SUKHWANT SINGH BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short the TADA Act) is filed against the judgment of the Judge, Designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer in TADA Special Case No. 8 of 1992. The appellant herein was accused No. 4 in the said case and has been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 120, IPC, Sections 3 and 6(1) of the TADA Act, Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B, IPC and had been sentenced to a maximum sentence of 5 years RI under the main count and has also been imposed sentence and fine under various other charges with a direction that all the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently.

(2.) In view of the fact that we are of the opinion that almost all the contentions raised in the above appeal and argued before us are covered against the appellant by our judgment in Jameel Ahmed and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (2003 (4) Scale 402), we do not think it is necessary to elaborately deal with the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that before the TADA Court, the appellant herein who is arrayed as accused No. 4 along with 8 other accused persons was charged for various offences like Section 3(3) of the TADA Act, Section 120-B read with Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 9-B and 9-C of the said Explosive Act. Of the said 9 accused, 3 had pleaded guilty before the TADA Court and their case was separately dealt with ending in their conviction based on their plea of guilt, while 6 others were tried and found guilty of various offences mentioned hereinabove; out of which 4 accused, namely, Gyani Pratap Singh A-1, Didar Singh A-2, Jameel Ahmed A-5, Ismail Bhai A-6 challenged their conviction in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1308/2002, 215/2003 and 1361/2002, while the present appellant herein and another convicted accused-Kulwant Singh A-3 had then not challenged their conviction by the TADA Court. In this appeal, Sukhwant Singh alias Balwinder Singh alias Ballu, who was A-4 before the TADA Court has challenged the very same judgment. In our earlier judgment reported in 2003 (4) Scale 402, we held thus :

(3.) In the present case we are aware of the fact that the appellant has not made any confessional statement nor there is any corroboration of the confessional statement of the co-accused implicating this appellant from any other independent source but then we have held in the above reported case that if confessional statement of a co-accused is acceptable to the Court even without corroboration then a confession of a co-accused can be the basis of conviction of another accused so implicated in that confession. Therefore the fact that the appellant herein has not confessed or the confessional statements made implicating him by A-1 and A-2 are not independently corroborated, will not be a ground to reject the evidence produced by the prosecution in the form of confessional statement of co-accused provided the confession relied against the appellant is acceptable to the Court.