04/2007inthiscaseandtheorderpassedinthe
Bombay Bomb Blasts Case of 1993, reported in Judgments Today
2010(10)SupremeCourtpage202inthecaseofAbuSalemv.Stateof
Maharashtra,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthattherewas
nobreachofRuleofSpeciality. Similarly,therewasnoviolationofthe
provisionsofSection21(b)oftheIndianExtraditionAct,1962. Itmay,
therefore,bementionedthatthepointraisedbythelearnedAdvocateShri
PasbolaforaccusedAbuSalemhasbeenfinallydecidedbytheHon'ble
Supreme Court of India. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the
submissions advanced on behalf of accused Abu Salem by learned
AdvocateShriPasbolaonthispoint.
333]

Inordertocompletediscussiononthispoint,itwouldbe

appropriate to take note of the subsequent development. The said


subsequentdevelopmenthasbeenrecordedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt
ofIndiainitsorderdated05/08/2013inCriminalAppealNo.415416of
2012. Itmaybementionedthatforsomereasonortheother,theCBI
moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for modification of the
322

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

322

25th February, 2015

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]

In the context of the submissions advanced by learned

Advocate Shri Pasbola, it is necessary to make a mention of those


observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from order dated
05/08/2013. TheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasobservedthatthe
modificationPetitionisallowedonlytotheextentofwithdrawalofthe
additionalchargesframedagainsttheAppellant(AbuSalem)inBombay
Bomb Blasts Case. In Para No. 16 of the Judgment and Order dated
05/08/2013,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasobservedthatthe
323

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

323

25th February, 2015

analysis and reasoning rendered in the Judgment and Order dated


10/09/2010 in the case of 'Abu Salem v. State of Maharashtra' with
regardtotheinterpretationofthePrincipleofSpecialitystillstandsgood,
asthelawdeclaredbythisCourtunderArticle141oftheConstitutionof
IndiaandshallbebindingonalltheCourtswithintheterritoryofIndia.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further held in the order dated
05/08/2013thattheaccusedAbuSalemcouldbetriedinIndiadespitethe
decision of the Constitutional Court of Portugal. The Hon'ble Supreme
CourtofIndiahasfurtherheldthatthedecisionoftheConstitutionalCourt
ofPortugal isnotbindingontheCourtsinIndia. TheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiabyorderdated05/08/2013permittedtheCBItowithdraw
theChargesatSr.Nos.3to8onlyframedagainsttheaccusedAbuSalemin
BombayBlastsCase.
335]

It may be noted at this stage that in the order dated

05/08/2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India took note of the


statementmadebythelearnedAttorneyGeneralofIndia. Thelearned
AttorneyGeneralofIndiamadeastatementbeforetheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndiathattheyareintheprocessofwithdrawingothercharges
pending in various States against the appellant Abu Salem, which are
claimedtobeinviolationofextraditionorderandtheHon'bleSupreme
Court of India recorded the aforesaid statement made by the learned
Attorney General of India. Taking advantage of this statement, a
submissionwasmadebeforethisCourtbylearnedAdvocateShriPasbola
for accused Abu Salem that the prosecution in this case is bound to
324

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

324

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

325

25th February, 2015

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]

In the backdrop of the above said observations, it is

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

326

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

337]

327

25th February, 2015

The ultimate object of the conspiracy was to earn the

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]

In juxtaposition with the above stated points and my

observations dealing with those points, it is necessary to observe that


328

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

328

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

329

25th February, 2015

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]

PW9 Jyoti Jain is the unfortunate widow of Pradeep

Jain.Accordingtotheprosecution,herevidenceisdirectevidenceonthe
330

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

330

25th February, 2015

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]

Ld. SPP Shri Ujjwal Nikam submitted that PW9 is a

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

331

25th February, 2015

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]

Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola for the accused submitted

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

332

25th February, 2015

AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthattheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainand
PW13SunilJain,onthefactsdeposedbyPW9,iscontradictory.
342]

Inordertoappreciatetherivalsubmissionsandtocome

to a conclusion on the point of reliability and creditworthiness of the


evidenceofPW9JyotiJain,itisnecessarytobearinmindcertainfacts
having a predominant importance in the peculiar nature of this case.
UndisputedlyPradeepJainwasmurderedon07/03/1995.Asperthecase
oftheprosecutionaccusedAbuSalemisthebrainbehindthecrimeand
theotheraccusedwerehisstoogestofollowhiscommandsanddictates
pursuant to the conspiracy hatched in Dubai. Jain brothers were
pressurizedandthreatenedtosurrendertheirrightovertheKolDongri
Property. Similarly, when with the passage of time, accused Abu Salem
realizedthathecouldnotforcetheJainbrotherstosurrendertheproperty
and satisfy the other party, he took a somersault and started making
threatsofthedireconsequencestotheJainbrotherstopayhimRs.one
crore.AfterthemurderofPradeepJainon07/03/1995,PW9JyotiJain
could not bear the shock and, therefore, she was admitted to hospital.
Thoughthewheelsoftheinvestigationwereputintomotionon7thitself,
herstatementcouldnotberecordedtill10/03/1995.Shewasdischarged
from the hospital on 10/03/1995. While appreciating the evidence of
PW9JyotiJain,onecannotbeobliviousofthefactthattheJyotiJainmust
beundertremendousshockandcompletelyhorrifiedandshakenbythe
diabolical, dasterdlyanddepraved act of accusedAbu Salem. Even by
applyinganystandard,theshockandtraumaofthedeathofherhusband
333

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

333

25th February, 2015

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

Salemandhismain associateswereatlarge. PW9JyotiJain'ssecond


statement was recorded after the arrest of accused Abu Salem. In her
statement,besidesthefactsstatedbyherinherearlierstatement,shehas
narratedtheincidentoccurredon13thdaydeathofPradeepJain.Inview
ofthefactsstatedabove,onecanvisualizetheplight,shockandtrauma
undergonebyPW9JyotiJaininparticularandJainfamilyingeneral.Her
evidencewouldshowthatspellofthreats atthehands ofaccusedAbu
SalemcontinuedevenaftermurderofPradeepJaintosatisfyhisgreedand
force the Jain brothers to part with the ransom amount. It is now
necessarytoconsidertheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainkeepinginmindall
theabovestatedfacts.
344]

The evidence of PW9 Jyoti Jain was recorded in the

earliertrialon25/03/1997.Inherevidence,PW9JyotiJainhasnarrated
twoincidents.FirstincidentoccurredinthemonthofFebruary,1995and
thesecondoccurredon13thdaydeathceremonyofherhusbandPradeep
Jainon20/03/1995.Herstatementrecordedearlieron10/03/1995and
334

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

334

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

335

25th February, 2015

tobeworriedabouttheincidentandtheywouldgetthethingssetright.
345]

PW9 Jyoti Jain has been thoroughly crossexamined.

Themainthrustofthecrossexamination is topointoutthe omissions,


inconsistencies and contradictions in her evidence qua her earlier
statement,earlierevidenceandthestatementrecordedafterarrestofAbu
Salem.
346]

Let me now examine those statements of PW9 Jyoti

Jain to come to a conclusion on the issue of the facts stated by her


consistentlyandthefactswhichareimprovements,contradictionsetc..I
havecarefullygonethroughhercrossexamination.Ongoingthroughher
crossexaminationonthisissue,thereappearstobesomevarianceinthe
twostatements. ButtheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainisconsistentonthe
aspectofthereceiptofthephonecallfromAbuSalem;thatshepickedup
thephonecallandgaveittoherhusbandPradeepJain;thatthecaller
disclosedhisnameasSalemspeakingfromDubai. Herevidenceisalso
consistent on the fact that after the conversation her husband was
disturbedandsheaskedhimthereason.Thevarianceisononepoint.In
herevidencebeforethisCourt,shehasdeposedthatwhenshepickedup
thephone,thepersonontheotherendenquiredwhetherAshokJainwas
thereandsherepliedthatAshokJainwasnotthere.Thenthecallerasked
herwhoelsewasthereandthensherepliedthatPradeepJainwasthere.
ShepassedonthetelephonetoPradeepJain.Inherearlierevidenceshe
hadstatedthataccusedAbuSalemmadeenquirywhetherPradeepJain
336

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

336

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

337

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

338

25th February, 2015

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

fact in his confession. The confession of accused Abu Salem is at


Exhibit387. Inhisconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthatas
perthedealsettledbyhimwiththeJainbrothers,AshokJainpaidhimRs.
tenlakhsinJanuary,buthestoppedmakingthepaymentoftheremaining
installmentsasagreed. Therefore,heandAneesIbrahimstartedmaking
phonecallstoAshokJain,butAshokJainwasavoidingtomakepayment
ononepretextortheother.AbuSalemhasadmittedinhisconfessionthat
inthelastweekofFebruary,1995,hemadeaphonecallatthehouseof
Ashok Jain. The phone was attended by a woman. Abu Salem has
339

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

339

25th February, 2015

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]

At this stage, it is necessary to mention that the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

340

25th February, 2015

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]

Let me now see the confession of accused Mehendi

Hasan on this point. Accused Mehendi Hasan has admitted in his


341

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

341

25th February, 2015

confession that after coming back from Dubai to Mumbai, he went to


Kolhapur.MehendiHasanhasadmittedinhisconfessionthaton2ndor
3rdMarch,1995,hemadeaphonecalltoaccusedAbuSalem. Atthat
timeaccusedAbuSalemwasangryandheabusedhimandtoldhimtogo
toMumbaiandmeetSalimHaddiandmakeaphonecalltohim.Mehendi
Hasanhasadmittedinhisconfessionthat,atthattimeAbuSalemtoldhim
thatinanycircumstancetheyhavetokillPradeepJainbecausePradeep
Jain had abused him. These facts stated in the confession by accused
MehendiHasanalsogetcorroboratedbytheevidenceofPW9JyotiJain.
351]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

342

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

343

25th February, 2015

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]

Second statement of PW9 Jyoti Pradeep Jain was

recorded after arrest of accused Abu Salem. It was recorded on


30/11/2005. In her evidence, PW9 Jyoti Jain has deposed that on
20/03/1995the13thdayceremonyofherhusbandPradeepJain,atabout
7.00to7.30p.m.,theirphonerang.Shepickedupthereceiver.Thecaller
askedherwhowasspeaking. Shehasdeposedthatsherecognizedthe
saidvoiceanditwasofAbuSalem. Shehasdeposedthatshetoldhim
thatshewaswifeofPradeepJainspeakingtohimandwhatmoredidhe
344

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

344

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

345

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

346

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

347

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

348

25th February, 2015

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]

Let me now see some of the admissions brought on

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

349

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

359]

350

25th February, 2015

Therearecertainomissionsinherevidence. However,

those omissions are not material omissions. On the material point of


receiptofthreatcalls,herevidenceisconsistent.PW9hasnotdeposed
about other incident. If she had been a planted, concocted or tutored
witness, then the prosecution would have made her to depose about
certainotherfacts,whichwerenotevenknowntoher.PW9JyotiJainhas
notutteredasinglewordaboutthevariousmeetingsheldtosettlethe
matterandotherrelatedaspects.Inmyview,thisisonemorefactwhich
lendsanassurancetotheevidenceofthiswitness.Thereisavariancein
herearlierstatementaswellasinthestatementmadeinthiscase.Butthe
variance is not on material aspects. If a witness makes a parrot like
narrationofafact,thentheCourthastopresumethatwitnessiseither
tutoredorisconcocted.Thewitnessisboundtomisscertainfactswhile
giving evidence before Court. If it is pointed out that the witness has
missed certain aspects or made a contradictory statement on certain
aspects,itisanassurancetocometoaconclusionthatwitnesshascome
before the Court to narrate the facts known to the witness. After
considering evidence of PW9 Jyoti Jain in totality and in juxtaposition
withtheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasan
andtheevidenceofApproverPW1NaeemKhan,Idonotseeanyreason
todiscardanddisbelieveher(PW9)evidenceonthepointdeposedtoby
her.Herevidenceiscogentandreliableontheaspectsdeposedtobyher.
Herevidencehasalsoprovidedgeneralcorroborationtotheconfessionof
accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan. Similarly, all the
important aspects deposed to by her has been established as a
351

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

351

25th February, 2015

corroborativeindependentevidencetothetestimonyofPW1NaeemKhan
(Approver).
EVIDENCEOFPW13SUNILJAIN
360]

PW13 Sunil Jain is the brother of deceased Pradeep

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]

Ld. SPP Shri Ujjwal Nikam submitted that there are

certainomissionsintheevidenceofPW13SunilJainquahisstatement
352

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

352

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

353

25th February, 2015

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]

Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola has not left a single stone

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

354

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

355

25th February, 2015

threat by accused Abu Salem to him on the 13th day ceremony of his
brotherdeceasedPradeepJain.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthat
theomissionsandcontradictionsintheevidenceofPW9JyotiJainand
PW13SunilJaincannotbesweptunderthecarpetbystatingthattheyare
minorormerediscrepancies.
363]

In order to appreciate the rival submissions and to

come to a conclusion on the issue of credibility and reliability of the


evidenceofPW13SunilJain,certainfactsobtainedonrecordneedtobe
mentionedattheoutset.JainbrothersweretheownersoftheKolDongri
Property. Theyhadstarteddevelopingthe saidproperty. Somepeople
withanevileyeonthesaidpropertystarteddisputingthe titleofJain
brothers over Kol Dongri Property. In Mumbai, the prices of the Real
Estateareskyhigh. ThepeopleinthisMetropolisarefightingforevery
inchofresidentialandcommercialspace.Withthiscrunchofthelandin
Mumbai, there is cutthroat competition amongst the Builders and
Developers.Withtheinitiationoftheprojectbythebuilderordeveloper
startsthelitigationsbytheunscrupulousclaimants.Someprojectsofthe
buildersanddevelopersarewithheldtosuchanextentthatsometimesit
practicallybecomesimpossibleforthebuilderordevelopertocompletethe
project.Herecomestheroleofthe'Underworld'.TheprofitfromtheReal
Estate seems to be the main source of earning by these Underworld
Gangsters. This can be either in the form of 'Protection Money' or
'Extortion'.Withtheglobalization,startedthegrowthofthedevelopment
ofthepropertyinMumbai.TheseUnderworldpeoplestartedfillingtheir
356

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

356

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

357

25th February, 2015

stooges to coordinate with the Jain brothers to hold meetings. The


accusedNo.1intheearliertrial,thesolicitoroftherepute,wasoneofthe
parties or rather convener of the meetings. As per the case of the
prosecution,allthemeetingstosettlethedealofsurrenderoftheproperty
byJainbrotherswereheldintheofficeofsolicitorBharatRaghani.Inthis
case,Jainbrotherswerethreatenedtofacedireconsequences,iftheyfail
tosurrendertheKolDongriPropertyandgetawayofthesaidproperty.It
appearsthatsurrendercouldnotmaterializeand,therefore,accusedAbu
Salemmouldedtheconspiracyandrenewedhisthreatswiththedemand
of money from Jain family as a Protection Money to tell the other
prospectivebuyerstogetoutoftheproperty.Onecanvisualizethemental
condition,plightandtraumaofaperson,whohaswitnessedthebrutal
murderofhisbrother.Therefore,astatementismadethatsuchomissions
arepossible,whenapersoncomesbeforepolicewithsuchastateofmind
and makes a statement. As per the case of the prosecution, the Jain
brothersevenaftermurderofPradeepJainwerekeptunderconstantspell
ofthreatsbyaccusedAbuSalemtosatisfyhisgreedydemand.WhenSunil
JandeposedbeforethisCourtinearliertrial,hewasthreatenedbyaccused
AbuSalemnottogiveevidencebeforeCourt.
366]

Ihaveminutelyperusedhisevidenceandonperusalof

his evidence, it appears that Jain family was terrorstricken and


pressurizedbyaccusedAbuSalem.Theydidnotopentheirmouthand
takenamesofeitheraccusedAbuSalem,AneesIbrahimorNaeemKhan.
The13thdayceremonyincidentafterthedeathofPradeepJainhasbeen
358

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

358

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

359

25th February, 2015

prevalentinthisMetropolis.
367]

Admittedly,thereareomissionsanddiscrepanciesinthe

evidence of PW13 Sunil Jain. Similarly, there are certain omissions


amountingtocontradictions.Anycontradictionfromtheevidenceofthe
witness unless explained becomes a strong circumstance and evidence
whileappreciatingthesubmissionsadvancedbythedefenceandassailing
the credibility and reliability of the evidence. While appreciating the
explanation placed on record for the omissions, discrepancies and
contradictionsintheevidenceofPW13,firstitisnecessarytoconsiderthe
factsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfession.Theconfessionof
accusedAbuSalemhasbeenprovedtobevoluntaryandtrue.Asperthe
settledlegalpositionpointedouthereinabovefromthevariousdecisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the confession of the accused
recordedu/sec.15ofthe TADA(P)Act,1987is asubstantivepieceof
evidenceandtheconvictioncanbebasedontheconfessionoftheaccused.
Therefore, the omissions, discrepancies and contradictions from the
evidenceofPW13SunilJaincannotbeconsideredinisolationwiththe
factsadmittedbyaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfession.
368]

Inordertodrawcomparisonbetweenthefactsstatedby

accusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionandthefactsstatedbywitnessPW13
SunilJaininhisevidence,attheoutset,itisnecessarytoseewhataccused
Abu Salem has admitted in his confession. The confession is the best
evidenceagainsttheaccused. Theadmittedfactsnarratedhereinabove
360

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

360

25th February, 2015

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

Salem hasstatedin his confession aboutthose omissions, discrepancies


andcontradictionsfoundfromtheevidenceofPW13SunilJain.
370]

AccusedAbuSalemhasadmittedhisacquaintancewith

Naeem Khan (Approver PW1), accused Mehendi Hasan, accused


Shaukatali,accusedRiyazSiddiquiandAneesIbrahimetc. Asfarasthe
episodeofKolDongriPropertyisconcerned,AbuSalemhasadmittedin
361

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

361

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

362

25th February, 2015

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]

Further part of the confession of accused Abu Salem

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

363

25th February, 2015

KhanaboutthesettlementwithJainbrothers.
372]

In his confession, accused Abu Salem has further

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

364

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

365

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

376]

366

25th February, 2015

At this stage, it is necessary to point out the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

377]

367

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

368

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

369

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

370

25th February, 2015

by selling their three flats from Mamta Cooperative Society through


builderV.K.Jhamb(accusedNo.5). Itisadmittedfactthatthiswasnot
disclosedintheearlierpartofevidence.Again,atthisstage,asfarasthis
transactionisconcerned,onehastolookattheconfessionofaccusedAbu
Salem.Inhisconfession,accusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthatevenafter
murder of Pradeep Jain he continued to extend the threats to the Jain
brothers and made them to sell their three flats through
V.K.Jhamb(accusedNo.5)andhegottheconsiderationofRs.28lakhs+
14lakhsthroughHawalainDubai.PW13SunilJainhasdeposedabout
thisfactinhisevidence.ThestatementofPW13SunilJain,afterarrestof
accusedAbuSalem,wasrecordedon28/11/2005. AccusedAbuSalem
wasarrestedinthiscaseon24/11/2005.Theepisodeofthethreats,after
themurderofPradeepJainandthetransactionofthethreeflatsthrough
builder V.K. Jhamb (accused No.5), was disclosed by PW13 Sunil Jain
whilerecordinghisstatement. AccusedAbuSalemmadehisConfession
on02/01/2006. Itcan,therefore,positivelybestatedthatPW13Sunil
JainhadnochancetodevelopanycaseasperthewhimsofthePolice
OfficersonthebasisofsomestatementmadebyaccusedAbuSalem.
380]

ThearrestoftheaccusedAbuSaleminthiscrimeinthe

backdrop of the facts would be the most important aspect while


appreciating the evidence of PW13 Sunil Jain. PW13 Sunil Jain was
concerned for his life and life of his family. PW13 Sunil Jain and his
familymemberswereawareofthedreadednatureofaccusedAbuSalem.
Accused Abu Salem was absconding since 1993 inasmuch as his
371

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

371

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

372

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

373

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

374

25th February, 2015

facts, circumstances and evidence in this case would be an appropriate


explanation for those omissions, discrepancies and contradictions.
Therefore,IamnotinclinedtodiscardtheevidenceofPW13SunilJain.
ThefactsdeposedtobyPW13SunilJaininhisevidencecannotbelooked
uponwithsuspicion.ThefactsnarratedbyPW13beforetheCourtafter
thearrestofaccusedAbuSalemprovidesadetailcatalogoftheevents
resultedintothemurderofPradeepJainaswellassubsequentextortion
afterthemurderofPradeepJain.Thisistheindependentevidence.This
independentevidence,therefore,canbeusedtocorroboratetheevidence
of PW1 Naeem Khan (Approver). Barring few inconsistencies, the
evidence of PW1 Naeem Khan (Approver) and PW13 Sunil Jain is
consistent on material points. It is necessary to mention that if the
accusedAbuSalemhadnotbeeninvolvedinthecrimeandresponsiblefor
the murder of Pradeep Jain, otherwise PW13 Sunil Jain and the Jain
familyhad noaxe to grind againsthim. As such Iam notinclined to
acceptthesubmissionsadvancedbythedefenceAdvocates. Submissions
advancedbyprosecutionareacceptedbeingwellfounded.
383]

The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW4

ShriSitaramNamdeoNikaljeandPW5MohammedShabirMunawaruddin
MaliktoseekindependentcorroborationtotheevidenceofPW1Naeem
Khan(Approver)andgeneralcorroborationtotheconfessionsofaccused
AbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanonthepointofexistenceofthe
STD booths from where the calls were made to Dubai and also the
telephonenumberstowhichthecallsweremade.Asperthecaseofthe
375

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

375

25th February, 2015

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]

At this stage, it is necessary to note down the

submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Pasbola for the accused.


LearnedAdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatallegeddiscoveryoftheSTD
boothscouldnotbesaidtobeadiscoveryoffactwithinthemeaningof
Section27oftheEvidenceAct.LearnedAdvocateShriPasbolasubmitted
thatthediscoveryofapersonordiscoveryoftheobjectlikeaboothcould
notbetreatedasadiscoveryoffactandassuchthestatementallegedto
have been made by accused Mehendi Hasan would not be admissible
u/sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In order to find out the correct
factualandlegalposition,attheoutset,itisnecessarytoseewhetherany
376

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

376

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

377

25th February, 2015

identifiedthe Panchanama. Itis at Exhibit333. He has deposed that


thereafter the accused Mehendi Hasan, Police Officers, constables and
Panchas boarded the Police jeep. Accused took them to Trombay and
particularly to Samina Communication. One person by name Mohd.
Shabbir was present there. In their presence, accused Mehendi Hasan
pointed out the STD booth from where he would make phone calls to
accusedAbuSaleminDubai.Hehasdeposedthatinhispresence,police
hadseized ArticlesB1,C1 and D1. Hehasfurtherdeposedthatfrom
there the accused took them to Andheri and pointed out another STD
boothLuckySTD.Hehasdeposedthatafterthis,thePanchanamawas
completedanditwassignedbybothofthemandthepoliceofficer.Itisat
Exhibit334.ThiswitnesshasidentifiedtheArticles.

386]

In his crossexamination, his very presence in the

police station has been disputed. However, he has offered proper


explanationinhiscrossexaminationtojustifyhispresenceinthelocality
of Bhoiwada Police Station. The answers given by him in his cross
examination,ifperusedinentirety,wouldmakeitclearthathewasthe
witnesstoallthesefacts. Onthebasisofhisevidence,onethingcould
certainlybeprovedthatinhispresenceatBhoiwadaPoliceStationaccused
madeastatementthathewouldpointouttheSTDboothsandtheaccused
tookthemtotheSTDboothsandpointedoutthoseSTDbooths.Asfaras
seizureofthetelephoneregistersareconcerned,otherevidenceledbythe
prosecution is very shaky anddoubtful. Therefore,on the basisof the
evidenceofthiswitness,thefactsofseizureofthe registers ArticlesB1
378

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

378

25th February, 2015

and D1 cannot be accepted. So, on the basis of the evidence of this


witness,ithasbeenestablishedthathehadaccompaniedthepolicetothe
twoSTDbooths,whichwerepointedoutbytheaccused.Hisevidenceon
thisaspectisconsistentandassuchcannotbediscarded.
387]

ItisnownecessarytoconsidertheevidenceofPW5

Shri Mohammed Shabir Munawaruddin Malik. PW5 is the owner of


ShaminaPCOCentreatChembur.Inhisevidencehehasdeposedthat
heknowsaccusedMehendiHasan.HehasdeposedthataccusedMehendi
Hasan resides in his locality and, therefore, he knows him since his
childhood.HehasdeposedthataccusedMehendiHasanusedtocometo
his STD booth to make phone calls. He has further deposed that
sometimesheusedtopickupthecallscomingfromBhaiorSalemfrom
Dubai. As far as the seizure of the registers and telephone bills are
concerned,hehasstatedthatthosewereseizedfromhisSTDboothon
19/12/2005.Hehasidentifiedtheentriesfromtheregisterstoconnectthe
said entries with accused Mehendi Hasan. This evidence of PW5 to
connectparticularentriesfromthoseregisterswiththeaccusedNo.5isnot
believable.Firstandforemost,thefactofseizureofthetelephoneregisters
ArticlesB1 and D1 onthatdayisdoubtful. Asfarastheseizureofthe
telephonebillsareconcerned,Idonotseeanyproblem. Similarlythe
defence has also not disputed seriously about the seizure of those
telephonebillsonthatdate.Thedefencehasdisputedtheadmissibilityof
theTelephoneBillsforwantofproperevidencetoprovethesame.Onthe
basisoftheevidenceofthiswitness,twofactsareestablished.Firstisthat
379

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

379

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

388]

380

25th February, 2015

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]

On the basis of the evidence of PW4 Shri Sitaram

Namdeo Nikalje, PW5 Mohammed Shabir Munawaruddin Malik and


PW22onlyfactofpointingoutoftheSTDboothsbyaccusedMehendi
Hasanhasbeenproved.Thisevidencecannotbediscarded.Theevidence
oftheprosecutionwithregardtothediscoveryoftheSTDBoothsatthe
instanceofaccusedMehendiHasanisconsistentwithsomeofthefacts
admitted on this point in their confessions by accused Abu Salem and
381

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

381

25th February, 2015

accused Mehendi Hasan. Accused Mehendi Hasan has admitted in his


confessionthatheusedtomakephonecallstoaccusedAbuSalemfrom
theSTDboothatChembur.Hehasalsoadmittedinhisevidencethathe
usedtomakephonecallstoaccusedAbuSalemfromtheSTDboothat
Andheri. Accused Abu Salem has also admitted in his confession that
sometimes he used to make phone calls on PCO booth at Chembur to
MehendiHasan.Itis,therefore,seenthattheevidenceofthesewitnesses
with regard to the discovery of the STD booths corroborates the facts
admitted by accused Abu Salem and accused Mehendi Hasan in their
respectiveconfessions.Intheconfessions,accusedAbuSalemandaccused
MehendiHasanhavecategoricallystatedthetwotelephoneNumbersused
byaccusedAbuSalematDubai.Theirconfessionsareconsistentonthis
aspect.
390]

It further appears that in his evidence PW1 Naeem

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

382

25th February, 2015

madebyaccusedMehendiHasandoesnotfallwithintheambitofSection
27oftheIndianEvidenceAct,then,therewouldnotbeanydifficultyin
acceptingthesaidstatementassubsequentconductoftheaccusedu/sec.8
oftheIndianEvidenceAct.
391]

As far as the telephone registers are concerned, the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

383

25th February, 2015

ii)

PandurangKaluPatilandanotherv.Stateof
Maharashtra
2002CRI.L.J.1007;and

iii)

Pulukurikottayaandothersv.Emperor
A.I.R.(34)1947PrivyCouncil67

393]

Inthepresentcase,theprosecutionhasreliedupon

the statement made by accused Mehendi Hasan to the effect that, he


wouldpointouttheSTDboothsatChemburaswellasatAndherifrom
whereheusedtomakethephonecallstoAbuSaleminDubai. Inthe
submissionofthelearnedAdvocatefortheaccusedthisstatementdoesnot
relatetothediscoveryofthefactasunderstoodbySection27oftheIndian
EvidenceAct,butitrelatestothediscoveryoftheobjectandwhichisnot
admissibleu/sec.27oftheIndianEvidenceAct.
394]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

384

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

385

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

386

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

387

25th February, 2015

Therefore, on the law point, the submissions advanced by learned


AdvocateShriPasboladeservesacceptance.Ihavealreadyobservedthat
onthepointofexistenceoftheSTDbooth,theevidenceofPW4,PW5
andtheconfessionsofaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasan
cannotbediscarded.Inthiscase,onlythispartofevidencecanbeusedto
extend general corroboration tothe confessions of the accusedand the
evidenceofPW1NaeemKhan(Approver).
CHARGEANDEVIDENCEAGAINSTACCUSEDNO.5
V.K.JHAMB
398]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

388

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

389

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

390

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

391

25th February, 2015

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]

Before adverting to the evidence led by the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

402]

392

25th February, 2015

Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,theconspiracy

was hatched in October/November, 1994 to force the Jain brothers by


threatsandpressuretosurrendertheirrightsovertheKolDongriProperty
atAndheri,Mumbai,andtoearnhugeprofitsoutofthetransactionfrom
Jainbuilders.WhileconsideringtheconfessionoftheaccusedAbuSalem
andtheevidenceadducedbytheprosecution,Ihaveobservedthatwithout
changingthebasicobjectandsubjectoftheconspiracy,theaccusedAbu
Salemdependinguponthesituationsuitablymouldedhisplantoexecute
theobjectoftheconspiracy.Itisnotnecessarytorepeatalltheevidenceat
thisstage.ItwouldsufficetostatethattheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,as
per the case of the prosecution, joined the common object of the
conspiracybyboardingthetrainofconspiracyinthemonthofMarch/April
1996.ItisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionthatpriortoMarch/April1996,
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambwasinanymannerinvolvedincommissionof
anyoffenceinthiscase.Theimportantquestionthatrequiresanswerisas
towhetherthissubsequentjoiningoftheconspiracybytheaccusedNo.5
V.K.JhambinMarch/April1996wouldrelatebacktotheinceptionofthe
conspiracy qua the charges framed against him. At this stage, it is
necessarytoconsiderthelegalpositiononthisissue.Imayusefullyrefer
thedecisioninthecaseofGovt.ofNCTofDelhivs.JaspalSinghreported
in(2003)10SupremeCourtCases586(Notcitedatbar).Inthiscase,
theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasheldthatoncethereissufficient
material to reasonably believe that there was concert and connection
between persons charged withacommon design,itis immaterial as to
whethertheywerestrangerstoeachotherorignorantoftheactualroleof
393

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

393

25th February, 2015

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]

While raising the issue of the jurisdiction of this

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

394

25th February, 2015

endwhenthe Jain brotherswereforcedtopaytheextortionmoneyto


accusedAbuSalembysellingthethreeflatsi.e.flatNos.602,605and606
fromMamtaCooperativeSociety.Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,the
accusedNo.5joinedtheconspiracyinMarch/April1996.Asperthecaseof
theprosecution,theaccusedNo.5wasropedinbyaccusedAbuSalemto
sellthosethreeflatsandsendthepurchasepriceofthesaidthreeflats
throughHawalatohimatDubai.Itisfurthercaseoftheprosecutionthat
accusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionhasadmittedthatbeforeassigningthe
roleinthisconspiracytoaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,accusedAbuSalem
apprisedaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamofallthefacts.SincetheaccusedNo.5
hasnotbeenchargedunderanyoftheprovisionsoftheTADA(P)Act,the
expiry of the TADA (P) Act on 23/05/1995 is of no consequence. The
accusedNo.5 V.K. Jhambsharedthe common object of the conspiracy,
whichwashatchedin1994atDubaitotheextentofextortingtheransom
from Jain brothers. It is undisputed in this case that the offences
committedundertheTADA(P)ActwerecompletedonmurderofPradeep
Jainon07/03/1995. ItappearsthatbecauseofthemurderofPradeep
Jainon07/03/1995andthejoiningoftheaccusedNo.5intheconspiracy
inMarch/April,1996,theprosecutionmusthavethoughtitappropriate
nottobookhimfortheoffencespunishableundertheTADA(P)Act. It
was the decision of the prosecution. Whether it is a wise decision or
otherwise isthe matter of concern andspeculation for the prosecution.
Therefore,inthiscase, theexpiryoftheTADA(P)Acton23/05/1995
wouldnotinanywayaffectthetrialoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambwith
the other accused, inasmuch as he shared the common object of the
395

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

395

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

396

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

397

25th February, 2015

ransom amount. According to the learned Prosecutor Shri Nikam this


conspiracy,whichwaskeptaliveafterthemurderofPradeepJain,wasnot
a separate conspiracy, but it was a part of the same transaction and,
therefore,theactsdonepursuanttotheconspiracyinMarch/April1996
werethepartofoneseriesofactsconnectedtogethertoformthesame
transaction.LearnedAdvocateShriShivadesubmittedthatasperthecase
oftheprosecutionexfacieitappearsthatinMarch/April1996aseparate
conspiracywashatchedand,therefore,theactsdonepursuanttothesaid
conspiracycouldnotformthepartoftheconspiracy,whichwashatchedin
October/November,1994andassuchitwouldnotformthepartofthe
sametransaction.Atthisstage,itisnecessarytomentionthatifitisfound
onfactsthatthisactdoneinMarch/April1996wasapartofseriesofacts
connected together to form the same transaction, then the submission
advancedonbehalfoftheaccusedNo.5cannotbesustained.Sincethisis
a question of fact, it has to be decided on the basis of the facts,
circumstances and evidence brought on record. If there is evidence to
establish that the acts done/allegedly committed by others with the
accused No.5 in March/April, 1996 were part of series of the acts
connected together to form the part of the same transaction, then the
Courtwouldberequiredtoaddressimportantquestionastowhetherthe
trialoftheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambwiththeothersispermissibleunder
lawandmoreparticularlybyapplyingtheprovisionsofSection220and
223oftheCr.P.CandSection12oftheTADA(P)Act.
407]

The prosecution has adduced the evidence to prove


398

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

398

25th February, 2015

the complicity of accused No.5 V.K.Jhamb in the crime. The most


important piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the
accusedNo.5istheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemrecordedu/sec.15of
theTADA(P)Act.Inthiscase,learnedAdvocateappearingfortheaccused
No5hasraisedtheissueofadmissibilityoftheconfessionoftheaccused
AbuSalemasevidenceagainsttheaccusedNo.5onthegroundthatitfalls
outside the ambit andthe scope of the provisions of Section 15 of the
TADA(P)Act. InthesubmissionoflearnedAdvocateShriShivadethe
confessionoftheaccusedrecordedu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)Actcanbe
used against the coconspirator / abettor etc. provided the accused is
chargedandtriedwiththesaidaccusedfortheoffencesundertheTADA
(P)Act. Inthiscase,admittedly,theaccusedNo.5hasnotbeencharged
forthecommissionofanyoftheoffencesundertheTADA(P)Act.Onthe
basis of the material placed on record and in view of the case of the
prosecution accused No.5 V.K. Jhamb has been tried together with the
other accused. So, the admissibility of the confession of accused Abu
SalemagainsttheaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambandhisjointtrialwithaccused
Abu Salem and others is the contentious issue raised by the defence
Advocate.
408]

At this stage, it is necessary to mention that while

dealingwiththeevidenceledbytheprosecutiontoprovethevoluntary
andtruthfulnatureoftheconfession,Ihaveheldthattheprosecutionhas
provedinthiscasethattheconfessionofaccusedAbuSalemisvoluntary
and true. If the confession of accused Abu Salem is excluded from
399

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

399

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

400

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

401

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case, accused Abu Salem has made the

confession u/sec. 15 of the TADA (P) Act. The same has been found
402

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

402

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

403

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

404

25th February, 2015

he immediately contacted accused No.5 V. K. Jhamb and informed him


about the entire transaction. Similarly, at the same time, accused Abu
Salem informed Naeem Khan (Approver PW1) to go and meet Jhamb
builder(accusedNo.5)andtakehimtoSunilJain(PW13). Asperthe
commandofhisMentorAbuSalem,NaeemKhan(ApproverPW1)met
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb,sawtheflatswithhimandinformedaccused
AbuSalemonphonethattheflatsareingoodconditionandcouldfetch
goodprice. AccusedAbuSalemhasadmittedthathethereaftermadea
phonecalltoaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhambandtoldhimtosellthoseflatsas
early as possible. Accused Abu Salem has further admitted in his
confessionthathemadeaphonecalltoSunilJain(PW13)andtoldhim
thatassoonashegetthepurchasepriceofthesaidthreeflats,heshould
handoverthesametoV.k.Jhamb(accusedNo.5).AccusedAbuSalemhas
furtheradmittedthatV.K.Jhamb(accusedNo.5)wouldinformhimonday
todaybasisaboutthesaletransactionoftheflats.AccusedAbuSalemhas
furtheradmittedthataccusedNo.5V.K.JhambsoldtwoflatsforRs.28
lakhsandcollectedthesaleproceedsfromSunilJain(PW13)andsentthe
sametohimatDubaithroughHawala. AccusedAbuSalemhasfurther
admittedthatsimilarlyin1997accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambsoldthethirdflat
for Rs. 14 lakhs and sent the sale proceeds to him at Dubai through
Hawala.OnperusalofthisconfessionofaccusedAbuSalem,twothings
areestablished.First,thattheconspiracywasneversnappedatanytime
tillitwasputtoitslogicalendandsecond,thatfromMarch/April1996
accused V.K. Jhamb joined the conspiracy, who shared the concert and
common object of the conspiracy and sold the flats and sent the sale
405

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

405

25th February, 2015

proceeds of those three flats to accused Abu Salem at Dubai through


Hawala.
413]

The prosecution has also examined other witnesses to

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

406

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

407

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

408

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

409

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

417]

410

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

411

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

412

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

413

25th February, 2015

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]

The prosecution has examined Shri Amirali Akbarali

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

414

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

415

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

416

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

417

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

418

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

419

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

420

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

427]

421

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

422

25th February, 2015

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]

Asfar as his evidenceagainstthe accusedNo.5V.K.

Jhambisconcerned,hehasdeposedthatwhilestayingwithaccusedAbu
SalemheusedtogowithAbuSaleminSharjahTextileMarkettotheshop
ofAneesHawalawalawhereAbuSalem'sHawalamoneywouldcome.He
hasdeposedthatoncewhenhewasreturningalongwithAbuSalemafter
takingmoneyfromAneesHawalawala,AbuSalemtoldhiminthecarthat
themoneywassentbyJhambbuilderfromMumbai.Hehasdeposedthat
hereturnedbacktoMumbaiin2002.
430]

BeforeIgotoconsiderthe statementsmadebythis

witnessinhiscrossexamination,itisnecessarytolookattheconfessions
ofaccusedAbuSalemandaccusedMehendiHasanandseewhattheyhave
423

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

423

25th February, 2015

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]

Accused Abu Salem and Mehendi Hasan in their

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

424

25th February, 2015

circumstances, cannot be the sole criterion to discard his evidence in


entirety. AsamatteroffactthiswitnessbeingassociateofaccusedAbu
Salemandothers deposedcertain facts known tohimpersonally. His
evidence cannot be discarded merely because of the fact that he has
deceived his erstwhile Mentor. There could be several reasons for the
sameandthosereasonscannotweighinfavouroftheaccusedNo.5.
432]

Perusal of his crossexamination in entirety would

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

425

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

426

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

427

25th February, 2015

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]

In his evidence PW7 Dr. Arshad Kamal Shaikh has

deposed about his acquaintance with accused Abu Salem and accused
MehendiHasan.Hehasprovidedthedetailsandparticularsoftheoffice
of accused Abu Salem in Mumbai. Accused Abu Salem has clearly
428

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

428

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

429

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

437]

430

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

431

25th February, 2015

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]

Both PW3 Shri Vasant Ramnath Sharma and PW7

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

432

25th February, 2015

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]

PW6 is an independent witness. He has been

examinedtocorroboratetheevidenceofPW13SunilJainonthepointof
433

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

433

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

441]

434

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

435

25th February, 2015

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]

On perusal of his crossexamination in entirety, it is

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

436

25th February, 2015

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]

As far as the involvement of the accused No.5 V.K.

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

437

25th February, 2015

appearingintheevidenceofPW13. Whileconsideringtheevidenceof
PW13SunilJainquaaccusedNo.5,sameobservationswouldapply.The
observationsmadebymearebasedoncertainfactsandafterconsidering
thefactsdespiteomissions,discrepanciesandsomecontradictions,Iwas
notpreparedtodiscardtheevidenceofPW13SunilJainoutrightly.Ido
notwanttorepeatthosefacts.Keepingthoseobservationsandreasonsin
mind,InowproposetodealwiththeevidenceofPW13SunilJain.
444]

PW13 Sunil Jain has deposed that in view of the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

438

25th February, 2015

toaccusedNo.5V.K.Jhamb.Hehasfurtherdeposedthatafterfewdays,
theywithdrewRs.15lakhsfromtheirbankaccountandpaidthesameto
accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambathisresidence.
445]

As far as third flat i.e. flat No. 602 is concerned,

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

439

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

440

25th February, 2015

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]

Be that as it may, in this case there is other ample

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

441

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

442

25th February, 2015

to the questions on this issue. Similarly, there is other corroborative


evidencetoacceptthispartoftheevidenceofPW13SunilJain.Besides,
theaccusedAbuSaleminhisconfessionhascategoricallyadmittedthis
fact.Therefore,thisfishingenquiryhasprovedfutile.AtPage329PW13
SunilJainhasadmittedthatKamlaConstructionshadnotobtainedloan
fromanyBank.Theloanwastakenfromprivatepersons.Hehasadmitted
thathedidnotaskAshokbhaiaboutthesourceofloan. Hehasfurther
admittedthatwheneveraloanisobtainedforbuildingconstruction,the
flats in the building are to be offered as a security. No documents or
agreementswerehandedovertoFinancers,butonlyPromissoryNotewas
executed in their favour. In my view, this crossexamination, in the
backdrop of the defence of the accused No.5V.K. Jhamb in his written
statement,couldnotbesaidtobeofanyhelptothecaseoftheaccused
no.5.
450]

It is not the case of the accused that prior to

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

443

25th February, 2015

was withdrawn byself paycheque. Hehas admittedthathe doesnot


knowwhetheranypriorinstructionwasgiventotheBankforarranging
Rs.15lakhsonthegivenday.Ihaveminutelygonethroughthecross
examinationofPW13SunilJainconductedonbehalfoftheaccusedNo.5
V.K.Jhamb.Ongoingthroughhiscrossexamination,Idonotseethatany
admission has been elicited in his crossexamination to discard the
evidenceofPW13intoto.ItmaybementionedatthisstagethatPW13
Sunil Jain withstood the searching crossexamination on almost all the
aspects.PerusalofhiscrossexaminationonbehalfoftheaccusedNo.5,it
isseenthathiscredibilityvisavishisevidenceinExaminationinChiefon
thisissuehasnotbeenshaken.Hehasdeniedalmostallthesuggestions
puttohimconsistentwiththedefenceofthe accusedbyhis Advocate.
After doing minute appreciation and analysis of the evidence of PW13
SunilJainquatheaccusedNo.5V.K.jhamb,Idonotseeanyreasonto
discardanddisbelievehisevidence.Onefact,whichneedstobebornein
mind while considering the evidence of PW13 Sunil Jain is that Jain
familyandJhambfamilyareinbuildingconstructionbusiness. Itisnot
the defence of the accused No.5 that there was any feud or enmity
between the two families. Both the families are residing in the same
vicinity.TheJainfamilyotherwisehadnoaxetogrindagainsttheJhamb
family.
451]

ItmaybementionedthatV.K.Jhamb,accusedNo.5,

mighthavefollowedthedictatesofaccusedAbuSalemundercompulsion
ortoobligetheaccusedAbuSalem,accusedNo.5V.K.Jhambcouldnot
444

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

444

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

445

25th February, 2015

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]

I may now deal with the Judgment relied upon by

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

446

25th February, 2015

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]

Second Judgment relied upon by learned SPP Shri

NikamisinthecaseofEsherSinghv.StateofAndhraPradeshreported
in(2004)11SupremeCourtCases)(Cri)585.ThisJudgmenthasbeen
reliedupontosubstantiatethestatementsofthewitnessesmadeforthe
firsttimeintheCourtandnotduringtheinvestigation. Inthiscase,the
447

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

447

25th February, 2015

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]

Learned Advocate Shri Pasbola appearing for the

accusedsubmittedthattheomissions,contradictionsanddiscrepanciesin
theevidenceofthewitnessesarematerialand,therefore,onthebasisof
the same, the very credibility of all the witnesses has been shaken. In
448

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

448

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

449

25th February, 2015

thereissomelogicaloracceptableexplanationforthesame.Ifthereisno
logical or acceptable explanation, then the evidence of such witness is
liabletobedisbelieved.
459]

Inthecaseof Stateof H.P.v.Lekhrajandanother

reportedin 2000SupremeCourtCases(Cri)147, theHon'bleSupreme


CourtofIndia has heldthatminordiscrepancyor variance in evidence
doesnotmaketheprosecution'scasedoubtful.Itratherlendscredentialto
thedeposition.Itisheldthatiftherearematerialdiscrepancies,variance
and contradictions, then the same cannot be ignored. The material
discrepanciesarethosewhicharenotnormalandnotexpectedofanormal
person.
460]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

450

25th February, 2015

should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The


witnessshouldbeinapositiontowithstandthecrossexaminationofany
lengthandhowsoeverstrenuousitmaybeandundernocircumstances
shouldgiveroomforanydoubtastothefactumoftheoccurrence, the
personsinvolved,aswellasthesequenceofit.Theversionofthewitness
shouldbeconsistenttomatchwiththeversionofeveryotherwitness.
461]

In the case of Hema v. State through Inspector of

Police,Madras reportedin (2013)4SupremeCourt Cases(Cri) 755,


(2013)10SupremeCourtCases192theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndia
hasheldthatwherecontradictionsandvariationsareofaseriousnature,
which apparently or impliedly are destructive of the substantive case
soughttobeprovedbytheprosecution,theymayprovideanadvantageto
theaccused.Inthiscase,theHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasfurther
heldthatmerelybecauseofsomedefectintheinvestigation,lapseonthe
partofthe Investigating Officer,theaccusedcannotbeacquitted. Itis
furtherheldthateveniftherehad beennegligenceonthepartofthe
investigatingagencyoromissions,etc.itistheobligationonthepartofthe
Courttoscrutinisetheprosecutionevidencedehorssuchlapsestofindout
whetherthesaidevidenceisreliableornotandwhethersuchlapsesaffect
theobjectoffindingoutthetruth.
462]

InthecaseofDr.D.L.Goswamiv.StateofMadhya

Pradesh reportedin 1972SupremeCourtCases(Cri)258,theHon'ble


Supreme Court of India has held that the onus of proving all the
451

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

451

25th February, 2015

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

bythe Hon'ble Supreme Courtof India in the decisions reliedupon by


learnedSPPShriUjjwalNikamandlearnedAdvocatesMr.PasbolaandMr.
Shivadefortheaccused,atthecostofrepetition,itwouldbenecessaryto
adverttosomeoftheobservationsmadebymewhiledealingwiththe
evidence of each witness independently as well as collectively. I have
alreadyobservedthattheomissions,discrepanciesandcontradictionshave
been explained on the basis of the facts, circumstances and evidence
placedonrecord.Theprosecutionhasnotchangedthebasicfoundation
ofitscase.Theentireevidenceledbytheprosecutionrevolvesaroundthe
basic core and foundation of the case of the prosecution. The entire
conspiracywasnotunfoldedwhenthetrialagainstthesixaccusedinthis
crimewasconducted.TheconspiracyquatheroleofaccusedAbuSalem,
accusedMehendiHasan,accusedNaeemKhan(Approver),accusedRiyaz
Siddiqui and accused V.K. Jhamb was elaborately revealed during the
course of the investigation in this crime after arrest of Abu Salem, the
452

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

452

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

453

25th February, 2015

byothercogentevidence.

464]

CONCLUSION:
:

I have undertaken the meticulous exercise to

appreciate, analysize and scrutinise the evidence of the prosecution


witnesses.Onundertakingthisexercise,Ihavefoundthattheevidenceof
the prosecution witnesses is natural, reliable and, therefore, deserves
acceptance. PW1 is the sterling witness for the prosecution. On
independent appreciation, analysis and scrutiny of the evidence of the
ApproverPW1NaeemKhan,Ihavefoundthathisevidenceisreliableand
credible. Asperlaw,theaccompliceisunworthyofcredence,unlesshis
evidenceiscorroboratedinmaterialparticulars.OncetheApproverpasses
twintestsi.e.i)particepscriminisandii)reliability,theCourthastosee
whetherthereisindependentevidencetocorroboratetheversionofthe
accomplice. In this case, there is voluminous direct and circumstantial
evidence led by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the
ApproverPW1NaeemKhan. PW9JyotiJainandPW13SunilJainare
some of those witnesses. The evidence of PW9 and PW13 have also
passed the test of credibility. The evidence of PW9 and PW13
corroboratestheevidenceoftheApproverPW1NaeemKhanonmaterial
aspects.
465]

ByexaminingPW5Mohd.ShabirMalik,PW6Rizwan

Mohd.Khan,PW7Dr.ArshadKamalShaikh,PW8MurjiAnandaPateland
PW15 Amirali Akabarali Engineer, the prosecution has proved various
454

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

454

25th February, 2015

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]

Theconfessions of accused Abu Salem and accused

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

455

25th February, 2015

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

Mehendi Hasan in their respective confessions are consistent with each


other. Nowthequestioniswhetherthefactsadmittedbythemintheir
confessionsorrathertheirconfessionscanbeusedasacorroborativepiece
ofevidencetotheevidenceofPW1ApproverNaeemKhan.Ld.Advocate
Shri Pasbola submitted that the confession of the accused requires a
corroborationtoactuponit. InthesubmissionoftheLd.AdvocateShri
Pasbolaassuchtheconfessionoftheaccusedisadentedpieceofevidence.
Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that a dented piece of evidence,
whichitselfrequiresacorroboration,cannotbeusedasacorroborative
pieceofevidencetocorroboratetheevidenceofsomeotherwitnessesor
moreparticularlytheevidenceoftheApprover. Ononepoint,Iamin
456

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

456

25th February, 2015

agreement with learned Advocate Shri Pasbola. It is true that the


confessionisadentedpieceofevidence. But,wehave togoonestep
ahead and consider the position where the said dent is removed by
establishingthatthesaidconfessionisvoluntaryandtrueconfessionandit
hasbeencorroboratedbyotherevidence.Itissettledlegalpositionthat
theconfessionrecordedu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)Act,onceitisprovedto
bevoluntaryandtrue,isasubstantivepieceofevidence.Itissettledlegal
position that the conviction of the accused can be based solely on his
confessionrecordedu/sec.15oftheTADA(P)Act.Ifullyagreewiththe
submissionofthelearnedAdvocateShriPasbolathattheconfessionisa
substantiveevidencebutnotasubstantialevidence.Evenassumingforthe
sakeofargumentthatitcannotbesaidtobeasubstantialevidence,inthe
ordinarycircumstances,withoutcorroboration,Courtmaynotrelyupon
thatevidence.Butoncethefactsadmittedbytheaccusedintheconfession
arecorroboratedbyotherevidence,then,thesaidevidencewouldbecome
both,substantiveandsubstantial. Onminutescrutinyoftheevidenceof
theindependentwitnesses,Ihaveconcludedthattheevidenceofthose
witnessesiscredibleandassuchacceptable.Ihavealsoobservedthatin
thebackdropofthefactsobtainedonrecord,allthewitnessesarenatural
witnesses. The important question that needs to be addressed is as to
whethertheconfessionbeingprovedtobevoluntaryandtruthfulandas
suchsubstantiveandsubstantialevidencecanbeusedforthepurposeof
corroborationtotheevidenceofApprover.Inmyhumbleopinion,onceit
isprovedthattheconfessionisvoluntaryandtrueconfession,then,the
dent attached to the said confession gets removed. It becomes a shiny
457

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

457

25th February, 2015

piece of evidence without dent. The confession once proved to be


voluntaryandtruthful,isasubstantivepieceofevidence. Inthiscase,
whileconsideringthecaseoftheaccusedonthepointofretraction,Ihave
concludedthattheretractionisafterthoughtandunderlegaladvice. I
havealsoconcludedthatoncetheirconfessionsareprovedtobevoluntary
andtruthful,theirsubsequentretractionsbecomeinsignificant.
468]

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

458

25th February, 2015

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]

In this case,onthe basis of concrete,cogentand

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

459

25th February, 2015

and force the Jain brothers, Partners of M/s. Kamla Construction


Company to surrender their rights over the 'Kol Dongri Property' at
Andheri, Mumbai. The prosecution has further proved that the above
statedaccusedhadagreedtokilloneoftheJainbrothers,iftheydidnot
succumb to the threats and surrender their rights over 'Kol Dongri
Property'. The object behind threatening and pressurising the Jain
brotherstosurrendertheirrightsoverthe'KolDongriProperty'infavourof
someotherbuilderwastoearnhugeprofitbystrikingadealwithother
builder.Theprosecutionhasprovedthatintheconspiracytheroleofeach
one present in the conspiratorial meeting and those, who were not
present,waschalkedout. Ihaveelaboratelydealtwithalltherelevant
aspects. The prosecution has proved that when the Jain brothers, the
PartnersofM/s.KamlaConstructionCompany,didnotsuccumbtothe
pressureandthreatsoftheaccusedpersons,accusedAbuSalemsuitably
mouldedhisplanandstruckadealwiththeJainbrotherstopayhimRs.
onecorer.TheprosecutionhasprovedthatthefirstinstallmentofRs.ten
lakhs,asagreed,waspaid,buttheJainbrotherscouldnotpayremaining
amount on account of their financial difficulties. The prosecution has
provedthatonedaywhenaccusedAbuSalemmadeaphonecalltothe
residenceoftheJainbrothers,itwaspickedupbyPW9JyotiJainand
lateronitwashandedovertodeceasedPradeepJain.Theprosecutionhas
provedthathotexchangeofwordsandabusestookplacebetweenaccused
AbuSalemandPradeepJain.TheegoofaccusedAbuSalemwasdeeply
hurtandcrashedandasaresultofthesame,PradeepJainwasmurdered
on07/03/1995.
460

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

470]

460

25th February, 2015

The prosecution has proved that the shooters

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

461

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

462

25th February, 2015

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]

The prosecution did not press for framing of the

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

463

25th February, 2015

proved that the housetrespass was committed pursuantto the criminal


conspiracytocommittheoffencepunishablewithdeath. Similarly,the
prosecutionhasprovedthatthehousetrespasswascommittedpursuantto
the conspiracy in order to commit the offence punishable with
ImprisonmentforLife. Theprosecutionhasalsoprovedthatthehouse
trespasswascommittedpursuanttotheconspiracyinordertocommitthe
offencepunishablewiththeImprisonment. Inthiscase,theprosecution
hasprovedtheoffencepunishableu/secs.449,450and452r/w.Sec.120
BoftheIndianPenalCodeagainstaccusedMehendiHasan.

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

464

25th February, 2015

the criminal conspiracy hatched in October/November, 1994. The


conspiracywasputtoitslogicalendaftersaleofthosethreeflatsandon
receiptof the ransom amountby accusedAbu Salem in Dubai through
Hawala.Inthiscase,theprosecutionhasprovedthataccusedV.K.Jhamb
boardedthetrainoftheconspiracyinMarch/April,1996andsharedthe
concertandcommonobjectofthesaidconspiracy. Theprosecutionhas
provedthattheaccusedV.K.Jhamb,inordertofulfilltheobjectofthe
conspiracy,tookactivepartinthesaleofthosethreeflats.AccusedV.K.
Jhamb, as per the dictates and commands of accused Abu Salem, sold
thosethreeflatsi.e.flatNos.602,605and606fromMamtaCooperative
Society, SherEPunjab Colony, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East),
Mumbai, and arranged to send the purchase price of the three flats to
accused Abu Salem in Dubai through Hawala. I have discussed the
evidenceagainstaccusedAbuSalem,accusedMehendiHasanandaccused
V. K. Jhamb in great detail. On doing the analysis, appreciation and
threadbarescrutinyoftheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesses, Ihave
found the said evidence credible. On the basis of the evidence, the
prosecutionhasprovedtheoffencesu/sec.386oftheIndianPenalCode
r/w.sec.120BoftheIndianPenalCodeagainstaccusedMehendiHasan
andaccusedV.K.Jhamb.Inthiscase,inviewofthefacts,circumstances
and evidence brought on record, the prosecution has proved only the
offenceu/sec.386oftheIndianPenalCoder/w.sec.120BoftheIndian
PenalCodeagainstaccusedMehendiHasanandaccusedV.K.Jhamb.In
this case, the offence punishable u/sec. 387 cannot be attracted.
Accordingly,IrecordmyfindingonPointNos.3to8,10and11inthe
465

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

465

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

466

25th February, 2015

awardthepunishmentprovidedbythelawinforceinIndia.Ld.SPPShri
Nikam submitted that in this case the solemn sovereign
assurance/guarantee givenbytheUnionofIndiawouldcomeintoplay
afterawardingthepunishmentbythisCourtasprovidedunderlawand
notbeforethat.
476]

Ld. Advocate Shri Sudeep Pasbola for the accused

submitted that the solemn sovereign assurance/guarantee given by the


thenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterofIndiaShriL.K.Advanineedtobe
borneinmindatthestageofawardingthepunishmentandonthebasisof
the said solemn sovereign assurance in this case, accused Abu Salem
cannotbe sentencedtosuffer imprisonmentfora period morethan 25
years. Ld. Advocate Shri Pasbola submitted that solemn sovereign
assurance/guaranteegiventothePortugalGovernmentwasacceptedand
onacceptingthesame,accusedAbuSalemwasextraditedtoIndiaandas
suchthesolemnsovereignassurancecouldbindthisCourt.Ld.Advocate
Shri Pasbola drew my attention towards certain paragraphs from the
JudgmentoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtofJustice,Portugal,dated27 th
January,2005tosubmitthatthesolemnsovereignassurance/guarantee
givenbythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinisterofIndiaShriL.K.Advani
was construed and accepted as an Undertaking and assurance that no
Court in India shall award punishment of Death or punishment for a
periodofmorethan25years.Ld.AdvocateShriPasbolasubmittedthatthe
paramount duty has been cast upon this Court to enforce the solemn
sovereignassurance/guaranteewhileawardingthepunishmentitself.Ld.
467

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

467

25th February, 2015

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]

In order to appreciate the rival submissions, I must

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]

On the basis of the solemn sovereign assurance/

Undertaking/guaranteegivenbythethenHon'bleDeputyPrimeMinister
ofIndiaShriL.K.Advaniandconsiderationandacceptanceofthesame
afterdoingthreadbareanalysisbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofJustice,
Portugal could take one to the true spirit of the solemn sovereign
assuranceandalsotruespiritinwhichitwasunderstoodandacceptedby
theJudicialForumsinPortugal.FirstIwouldliketoreproducethesolemn
468

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

468

25th February, 2015

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

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

469

25th February, 2015

The Government of India also desires that Abu Salem Abdul


Qayoom Ansari's accomplice, Monica Bedi, be extradited to
India. Oneoftheoffencessheisaccusedofwouldcarrythe
penalty of life imprisonment. Monica Bedi was arrested in
PortugalonSeptember18,2002alongwithAbuSalemAbdul
QayoomAnsari.
Theissueofthelegalbasisfortheaboveassurancestobegiven
bytheGovernmentofIndiahasbeengivendueattention.Imay
mentionthatSection34CoftheIndianExtraditionAct1962
statesthat''Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinanyother
lawforthetimebeinginforce,whereafugitivecriminal,who
hascommittedanextraditionoffencepunishablewithdeathin
India,issurrenderedorreturnedbyaforeignStateonthe
requestoftheGovernmentandthelawsofthatforeignStatedo
notprovideforthedeathpenaltyforsuchanoffence,such
fugitivecriminalshallbeliableforpunishmentofimprisonment
forlifeonlythatoffence''.

Further,Article72(1)oftheConstitutionofIndiaprovidesthat
''ThePresidentshallhavethepowertograntpardons,reprieves,
respites or remissionsof punishment or tosuspend,remit or
commutethesentenceofanypersonconvictedofanyoffence''
inallcaseswherethepunishmentorsentenceisforanyoffence

470

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

470

25th February, 2015

against any law relating to a matter to which the executive


poweroftheUnionextendsincludingwherethesentenceisa
sentenceofdeath. Further,itisasettledlawthatthepower
underArticle72oftheConstitutionofIndiaistobeexercisedon
theadviceoftheGovernmentandnotbythePresidentactingon
hisownandthattheadviceoftheGovernmentisbindingonthe
HeadoftheState. Also,thePresident'spowerunderthesaid
Article 72 is a constitutional power and is beyond judicial
review.
Itisalsopertinenttostatethatinadditiontothe above

provisions,Section432and433oftheCodeofCriminal
ProcedureofIndia1973conferpowerontheGovernment,to
commuteasentenceoflifeimprisonmenttoatermnotexceeding
14years.

The Government of India, therefore, on the basis of the


provisionsoftheConstitutionofIndia,theIndian Extradition
Act1962andtheCodeofCriminalProcedureofIndia,1973
solemnlyassurestheGovernmentofPortugalthatitwillexercise
itspowers conferredbytheIndianlawstoensurethatif
extradited byPortugalfortrialinIndia,AbuSalemAbdul
Qayoom AnsariandMonicaBediwouldnotbevisitedbydeath
penaltyorimprisonmentforatermbeyond25years.

471

Judgment in TADA Spl


Case No. 01 of 2006

479]