Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) filed by five accused persons who were convicted by the Designated Judge, Pune for offences under Sections 302, 307, 149, 324, 147, 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of TADA. The prosecution case was that on 11 August 1990, following a petty altercation at a video parlour between the complainant party and some of the accused, the accused party arrived at Jagdamba Hotel armed with swords, satturs, and sticks in two auto-rickshaws and one jeep. They assaulted Bajrang Band Patte near the hotel and then chased Popat deceased and Baban Karpe to a Math, where Popat was fatally injured with swords on his head and thighs. Baban Karpe was also injured. Bajrang sustained head and back injuries. All injured persons were hospitalised; Popat died during treatment. The police registered two FIRs, being CR No.101 of 1990 and CR No.102 of 1990, and after investigation filed two charge-sheets. The Designated Court consolidated the two cases by order dated 5.12.1992 under Section 220(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, finding the acts were part of one transaction. Twelve accused were tried; one accused died and proceedings abated; six were acquitted; and five appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, fines, and concurrent sentences. On appeal, the defence argued that hostile witness PW-19 did not support the cause of the altercation, identification was at police instance, and the accused were falsely implicated. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the incident at the video parlour was proved by the consistent testimony of PW9 to PW15. It held that even ignoring the hostile witness, the prosecution case on the genesis of the incident was credible. The court noted the medical evidence showed incised wounds on the deceased that were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death, and injuries on PW9 and PW14 were consistent with the prosecution version. The court rejected the defence plea of false implication and total denial, observing that the prosecution evidence was overwhelming, cogent, and reliable. The provided judgment excerpt concludes mid-sentence without the final operative order, but the court expressed agreement with the Designated Court's assessment of the evidence regarding the video parlour incident.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Joint Trial - Section 220(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Two charge-sheets arising from interconnected incidents that formed one transaction were consolidated by the Designated Court vide order dated 5.12.1992 and tried together - The court accepted the consolidated trial because the series of acts were so inter-connected as to form one transaction - Held that the joint trial was proper. B) Evidence - Hostile Witness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 154 - Testimony of hostile witness PW-19 did not affect the prosecution case regarding the altercation at the video parlour - Court found that even ignoring hostile witness evidence, the testimony of PW9 to PW15 was cogent and trustworthy - Held that the defence argument that the genesis of the occurrence was doubtful was rejected. C) Criminal Law - Common Object - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 149, 302, 307, 324 - Accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting the complainant party to teach them a lesson - Use of deadly weapons in a coordinated attack established common object - Held that conviction under Section 149 read with substantive offences was justified. D) Evidence - Identification - Identification of accused during parade conducted by Executive Magistrate - Defence alleged identification at the instance of police and false implication - Court considered identification evidence along with other corroborative evidence from prosecution witnesses - Held that identification evidence was credible and reliable. E) TADA - Terrorist Activity - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 3 - Acts of accused intended to create terror in the Wadar community through murder and injuries using lethal weapons - The court examined whether the offence under Section 3 TADA was established - Held that the prosecution alleged terror in the community and the court was required to assess the evidence for this charge. F) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 307 - Post-mortem report showed incised wounds causing extensive internal damage sufficient in ordinary course to cause death - Injury reports of PW9 and PW14 corroborated the prosecution version - Held that homicidal death and injuries to witnesses were established.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302, 307, 149, 324, 147, 148 IPC and Section 3 of TADA was sustainable based on the evidence of identification, hostile witness, and medical reports; whether the joint trial of two charge-sheets was proper under Section 220(1) CrPC; and whether the offence of terrorism under TADA was made out.
Law Points
- Hostile witness evidence can be ignored if other prosecution evidence is cogent
- joint trial of interconnected cases permissible under Section 220(1) CrPC
- identification parade conducted by Executive Magistrate is valid
- recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act is admissible
- common object under Section 149 IPC can be inferred from conduct
- offence under TADA requires intent to create terror in community
- petty altercation can provide motive for murder
- medical evidence of incised wounds sufficient to cause death corroborates prosecution case
