ILC-2011-SC-CRL-Jan-22
Manjit Singh @ Mange Vs. C.B.I. through its S.P.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34 , Section 120-B , Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3
Confession - Bombay Bomb Blasts Case - Conviction under - Appeal against - Admissibility of confession against co-accused not charged under the TADA Act - -Main accused entered into criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased so that their involvement in the Bombay Bomb Blasts not revealed - When independent evidence supports the confessional statement, there is no harm in relying upon the confession - Merely because the confessional statement of both the accused is more or less similar, it cannot vitiate the probative value of such confessional statement - The confessional statement made by a person under Section 15 shall be admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the accused who makes the confession - Evidence on record presents an unimpeachable evidence against the accused, clearly indicating the modus operandi and the motive - Designated Judge (TADA) justified in convicting and sentencing co accused for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC - Intention of the accused was not to cause terror but to prevent information regarding another crime from being divulged - TADA Court justified in dismissing the charges framed under the TADA Act - Appeals dismissed.
C.B.I. through its S.P.
Topic(s)-