Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by the appellant against a conviction under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The appellant was convicted by the Designated Court II, Delhi, for possessing illegal firearms and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of three country-made pistols and cartridges from the appellant at the Inter-State Bus Terminus on March 8, 1990. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he was falsely implicated after being arrested on March 6, 1990. The prosecution presented seven witnesses, including police officers who conducted the search. The Designated Court accepted their testimony despite the absence of independent witnesses. However, the Supreme Court found significant discrepancies in the police records, including interpolations in the Daily Diary Book that contradicted the prosecution's timeline. The court noted that the evidence presented by the police was unreliable and that the defence version was more credible. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, ordered his immediate release, and directed the Delhi Government to compensate him for wrongful incarceration. Additionally, the court initiated an inquiry into the misconduct of the police officers involved in the case, emphasizing the importance of integrity in law enforcement.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - False Evidence - Conviction based on unreliable evidence - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 - The court found that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable due to interpolated records and lack of corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. Held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 5-9). B) Criminal Procedure - Inquiry into Police Misconduct - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340 - The court directed an inquiry into the commission of offences by police personnel for fabricating evidence against the appellant, highlighting the need for accountability in law enforcement (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 5 of TADA was justified based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court directed the Delhi Government to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation and initiated an inquiry into police misconduct.
Law Points
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1987
- Section 5
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 340
- Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Sections 193
- 195
- 211
