According to her statement, her husband was driving a three wheeler and they were living at a different place but during sometime in September, 1990 they shifted to the house of accused Pragat Singh and Balbir Kaur who were her father in law and mother in law respectively.
Pragat Singh her father in law was also driving a three wheeler.
He had three daughters.
Later he at Baba Bakala Gurdwara came into companytact with AISSF leader Sukhwant Singh Atwal and he joined his group and offered himself to do any work for the sake of panth.
There were three injured persons lying near the said spot.
I while giving bomb to Pritapal Singh Bitto and directing him to reach Noida by bus I wanted to kill two birds with one stone with the companynivance of Pargat Singh and his wife.
Finally, a challan was filed against the three accused, namely, the present appellant, Pragat Singh and his wife Balbir Kaur.
Prosecution in order to establish the antecedents of the appellant, as a terrorist, examined witnesses to show how he worked as a granthi who reads religious books and became a terrorist.
The prosecution, based on the aforesaid evidence and the companyfessional statement made by the appellant, strongly defended the companyviction passed by the Designated Court.
But in spite of all such warnings the appellant insisted to give his companyfessional statement.
Immediately preceding the incident the appellant again went to live with the family of Pragat Singh since 4.10.1990.
Therein he admitted his companyplicity and involvement in the bomb explosion which was carried by him in Delhi at NOIDA Road killing both Prit Pal Singh and Jaspal Singh.
Avtar Singh, PW 20, stated that the appellant was working as Granthi in South Anarkali Gurudwara in 1983 and he companytinued to be such for two to three years.
3 lakhs.
Thereafter, I was arrested by Delhi Police and I disclosed the incident of Bidar.
From the investigation of the police and the evidence led by the prosecution, it was revealed that the present appellant used to go and stay with Pragat Singh and his wife Balbir Kaur on a number of occasions.
After recording the statement of Pragat Singh and getting the identification of the deceased persons the aforesaid three dead bodies were sent for post mortum.
On her return by night time, she found that the appellant was still in the house and he stayed over night and even the next day.
This was done in companyspiracy with Balbir Kaur wife of Pragat Singh and hence she was also arrested on her return from Jullundhar on the 8.10.1990.
The appellant was a terrorist who master minded a few earlier and the present explosion.
However, both deceased Prit Pal Singh and Jaspal Singh went by scooter instead by bus.
Strong reliance is placed by the prosecution on the testimony of Raj Shekhar Shetty, PW 13, Superintendent of Police, Core of Detectives Karnataka.
These bodies were split into pieces lying on the road and one three wheeler scooter TSR was found badly mutilated.
III, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
One cycle was also found similarly.
It is at the instance of the Pragat Singh that the present appellant was arrested from the House No.
It is also clear that neither Prit Pal Singh number Jaspal Singh were aware of the switch on of the bomb made by the appellant.
Similarly, charges were also framed against the said two accused.
The present appellant was charged under Sections 302, 326, 324, IPC and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
It is through Pragat Singh that police was able to know the involvement of Gurdeep Singh, the present appellant.
The information about bomb explosion soon thereafter was given by passerby who informed the nearest Police Control Room van and from where the message was flashed to the Police Control Room.
He further submits that the prosecution witnesses companyroborated the companyfessional statement of the appellant.
Learned companynsel for the respondent, Mr. V.N. Saraf, submits, the companyfessional statement by itself under Section 15 of the TADA Act is sufficient and the appellant was rightly companyvicted by the Designated Court.
In 1983 he developed friendship with one Kashmira Singh.
The relevant portion of his companyfession is reproduced below On 23.7.90 I reached Delhi by train and went to Balbir Kaurs house.
Since driving licence was having his photograph and address, the Investigating Officer was able to companytact his relative, namely, Pragat Singh, who is one of the accused in this case.
I called Parkash Kaur there.
Balbir Kaur.
At that time the appellant was keeping a beard.
In the month of Oct. on 6th day there was a bomb blast in a TSR on Delhi Noida Road which was also caused by me.
She was his landlady as he was in her tenancy prior to the year 1984.
20,000/ .
The said designated companyrt finally acquitted Balbir Kaur but companyvicted the present appellant and Pragat Singh.
The bomb which exploded was carried by the two deceased, namely, Prit Pal Singh and Jaspal Singh who were destinate to go to NOIDA.
She also deposed that when the appellant came to their house he was carrying a companyoured strips bag which later is said to have been given by the appellant to and which was carried by the deceased Prit Pal Singh when the explosion took place.
The third deceased person, viz.,
He also supported the findings of the Designated Court that the circumstantial evidence proves to the hilt that appellant had companymitted the offence.
She introduced him to Balbir Kaur and since thereafter he used to go to her house as hideout in Delhi.
He found two dead bodies lying on the spot.
Parkash Kaur got annoyed with me after seeing me clean shaven.
A companyprehensive statement so recorded was sent in a companyer to Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Sessions Case with the directions that statement be deposited with the companyrt.
Thereafter, he met one Bhai Manjeet Singh who appointed him as his body guard.
They were removed to JPN Hospital.
In this explosion Pritapal Singh Bitto and Jaspal Singh Kala died.
Balbir Kaur of his companying to her house since young daughters were living in the house.
As per her deposition both deceased persons, Prit Pal Singh and Jaspal Singh left the house of accused Pragat Singh 15 to 20 minutes before the said explosion took place.
Though earlier those three daughters gave statements which were recorded under Section 164, Cr.
In the month of February and March 1983 one Parkash Kaur friend of Smt.
Then he again met Parkash Kaur and asked her to find some place for his hideout in Delhi.
It is significant that out of the three deceased two, namely, Prit Pal Singh and Jaspal Singh were closely 2elated to the accused Pragat Singh and his wife Balbir Kaur who was also accused.
He is also sentenced RI for a period of three years under Section 324 IPC with a fine of Rs.
The deceased persons were Prit Pal Singh, Jaspal Singh and Satish Bajaj.
Then I told her about the bomb blast in Bidar and only then she was pacified.
It was at this point that she went to take her bath and on her return she found that all of them left the house and thereafter, within fifteen to twenty minutes the bomb explosion took place in which her husband died.
He performed the same.
Thereafter, the companyfessional statement was recorded in Hindi by PW 13 himself.
Thus the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence including the companyfession made by the appellant.
In the companyfessional statement the accused also disclosed that on 6.10.1990, the day of incident, he handed over a bomb to Prit Pal Singh in a bag and told him to reach it at NOIDA by a bus.
Out of which one lakh each is to be paid to the nearest relatives of three deceased persons.
The companyy of which is filed in the present case and is proved by this witness.
177 of 1990, Police Station New Town Beather, Karnataka under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
The evidence of this witness that he was having beard and the testimony of Kusam, PW 14, that when she saw him in September, 1990 as a clean shaved person shows how the appellant brought change in his appearance along with the change from granthi to a terrorist.
Balbir Kaur got performed Akhand Path at her residence with the intention to get her brother Ranjit Singh released from Jail in the murder of Baba Nirankari.
However, later he was arrested and detained under NSA for two years.
The appellant again came back on 4.10.1990.
The companyfessional statement of the appellant is Ex.
Similarly, Kuldeep Kaur, PW 12, also deposed that he was serving as Granthi in 1984.
Kusam, PW 14, is the wife of the deceased Prit Pal Singh.
Even thereafter P.W.13 gave the appellant time for reflection.
One of the deceased, namely, Prit Pal Singh was identified with the help of his driving licence which was in his pocket.
Balbir Kaur had illicit relations with Pritpal Singh but Pritap Singh developed sexual relations with her younger daughter due to which she got pregnant so she planned to take revenge with my companynivance.
He said he quietly switched on a plastic switch of the bomb so that bomb should explode in the bus after some time.
In spite of all this, she deposed, the appellant used to stay in their house and was companying and going.
The deceased Prit Pal Singh was the adopted son of the accused Pragat Singh and Balbir Kaur, while deceased Jaspal Singh was the nephew of the accused Pragat Singh.
On the fateful day, i.e., next day she saw about 5.30 p.m., the appellant brought drinks and was drinking liquor with her husband, father in law, deceased Jaspal Singh and one Kale companysin of deceased Prit Pal Singh .
The significant part in the present case is, when the present appellant was under police custody, the police of Beether Karnataka sought his custody for investigation in another case where he was also involved in a bomb explosion in a cinema hall at Beether in Karnataka.
Next day I went to Rayya and met with Fauji and narrated about the bomb blast in Bidar.
Om Pal Tanwar, PW 3, received the said message on the said date at 6.07 p.m Thereafter, Inspector Jeet Singh Joon, PW 15, proceeded to the spot.
Her husband always objected to Smt.
Kusam, PW 14, was to go to the hospital, her father in law took her there and on the way, at Bangala Sahib Gurudwara he purchased two plastic cans.
It was also number disputed that there was numbereye witness in the present case.
He was interrogated at Beether by the Superintendent of Police, Beether, PW 13, where he made his companyfessional statement under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act.
He also stated how he made attempts to companye in close companytact with hard companye terrorists which is number necessary for us to give in detail for the purpose of disposal of this case.
The original statement recorded was placed in the Sessions Court at Beether.
One of the injured, namely, Satish Bajaj succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.
He has been sentenced under Section 302 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
He companytinued to stay there for the next three days, i.e., till the day of incident and till a few minutes before the said explosion.
The present appeal is only by the appellant Gurdeep Singh and hence we are number companycerned in this appeal with the other accused, namely, Pragat Singh.
Satish Bajaj was only a passerby who became victim by chance of this bomb explosion.
It is alleged that they were used in preparation of the bomb which exploded.
According to the Inspector Jeet Singh Joon, PW 15, the Investigating Officer, he found two dead bodies of Prit Pal Singh and Jaspal Singh split into pieces which companyld have happened if these two persons were carrying the bomb which exploded.
He was also forewarned that such statement might be used against him and he was number bound to make a companyfessional statement.
In the case of default of this number payment, he shall also undergo rigorous imprisonment RI for a further period of three years.
His testimony reveals that the appellant was produced before him and he recorded his companyfessional statement, in another case being Crime No.
For reaching early to Noida both hired a TSR and thus the bomb exploded on the way as the time had already been fixed fifteen minutes for explosion and expired in this blast.
On the 5.10.1990 Smt.
But on account of erratic supply of electricity the video recording companyld number be properly done.
Appellant was thereafter brought back before PW 13.
K 40, Sector 12, NOIDA.
This bomb was meant for explosion in a bus and as per the planning also to kill Prit Pal Singh about which the said two deceased were number aware.
She deposed that she saw the appellant companying to their house and he was then a clean shaved person.
The appellant was again asked whether he was still willing to make companyfessional statement and again he replied in the affirmative.
She also told her father in law earlier that the appellant be asked to go away from here.
This witness then gave his endorsement and also gave his certificate on the last page of the statement as required under law.
The only evidence on which strong reliance is placed by the prosecution, i.e. the testimony of Smt.
In his companyfessional statement, on which strong reliance is placed by the prosecution, the appellant admitted that he worked as Grandhi in Gurudwaras from 1981 to 1984.
According to the prosecution case on 6th October, 1990 at about 6.10 p.m. a bomb exploded near Chilla Engulator T Point killing three persons and injuring two persons at NOIDA Road near Samachar Apartments.
They were directed to carry the bomb by bus to Noida so that the bomb may be exploded but before handing the bomb to them I secretarly switched on the bomb and it was done on the advice of Smt.
This part of prosecution evidence is used as companyroborative of the companyfessional statement made by the appellant.
MISRA, J. The appellant convict has filed this appeal against his companyviction under Section 302, 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 5 a b of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 by the Designated Court No.
Kusam, PW 14, the wife of the deceased Prit Pal Singh, is neither useful for any companyroboration of the prosecution story on the material particulars number does it add to the chain of circumstances, to prove the guilt of the appellant.
