Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, a driver employed in Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation, by the Designated Court, Ludhiana, for attempting to murder Shri A.P. Pandey, the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. The incident occurred on 9th July 1985 at about 2:00 p.m. near Red Cross Bhawan, Mall Road, Ludhiana. The appellant was convicted under Sections 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that the appellant along with others conspired to kill Pandey. On the day of incident, Pandey was travelling in staff car No. PAM-33 driven by Hari Chand (PW1), with gunman Bakshish Singh (PW3) sitting in front and an escort vehicle following. The appellant had parked truck No. PNP-3477 on the wrong side of Mall Road with the engine running. As the staff car approached, the appellant drove the truck and intentionally dashed against its left side, causing extensive damage; the right wheel of the staff car broke off. Pandey and others sustained minor injuries. The appellant abandoned the truck and ran but was apprehended by the escort party. An FIR was registered based on the driver's statement, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he was new to Ludhiana, had parked on the wrong side, and to avoid an auto rickshaw carrying women and children, he took a sudden turn, causing an accident with no intention to kill. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the conviction based on evidence of interested police witnesses was sustainable, whether the absence of independent witnesses was fatal, whether the incident was accidental or a deliberate attempt to murder, and whether Section 4(3) of TADA was correctly applied. The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses though the incident occurred on a busy road; all eyewitnesses were police personnel under the control of SSP Pandey and therefore interested; the act was a pure accident and the appellant had no terrorist background, making TADA inapplicable. The State relied on ocular evidence of four witnesses, corroborated by photographer, motor mechanic, and medical evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and found no substance in the appellant's contentions. The evidence of driver Hari Chand and gunman Bakshish Singh showed that the appellant had purposively parked the truck on the wrong side with the engine on and was waiting for the staff car. When the car was about to pass, he moved and dashed against it. The impact smashed the left side and broke the right wheel. The Court held this was a motivated attempt, not an accident. The evidence of Head Constable Ram Kishan in the escort vehicle corroborated the incident. The Court rejected the argument for independent witnesses, stating that the evidence of the four eyewitnesses suffered from no infirmity. Photographer Pritam Singh and motor mechanic Zulfi Ram corroborated the damage, and medical evidence showed injuries. The Court concluded it was a planned action to murder SSP Pandey with a view to create terror in public at large, thus attracting Section 4(3) of TADA. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender to his bail bonds forthwith to serve out the remaining period of his sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Reliability of Interested Witnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307, 427 - The appellant contended that prosecution witnesses were police personnel interested in the victim SSP and independent witnesses should have been examined. The Supreme Court held that the evidence of four eyewitnesses was consistent and free from infirmity, and failure to examine independent witnesses did not vitiate the prosecution case. Held that conviction can be based on testimony of interested witnesses if credible (Paras 6-8). B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Intention and Planned Action - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 307 - The appellant claimed a sudden turn to avoid a rickshaw caused an accident. The Court found the truck was purposively parked on the wrong side with engine on and dashed against the staff car causing severe damage, indicating a motivated attempt to murder rather than an error of judgment. Held that appellant intended to kill SSP Pandey (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Law - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 - Section 4(3) - Application to Act Creating Terror - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Section 4(3) - The Court found the appellant's action was a planned attempt to murder the SSP with a view to create terror in public at large, thereby falling under Section 4(3). The conviction under TADA was upheld. Held that a planned violent attack on a senior police officer to terrorize public is punishable under TADA (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307 and 427 IPC and Section 4(3) of TADA based on the evidence of police witnesses was sustainable; whether the absence of independent witnesses was fatal; whether the incident was an accident or a deliberate attempt to murder; whether TADA Section 4(3) was correctly applied.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld; appellant on bail directed to surrender forthwith to serve remaining sentence.
Law Points
- Interested witnesses evidence can be relied if credible
- absence of independent witnesses not fatal
- intentional dashing truck to kill SSP constitutes attempt to murder
- planned attack to create public terror falls under TADA Section 4(3)
- appeal dismissed.
