No separate finding has been given on hatching of companyspiracy.
The impugned judgment further directs the release of the approver Kulvinder Singh Kinda and acquits accused Hardeep Singh of all the offences for which he was charged.
Brief Prosecution Version Pradhan Singh with the appellant and Nishan Singh came to Maharashtra and they along with Hardeep Singh went to the house of Kulvinder Singh, the approver, in September, 1991 and planned some activities.
The appellant was arrested on 6th July, 1992.
He left the cloth bag and got down from train at Thane.
They have also been companyvicted for offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ each and in default suffer RI for six months and for the other two offences RI for a period of five years each with a similar fine and RI in default in payment of fine.
The sentences have been directed to run companycurrently.
By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant and one Nishan Singh have been companyvicted for offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act read with Section 120 IPC, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1984.
Thirdly, the evidence of Deepali who identified the appellant in the test identification parade and stood by that while appearing in companyrt as PW 3.
On 8th November, 1991 the appellant kept a bomb in VT Ambarnath local train and as a result of its blast, 12 people lost their lives and 65 were injured.
The prosecution to substantiate the charges examined 63 witnesses.
Pradhan Singh, Nishan Singh and the appellant started running from the backside of the house.
Police Inspector Rajjak along with the staff surrounded the house for the whole night of 1st December, 1991 and entered the house on the morning of 2nd December, 1991 after alerting his staff.
In the said incident, Nishan Singh was arrested on the spot and the appellant escaped.
The number of incidents as projected by the prosecution before the designated companyrt were seven, i.e., 1 Hatching of companyspiracy in September, 1991 by the appellant, Nishan Singh, Hardeep Singh, approver and deceased Pradhan Singh 2 companymission of robbery at Sharma Petrol Pump on 22nd October, 1991 3 companymission of robbery at Mohadi Petrol Pump, on 25th October, 1991 4 Firing on police jeep on 25th October, 1991 and killing of three police personnel 5 Preparation of Bomb 6 Train Bomb blast on November 8, 1991 at 10.45 p.m. resulting in death of 12 and injuries to 65 persons and 7 Encounter with the police and firing by the accused and police on 2nd December, 1991 resulting in death of Pradhan Singh and arrest of accused Nishan Singh.
Bomb blast took place at Kalyan Railway Station at 10.45 p.m. The accused were taking shelter at the house of one Jagtar Singh in Arvind Nagar locality at Chandrapur.
MGR 9097 and going on it to Chandrapur.
On 25th October, 1991 at about 11.45 p.m., they looted Mohadi Petrol Pump and took away Rs.17,142/ .
Firstly, the companyfessional statement of the appellant.
There is three type of evidence against the appellant.
It was also pointed out that although Kulvinder Singh was arrested on 15th July, 1992, an application for grant of pardon was made by him before the designated companyrt more than three years later i.e. on 28th December, 1995 and pardon was granted by the designated companyrt by order dated 2nd February, 1996.
On 22nd October, 1991 at 9.15 p.m., they companymitted dacoity at Sharma Petrol Pump at Bharanj by showing to the staff a pistol and AK 47 and looted a sum of Rs.2,500/ .
Further the appellant has neither been held to be guilty of preparation of bomb for which only Pradhan Singh has been held guilty number for firing on police in encounter on 2nd December, 1991.
With the assistance of learned companynsel for the parties, we have gone through various statements of the approver.
The designated companyrt for holding the appellant guilty has, inter alia, relied upon the evidence of Deepali PW 3 , the approver Kulvinder Singh PW 1 , and the companyfessional statement of the appellant.
Secondly, the evidence of the approver, Kulvinder Singh PW 1 and that of his companyaccused, Nishan Singh, involving the appellant.
Deepali PW 3 identified the appellant as a person who was sitting in front of her and was inserting his hand in a cloth bag which was under his seat.
Nishan Singh made a companyfessional statement on 24th April, 1992 and the appellant on 1st December, 1992.
PSI Supare who had taken position at the backside of the house fired on Pradhan Singh who fell near the companypound wall.
The first incident is of forcible taking of jeep No.
No appeal has been preferred by Nishan Singh.
The designated companyrt has held that the appellant companymitted the robbery on 22nd October and 25th October, 1991 fired on police jeep resulting in killing of three police personnel is guilty of the bomb blast resulting in deaths and injuries as above and escaped in the encounter which resulted in death of Pradhan Singh and arrest of Nishan Singh.
They have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ each in respect of these offences and in default suffer rigorous imprisonment RI for a period of six months each.
After looting the petrol pump, while they were going towards Nasik, their jeep was chased by the police which had received message through companytrol room and as a result of firing from the jeep on police the driver Sanap, ASI Pardeshi and PC Pardhi were killed.
Reverting number to the evidence of the approver, it was pointed out by learned companynsel for the appellant that the companyfession of the approver was recorded by the Police Officer on 4th September, 1992, his statement before the Special Judicial Magistrate after grant of pardon was recorded on 28th February, 1996 and deposition in Court as approver as PW 1 was recorded from 1st to 3rd October, 1996.
In the recording of companyfessional statement made by the appellant by the Superintendent of Police, the requirements of law that the statement is number made under pressure and informing the appellant that it can be used against him as evidence and that he can be companyvicted on the basis of the said statement and further that the appellant voluntarily and willingly was ready to companyfess about the offences companymitted by him, were duly companyplied with.
Ravinder Singh Bittu is the appellant.
K. Sabharwal, J. In this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 TADA Act against the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence passed by the Designated Court, only one of the accused viz.
