Supreme Court Considers Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 5 TADA for Possession of Weapon. Appellant Challenges Recovery Evidence and Disclosure Statement in Bombay Blast Case.

Criminal appeal against conviction under TADA by the Designated Court.

The appellant seeks setting aside of his conviction under Section 5 TADA and the resultant sentence.

The appellant was convicted by the Designated Court for possession of an AK-56 rifle and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment, prompting the appeal.

The Designated Court convicted the appellant (A-20) under Section 5 TADA on 30.5.2007 and sentenced him to 5 years RI plus fine, with default imprisonment.

Whether the recovery of the AK-56 rifle was proved in accordance with law Whether the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was admissible and properly recorded Whether non-examination of a second panch witness is fatal to the prosecution case Whether the correction in L.A.C. numbers (22/93 to 23/93) affects the integrity of the investigation Whether the presumption of possession under TADA could be drawn from the recovery

Appellant argued that the recovery was not proved as the disclosure statement lacked his signature, only one panch witness was examined, and the panch witness was a stock witness; there were contradictions in evidence and the correction in case numbers was unexplained; the confession was allegedly obtained by coercion. Respondent contended that the confessional statement was not relied upon by the Designated Court, non-examination of the second panch witness was to avoid multiplicity, and the recovery was made strictly in accordance with law from a place under the appellant's control, thus the presumption of possession was correctly drawn.

convicting the appellant under Section 5 TADA, and awarding the punishment of 5 years RI disclosure statement alleged to have been made under the provision of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been strictly followed. The said alleged disclosure statement did not bear the signature of the appellant The panch witness examined in the case had been a stock witness in the police as he had appeared as a panch witness in other cases The recovery had been made strictly in accordance with law and in case the recovery had been made at the instance of the disclosure statement and from the place on which the appellant (A-20) had control over, the presumption has rightly been drawn

Bombay Blast occurred on 12.3.1993 causing deaths and injuries. Initially investigated by Bombay police, later transferred to CBI. Chargesheet filed against many accused; 40 absconding. Designated Court framed charges against 138 accused. During trial, 11 accused died, 2 turned hostile, 2 discharged. Appellant (A-20) was convicted under Section 5 TADA on 30.5.2007 by the Designated Court, Greater Bombay in Bombay Blast Case No. 1/1993. The present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court against the said conviction and sentence.

• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5, 6
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 120-B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201, 212
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
• Arms Act, 1959: 3, 7 read with 25(I-A), 25(l-B)(a)
• Explosives Act, 1884: 9-B(1)(a), 9-B(1)(b), 9-B(1)(c)
• Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 3, 4(a), 4(b), 5, 6
• Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: 4