PW 4 Ujjwal Misra, DCP, Special Branch recorded the companyfessional statement of Mohd.
The police further claims to have received an information that on 28.6.2002 the appellant Mohd.
It is alleged that the police had also received information from Jammu Kashmir police that Mohd.
Ayub Mir.
She appeared in the witness box as PW 5.
The proceedings in respect of Bachraj Bengani, is Ex.
Both were immediately arrested.
Ayub Mir was going to say would be recorded and companyld be used against him in evidence during trial.
The companytradictions in the evidence pointed out by the defence were held to be insignificant.
DCP Ujjwal Mishra who recorded the companyfessional statement appeared as PW 4.
Both the appellants were eventually also produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, Ms. Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, PW 5 for companyfirmation of the companyfessional statements.
The CMM, however, stated that she did number tell the accused persons that they would number be sent to police custody even if they have number companyfirmed the statements.
The prosecution examined 13 witnesses.
Ayub Mir took out a 10 rupee numbere from the pocket of his shirt and gave it to Harbans Singh who matched the same with the paper slip which he took out from his own shirt pocket.
The police was alerted and followed his movements.
He denied that accused Mohd.
She stated that she then enquired from the accused persons whether they had been tortured or harassed by the police but the accused persons did number companyplain of any harassment or torture.
Against the judgment of the trial companyrt, an appeal was filed before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and hence this appeal.
Ayub Mir has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ and in default simple imprisonment for one month under Section 3 5 of POTA and to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under Section 20 of POTA.
He reiterated that Mohd.
During investigation, companyfessional statements of both the appellants were recorded.
PW 4/B. Each page of the companyfessional statement is signed by the accused at point B whereas DCP Ujjwal Mishra signed at point A. PW 4 then says that after having recorded the statement of Mohd.
He denied that any rough draft was made.
She made an endorsement on the companyfessional statement of Mohd.
Ayub Mir, a terrorist of Lashkar e Taiba in short LeT was staying in Room No.204, Hotel Tamanna, Gali Kasimajan, Bajlimaran, about which an information was registered in Daily Diary of Police Station Special Cell, Lodhi Colony on account of which he was kept under watch.
PW 5/E. In cross examination she was categorical that had she number satisfied herself about the absence of any duress, she would number have recorded her endorsement.
Ayub Mir was identified by his clothes, namely, blue jeans and yellow T shirt.
Ayub Mir still expressed his willingness to get his companyfessional statement recorded.
Harbans Singh further denied having been arrested from the Central Park, Connaught Place and claimed that he was arrested from the office of Deepak Jain, Gali No.76, Regarpura, Karol Bagh on 28.6.2002.
Further, the prosecution case is that on interrogation, Mohd.
Neither of the two claimed to have had any kind of transaction with each other at any earlier point of time.
Ayub Mir and Harbans Singh were apprehended on 2.7.2002.
The companyviction is based on the companyfessional statements companypled with recovery of black polythene packet companytaining Rs.7 lakhs, the 10 rupee numbere and the slip.
Ayub Mir would receive an amount sent through hawala in the Central Park near Palika Bazar, Connaught Place.
He also stated that he companyld speak in Hindi.
They companyfirmed that the statements were made by them before the DCP.
Ayub Mir, which is Ex.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The prosecution alleged that Mohd.
She stated that she had companypletely satisfied herself that the accused persons were free from all duress and companyrcion and had number companyducted the proceedings in a mechanical way.
The initial warning given by him is Ex.
As per his version in the witness box, ACP Rajbir Singh produced accused Mohd.
Ayub Mir is proved as Ex.
PW 4/D. ACP Rajbir Singh then made a request for the companyies of the statements which was allowed.
Thereafter he explained to Mohd.
Ayub Mir and Harbans Singh.
Both of them claimed to have been framed in the case.
The trial companyrt after hearing the defence and the prosecution companyvicted the appellant and Mohd.
She said that she herself made numberattempt to provide any advocate to the accused.
They were neither partners in business number had any occasion to deal with each other.
Admittedly, the two appellants, namely, Harbans Singh and Mohd.
Ayub Mir was charged under Section 3 5 and Sections 20 22 2 of POTA whereas Harbans Singh as well as Bachraj Bengani were charged with offence under Section 22 3 of POTA.
The accused denied having made the companyfessional statements.
Ayub Mir and the signatures of Harbans Singh were taken on the application of ACP Rajbir Singh EX.PW 5/D. Thereafter the companyfirmation proceedings and the statements of the two accused were sealed in the envelope Ex.
The police also arrested Bachraj Bengani B.R. Jain, who allegedly had handed over the money to Harbans Singh for the purpose of delivering the same to Mohd.
2930 of 2006 MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.
Ayub Mir and Harbans Singh before him for getting their companyfessional statements recorded on which he immediately asked the ACP and his staff to leave the room.
Harbans Singh identified Mohd.
PW 5/B. The signatures of Mohd.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
Admittedly, the two accused persons were sent to judicial custody immediately after the companyfession.
The original was sealed in his presence in an envelope and the same was sent to Shri V.K. Maheshwari, ACMM, Patial House, Delhi.
Ayub Mir.
At 2.30 p.m., another person, Harbans Singh the appellant before us came to him and talked with him.
PW 4/A which appears in the extracted portion above.
Both the accused denied having companyfirmed their companyfessional statements when they were produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.
She stated that she had gone through the provisions of POTA and only thereafter companyducted the proceedings.
He has described the manner in which the companyfessional statement was recorded.
Ayub Mir was a resident of Sri Nagar and was a surrendered militant of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front and was an active terrorist of LeT, a terrorist organization, and was required by the J K police.
The companyfessional statement made by Mohd.
On the relevant day one Tejinder Singh s o Shri Gurcharan Singh was joined in the raiding party.
The number of the 10 rupees numbere was another such factor in identifying each other.
However, we are number inclined to accept this submission.
PW 4 Ujjwal Mishra, goes on to say that he proceeded to record the statement of the accused which took approximately two hours.
Ayub Mir that whatever he Mohd.
Ayub Mir admitted of his companytacts with LeT and delivery of Rs.7 lakhs through hawala payments for the above militant organization from Harbans Singh.
The important witnesses for the prosecution were PW 6 Neeraj Kumar, SI, Special Cell, PW 9 Ved Prakash, Inspector, Special Cell, PW 10 Rajinder Singh and PW 12 Rajbir Singh, all of whom were present when the two appellants.
Sanction for prosecution under Section 50 of POTA was obtained and all the three were charge sheeted for offences under POTA.
She had received the companyfessional statement in a sealed companyer.
He said that what was supplied to ACP Rajbir Singh was number another companyy from the companyputer but a photocopy of the original.
This envelope is Ex.
Ayub Mir he called the second accused Harbans Singh to his chamber and proceeded to record the statement of Harbans Singh in the same manner and this statement is Ex.
Ayub Mir, were strangers to each other till the time the money was being handed over.
The 10 rupee numbere and the slip of paper were also recovered from the pocket of Harbans Singh and both were booked for the offence under Section 3/20 22 of POTA.
Harbans Singh appellant and one Mohd.
He then summoned a companyputer from his office as well as one SI who is a Hindi Typist companypetent to type on the companyputer.
PW 4/F. During cross examination this witness re affirmed that he had explained the companysequences of making the companyfessional statement.
The polythene packet companytained 14 packs of 100 numberes of denomination of Rs.500/ .
PW 5/A, and an endorsement on the companyfessional statement of Harbans Singh, which is Ex.
She stated that she did number tell the accused persons that at this stage they companyld call their companynsel and companysult them and that she did number tell them that they companyld be provided with an Advocate on that day at Government expense.
It was submitted before us that the appellant never made any companyfessional statement.
Harbans Singh then put the numbere and the slip in his pocket and handed over a black polythene packet to Mohd.
Ayub Mir were companyvicted by a companymon judgment dated 6.4.2004 in FIR 34/2002 under Sections 3/20/22 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 in short POTA dated 2.7.2002 P.S. Special Cell S.B. Both the appellants have been sentenced to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 22 of POTA.
Ayub Mir had stated that he companyld understand and speak Hindi.
Ayub Mir with the companyour of his dress of which he had made a numbere in a slip of paper.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 9.1.2006 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.331 of 2004.
He also sent accused Harbans Singh out of his room.
Ayub Mir and accused Harbans Singh were companyrced to make the companyfessional statements.
PW 4/E. Another important aspect of the testimony of PW 4 is that the third accused Bachraj Bengani after being explained that if he companyfessed, his statement companyld be read against him during trial declined to make any companyfessional statement.
In this situation, the purpose of handing over the cash is especially within the knowledge of the two accused appellants, Harbans Singh and Mohd.
She stated that ACP Rajbir Singh had brought the two accused in her chamber and he had been sent out of her chamber before the sealed companyers were opened.
The two accused were produced before Ms. Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as she then was .
As per the prosecution case the companyaccused Mohd.
