Arms and Explosives
Ss. 8 and 7 - Sanction of District Magistrate - Whether there was a valid sanction and whether was obtained legally -
Held, District Magistrate had authority to give sanction - As per courts below, he had applied his mind and his order was
a speaking order - Thus sanction given by District Magistrate was valid,
Criminal Law
Arms and Explosives
S. 7 - Sanction of District Magistrate under - Proof in court - Procedure - District Magistrate not proving his sanction
personally in court, but competent person on his behalf proving the same, held, is permissible,
Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 8 SCC 340
Criminal Law
Penal Code, 1860
Ss. 120-B and 307, 118 & 435 - Sawai Man Singh Stadium Bomb Blast case (1996) - Absence of direct evidence of
conspiracy - Standard of proof required to prove conspiracy - Conspiracy proved by chain of events, circumstances,
conduct of accused and recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of accused and evidence of witnesses
regarding said circumstances and recoveries - Concurrent conviction by courts below affirmed - The clue being provided
by an anonymous letter in Urdu language dated 1-6-1997 (that is, after about one-and-a-half years of incident), which
gave names of accused R of Agra and Dr AH of Firozabad and P (PW 1 approver) - PW 1 approver disclosed names of
A (admittedly a Pakistani moving in India without a valid passport) who was the main accused and C from whom
explosive materials were bought by AH and R to make time bombs - PWs 11, 12, 13 and 17 corroborated PW 1 that the
accused A, R and AH used to meet in a madarsa in Village Farah frequently - PW 1 was asked by accused AH and R to
carry to explosive materials with them concealed in boxes, when these were brought from accused C to Village Farah -
Explosive materials were recovered from accused C proved by witnesses PWs 32, 71 and 22 - PW 34 explosives expert
opining that materials recovered from C were capable of making explosives - Bombs were recovered at the instance of
accused A (who had planted the same) proved by PWs 71, 6, 7, 22, 16, 10 and 67 - All this, held, proves the conspiracy -
As conspiracies are hatched in secrecy, there may not be direct evidence of conspiracy - In such situations chain of
circumstances play an important role in establishing criminal conspiracy,
Citizens, Migrants and Aliens
Foreigners Act, 1946
S. 14 - Offence under, held, is proved against A - He was arrested in Srinagar without any passport or visa and he is
admittedly a Pakistani national,
Arms and Explosives
Ss. 8 and 7 - Sanction of District Magistrate - Whether there was a valid sanction and whether was obtained legally -
Held, District Magistrate had authority to give sanction - As per courts below, he had applied his mind and his order was
a speaking order - Thus sanction given by District Magistrate was valid,
Arms and Explosives
S. 7 - Sanction of District Magistrate under - Proof in court - Procedure - District Magistrate not proving his sanction
personally in court, but competent person on his behalf proving the same, held, is permissible,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 161 and 162 - TI parade of AH and R - Whether there was delay in holding TI parade - TI parade was done about
one-and-a-half years after incident but within three weeks from date of arrest - Other witnesses also identified the two
accused in court - And also, nothing was elicited in cross-examination to create any doubt - Effect - Plea of delay in
holding TI parade as being vitiative of prosecution case, on facts, held, is not tenable,
Criminal Trial
Accomplice/Approver - Corroboration of approver's statement - Extent and nature of corroboration required for
conviction - Held, corroboration might be by direct or circumstantial evidence and the story of approver must be credible
Independent corroboration of every particular circumstance is not necessary - Evidence of approver and corroborating
pieces of evidence need not be treated in two different compartments - Applying said principles PW 1 approver's
statement was relied on for conviction - PW 1 had graphically spoken about involvement of all accused persons in crime -
He had implicated himself in crime, (2014) 8 SCC 340-F
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 27 - Admissibility of evidence under - Formal arrest whether necessary - C was under custody of police, though not
formally arrested - On basis of information provided by C, police recovered substances for preparation of bomb - The fact
that C was not formally arrested, held, would not vitiate the factum of recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of
C,
Arms and Explosives
Explosive substance - Ammonium nitrate, held, is an explosive substance - For so holding statutory provisions broadly
construed and evidence of explosives expert (PW 34) relied on, who had stated that ammonium nitrate along with other
articles recovered were sufficient for preparation of bomb for explosion - Further, huge quantity of ammonium nitrate was
also recovered from accused C,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 228, 240, 215, 216 and 464 - Framing of charge - Purpose of, clarified, that accused should be certain about charge
brought against him without any vagueness - Reiterated, mere omission or defect in framing charge does not disable
criminal court from convicting accused for offence which is found to have been proved on evidence on record - In present
case however, charges were properly framed and there was no vagueness - Therefore, the plea of non-framing of charge
is not tenable,
No comments:
Post a Comment