Holding

A confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act, when voluntarily given and corroborated by other evidence, is admissible as substantive evidence, justifying the conviction of the co‑accused, while the acquittals of others under TADA and for the money‑recovery charges are upheld.

Summary

The case concerned the abduction of businessman Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi in January 1994, for which a ransom was demanded. A co‑accused, A‑9, gave a detailed confession to the police under Section 15 of the TADA Act, which was later retracted. The Supreme Court held that the confession was recorded in compliance with the statutory procedure, was voluntary and, being corroborated by other material evidence, could be treated as substantive evidence. On this basis, the Court affirmed the conviction of A‑1 to A‑4 (and A‑9) under IPC sections 120‑B, 342, 365 and 384. The Court upheld the acquittals of A‑6 and A‑7 because the recovered money could not be linked to the ransom, and also upheld the acquittals of all accused on the charges under TADA sections 3 and 5, finding no evidence of intent to overawe the government or create terror. All appeals filed by the State and the convicted appellants were dismissed.

Issues considered

The admissibility and voluntariness of a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act, especially when later retracted.
Whether a confession of a co‑accused can be relied upon as substantive evidence and the requirement of corroboration.
Whether the kidnapping for ransom falls within the ambit of offences under TADA sections 3 and 5.
The evidentiary value of recovered money in linking accused A‑6 and A‑7 to the ransom.

Legislation cited

Bombay Police Act
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 30
Indian Passport Act
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 342, s. 365, s. 384
Motor Vehicles Act
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 15, s. 3, s. 5

Subjects

TADA Actconfessionco‑accusedkidnappingransomcorroborationvoluntary confessionIPC 120‑BIPC 342IPC 365IPC 384acquittalevidence law

Judgment

,,. '-·
ABDULVAHAB ABDUL MAJID SHAIKH AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
•
APRIL 24, 2007

[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. AND G.P. MA THUR, J.] B

t
.,, ~
Evidence Act, 1872:

S.30-Confession by co-accused-Corroborated by other evidence-
Hence truthful and voluntary-On the basis of confession, complicity of A l
c
- to A 4 in the abduction proved beyond doubt-Conviction upheld-Penal
Code, 1860-ss. 342, 365, 384 r.w.s. 120 B-TADA Act, s.15.

Penal Code, 1860:
D
Ss. 342, 365, 384 r. w. Ss. 120 B-Recovery of money from the house of
A-6 and A-7-Prosecution could not prove that the money recovered was
actually ransom paid by agent of victim to the abductor-Moreover, in the
confession ofco-accused, he did not involve these accused-Acquittal upheld.

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: E
Ss. 3 and 5-Conviction under-Abduction of businessman/or ransom-
Held, such an act cannot be termed as act committed with intent to overawe
the public-No evidence that accused intended to strike terror in locality-
Accused rightly acquitted for offence under the Act.
F
Prosecution case was that on 19.1.1994 when victim PW-3 was walking
towards his office, a van stopped near him and pulled him into the van. His
head and face were covered with cap. He was taken to the cellar of a building.
The accused persons made a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs from partner of his
construction company. G
~

- . ~ The relative of victims, PW-4 came with Rs 3 lakhs at the decided place
and handed over the ransom money to a person sent by abductors.

PW-2 lodged a complaint to the police on the same day. A case was
registered by PW 14 Police Inspector and investigation started. During H
549
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.
_,, - .-.
A investigation, the house of A-6 was searched on 23.3.1994 and a sum of Rs.
50,000/- was recovered. Thereafter, the house of his father-in-law A-7 was
also searched and Rs. 1,75,000/- was recovered. During investigation, A-1 to
A-5 were arrested. Pursuant to the information furnished by A-4 six
cartridges were recovered from a heap of bricks. On 8.9.1994, the investigation
was taken over the ACP. He arrested A-9. This accused expressed his desire
B to give a confession and A-9 was produced before PW l DCP.

There were 11 accused persons before the Designated Court for various
~
offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), TADA Act, Indian Passport Act, I .....
Motor Vehicles Act and Bombay Police Act. The designated Judge relied on
c the confession statement given by A-9 and held that the confession given by
A-9 has been supported by other items of evidence and on that basis A-1 to A-
4 and A-9 were convicted for the offences punishable under s.120 B IPC, but .-<

all the accused were acquitted ofvarious other charges framed against them.

Out of the 5 accused convicted, 3 of them filed appeal and State also
.D filed two appeals.

Dismissing all the appeal, the Court
-~
HELD: 1.1. The main evidence is of the confessional statement of accused
A-9. Of course, the confession statement is generally not treated as the
E primary evidence, but the confession recorded under s.15 of the TADA Act is
substantive piece of evidence and it could be accepted provided there is
corroboration by other material particulars. There is substantial corroboration
of the confession of A-9 by other items of evidence. [Para 14] [557-E-F]

F 1.2. The confession was recorded strictly in accordance with s.15 of
the TADA Act. The accused was apprised of the fact that in case any such
confession is made, it would be used against him. The police officer who
recorded the confession also stated that it was voluntary in nature.
[Para 14] [557-G]

G 1.3. Under s.15 of the TADA Act, a police officer is permitted to record
.
the confessional statement of accused and certain strict procedure is
~.
-
prescribed. The appellants have no case that this procedure has in any way
been violated. Merely because the confession was retracted, it may not be
presumed that the same was not voluntary. When A-9 was produced before
H the Magistrate, he had no case that he was subjected to any third degree
ABDULVAHABABDULMAJIDSHAIKHv.STATEOFGUJARAT 551

method. He only stated that he had not made any confession before the police. A
[Para 14) [558-A-B)

-· 2. In the confessional statement, A-9 has given detailed narration of the
incident relating to the abduction of victim. He stated that accused V and S
were armed with revolvers. In the course of investigation, the revolver was
recovered from one of the accused. The accused was seen at the apartment B
where the victim was staying. The accused stated in his confession statement

- ~
'
that PW-3 was abducted at about 4 p.m. when he came out of the house. The
victim was examined as PW-3. He deposed that he had been staying at Kundan
apartments in Vasna. He further deposed that on 19.1.1994 at about 4 o'clock
he started from his house for his office and on the way 5-6 persons came in C
a Maruti van and he was forcibly dragged into that Maruti van and taken to
some distant place. He also deposed that he was asked to give the telephone
number of his company and that he gave the telephone number of his friend
also. All these facts are spoken of by A-9 in his confession statement. The
complicity of A-1 to A-4 in the abduction is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(Para 15 and 17) [558-C-E, HJ D

3. The submission of appellant-State that the acquittal of A-6 and A-7
was palpably wrong as there is evidence to show that they were party to the
abduction and extortion of money from the victim, is based on the evidence of
recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the house of A-6 and Rs.1,75,000/- from the E
house of A-7. The recovery of these amounts, though stands proved, the
prosecution could not prove that these amounts were actually the amounts
paid by the agents of PW-3 as ransom of these accused. These accused gave
some explanation as to how these amounts happened to be in their house. A-
6 claimed that it was an amount belonging to him and he was keeping it for
his business purposes. There was no bank slip or any other item of evidence F
to show that the amount was withdrawn from the bank on 21.1.1994. Though
the bank officials were examined as prosecution witnesses, they also could
not give any satisfactory evidence to prove that the currency notes recovered
from these two accused were relatable to the amounts withdrawn from the
Bank. Moreover, in the confession statement, A-9 did not involve these accused. G
In the above circumstances, the acquittal of A-6 and A-7 was correct.
(Para 19) (559-B-E)

4. The accused were charged under ss. 3 and 5 of the TADA Act read
with Section 120-B IPC. The contention of the State is that these accused
should not have been acquitted of the charges under ss. 3 and 5 of TADA Act H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.
~ ·-
A as the crim~ committed by them was of grave nature and came within the
purview of the said provisions of the TADA Act. The prosecution could not
adduce any evidence to prove that these accused had committed the offences •
charged against them. The act of kidnapping for extorting ransom from the
victim cannot be termed as an act committed "with intent to overawe the
Government as by law established". There is also no evidence to show that
B the accused intended to strike terror in the locality. Their primary objective
was to extort money from the victim. There is also no evidence to show that
these accused were supporting any communal elements or intended to create
disharmony among different sections of the people. These are all main
ingredients to constitute offence punishable under s. 3 of the TADA Act. So
I
+
-
c also, there is no evidence to show that these accused were in possession of
any arms or ammunition during the commission of the crime, for which they
have been charged. The accused have been rightly acquitted.
[Para 20 and 21) [559-H; 560-A-C)
-
State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and Ors.,
D (1999] 5 sec 253, relied on.
Bhuboni Sahu v. R., AIR 119491 Privy Council 257 and Haricharan
Kurmin v. State of Bihar, [1964) 6 SCR 623, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 525 of
E 2004.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2004 of the Court of the
Addll. Designated Judge, Court No. 12 at Ahmedabad in T.A.D.A. Cr!. Case
Nos. 4/1995 and 27/1996.

F WITH

Crl A. Nos. 1316-1317 and 1318 of2004.

Sushi! Kumar, Vinay Arora, Adolf Mathew, Mukesh Kumar, Sanjay Jain,
Priyank Adhyaru, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Prakash Kumar
G B. (for Ashok K. Mahajan) and Anu Mohla for the Appellants.
Yashank Adhyaru, Vibha Datta Makhija, Sadhana Sandhu, Pinky Behera,
Hemantika Wahi and K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
ABDUL VAHAB ABDULMAJID SHAIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BALAKRJSHNAN, CJ.] 553

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ. I. All these appeals arise out of a Common A
Judgment in TADA Crime Case No. 4/1995 and TADA Crime Case No. 27/1996
delivered by the Additional Designated Judge at Ahmedabad.

2. There were 11 accused persons before the Designated Court charged
for various offences under the Indian Penal Code (!PC), TADA Act, Indian
Passport Act, Motor Vehicles Act and Bombay Police Act. By the impugned B
judgment, A-I to A-4 and A-9 were convicted for the offences punis!rnble
under Section 120 B !PC and under Sections 342, 365 and 384 !PC read with
1
Section 120 B !PC, but all the accused were acquitted of various other charges
'
framed against them. Out of the 5 accused convicted by the designated court,
3 of them have filed Criminal Appeal No. 525/2004 and the two other appeals C
before us have been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the acquittal
of the other accused.

3. The case of the prosecution was that PW 3 Jayendra Mahendra
Tripathi was a builder having a construction company of his own. He was
also working as a teacher during the relevant period .and staying in Kundan D
Apartment in Vasna area in Ahmedabad. The office of the construction
company was in Deep Apartment at Vasna. He used to go to his office in the
evening. On 19.1.1994, he left his house at 4.00 p.m. on way to the office.
Walking towards office, when he reached the place near Vasna Bus Stand, a
Maruti van came and stopped near him. He was shown a visiting card by the
occupants of the van to enquire about the address mentioned thereon. While E
PW 3 Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was reading the visiting card, somebody
pushed him from behind and he was forced into the Maruti van. Inside the
van, his head and face were covered with a woolen cap. 5-6 persons were
sitting in the Maruti van and after the victim was forced into the van, the van
moved and travelled for 30-45 minutes and eventually he was taken to the p
cellar of a building. There, the victim gave the telephone number of his
construction company, but as there was no response from that telephone
number, he gave the telephone number of his friend K.K. Vaidh. PW 3 Jayendra
Mahendra Tripathi was kept in a room in that building and according to the
prosecution, the accused persons made a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs from the
partners of the construction company. G
4. The partners of the construction company withdrew Rs. 10 lakhs from
the Union Bank of!ndia and a relative of the victim, namely, PW 4 Kirtikumar
Tapishanker Tripathi, was asked to come with Rs. 3 lakhs near Anjali Cinema
on 19.1.J 994 at an evening time by the victim himself who spoke to him on H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A telephone. He was asked to come by a rickshaw and to handover Rs. 3 lakhs
..f .
to a person who would identify himself by a code (No. 500). He came with
Rs. 3 lakhs near Anjali Cinema Square Road. A person came on a motorcycle,
identified himself with the aforesaid code and the bag containing Rs. 3 lakhs
was given to that person.

B 5. PW 2 Harshad Premjibhi Gajjar gave a complaint to the police on the
same day, i.e. 19.1.1994. A case was registered by PW 14 Police Inspector and
investigation started. During investigation, the house of A-6 Salim Haveliwala
was searched on 23.3.1994 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered. Thereafter,
the house of his father-in-law A-7 Yakub Ganibhai was also searched and Rs.
l
'
c 1, 75,000/- was recovered. Bundles of notes recovered from his house were

-
showing the slips of Union Bank oflndia, C.G. Road, Relief Road and Rajpur
branches, Ahmedabad. During investigation, A-1 Abdulvahab Abdulmajid
Shaikh, A-5 Mohammadrafik Abdulrahim Shaikh, A-3, Abdulsattar@ Sattar
Ghanti, A-4 Mahammadsalim @ Salim Tolo and A-2 Najirmahammad
Alimahammad Vora were arrested. Pursuant to the information furnished by
D A-4 Mahammadsalim @ Salim Tolo, six cartridges were recovered from a heap
of bricks. On 8.9.1994, the investigation was taken over by ACP Shri B.R. Patil.
He arrested A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan lsmailkhan Pathan. This accused t
expressed his desire to give a confession and A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan
was produced before PW 1 DCP, Shri Suroliya. Shri Suroliya recorded the
confession statement of A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan and the investigating
E
officer finally filed the charge-sheet.

F
6. On the side of the prosecution, 18 witnesses were examined and
series of documents were produced by the prosecution as exhibits. The
appellants, when questioned under Section 313 Cr. PC, completely denied
their involvement in the case. A-6 Salim Haveliwala and A-7 Yakub Ganibhai
-
admitted the recovery of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,75,000/- respectively from their
houses, but contended that the money belonged to them. A-9 Musakhan @
Babakhan stated that he was never produced before PW-I DCP, Shri Suroliya
and denied having given any statement before him.

G 7. The Designated Judge, though accepted the evidence of recovery of
the money from the two accused, held that the prosecution could not prove
their identity and hence no importance was attached to the recovery effected
"- -
by the police. In the appeals filed by the State, the main thrust has been given
to. the acquittal of these accused persons and it has been urged that the
Designated Judge failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The
H
ABDULVAHABABDULMAJIDSHAIKHv.STATEOFGUJARAT[BALAKRISHNAN,CJ.] 555

Designated Judge relied on the confession statement given by A-9 Musakhan A
@ Babakhan and it was held that the confession given by A-9 Musakhan @
Babakhan has been supported by other items of evidence and on that basis
A-1 to A-4 and A-9 were convicted for some of the offences charged against
them.

8. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the B
confession given by A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan could be relied upon. The
learned Counsel for the appellants strenously urged before us that the
confession made by A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan was not at all truthful and
voluntary and it was prepared at the instance of the two police officers and
therefore, it is not admissibk under Section 15 of the TADA Act. The learned C
Counsel for the appellants also contended that the confession of a co-
... accused is not a substantive piece of evidence and if at all, it could be relied
on only as a corroborative piece of evidence and in the absence of any other
evidence the confession of a co-accused by itself shall not be used as primary
evidence to prove the complicity of the co-accused and convict him. Reliance
was placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu v. R. AIR D ·
( 1949) Privy Council 257 and it was urged that the confession of a co-accused
is obviously a fragile and feeble type of evidence and it could only be used
to lend credence to other items of evidence. Our attention in this behalf was
drawn to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, the application of which was
explained in detail in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, [I 964] 6 SCR 623. E

9. It is true that the confession of the co-accused by itself is not
sufficient to find a co-accused guilty unless there is other supporting evidence
to prove that the accused was guilty. In State through Superintendent of
Police, CBJIS!Tv. Nalini and Ors., (1999] 5 SCC 253, this court held that the
1 confession is a substantive piece of evidence, but as a 'Rule of Prudence' F
the Court should seek other corroborative evidence to test its veracity. Having
regard to the above principle, we find that the evidence in this case indicates
that there is sufficient corroboration of the confession given by A-9 Musakhan
@ Babakhan. It is to be remembered that all procedural formalities were
complied with in recording the confession of A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan.
The learned Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 525/2004 G
vehemently contended that the confession given by A-9 Musakhan @
Babakhan was retracted the moment he was produced before the Magistrate
and, therefore, it is to be treated as "not voluntary". The learned Counsel also
pointed out that when PW-I DCP, Shri Suroliya was recording the confession
of A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan, the Magistrate was very much available and H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A the Police Officer should have produced the accused before the Magistrate
in order to record the confession of the accused. It was argued that failure
to produce the accused before the Magistrate indicated that the confession
was not voluntary and the same was not given by the accused. We do not
find much force in this contention. The Police Officer was empowered to
record the confession and in law such a confession is made admissible under
B the provisions of the TADA Act. The mere fact that A-9 Musakhan @
Babakhan retracted subsequently is not a valid ground to reject the confession.
The crucial question is whether at the time when the accused was giving the t
statement he was subjected to coercion, threat or any undue influence or was t
offered any inducement to give any confession. There is nothing in the
C evidence to show that there was any coercion, threat or any undue influence
to the accused to make the confession. A-9 Musakhan@ Babakhan who was
questioned under Section 313 Cr. PC had no case that he was subjected to
any third degree treatment or threatened with dire consequences. He only
stated that he had not given any ~tatement before PW-I DCP, Shri Suroliya.

D IO. The narration of evidence given by A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan
would show that the confession was voluntary. A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan
had given various details of the conspiracy of kidnapping and subjecting the
victims to wrongful confinement.

11. The relevant portion of the confession relating to the kidnapping of
E PW-3 Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi are given by A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan
in his confession as follows :

"..... After four or five days of last Uttarayan, Sherjada called Nazir
Vora, Salim Tola, Sattar Battery and me at the house ofWahab situated
at Devi Park Society in Dani-Limda. When we went there, Sherjada
F and Wahab were present. Sherjada and Wahab made a plan to kidnap
011e Jayendra Tripathi, a builder at Vasna and deciding this, at about
3 pm., we took the Maruti Van ofSherjada affIXing bogus numberplate
on it and went to Vasna. Wahab 1111d Sherjada had revolvers. Sherjada
was knowing Jayendra Tripathi and he had also seen his house.
G Hence, while going near Kundan Apartment, situated near Mehta
Hospital in Vasna, there is house of Tripathi and we sat there in
Maruti Van for keeping watch. At 4 PM, Jayendra Tripathi used to go
out from his home, which was told by Sherjada. Therefore, we waited
for some time. At about 4:00 hrs., when Jayendra Tripathi came out,
Sherjada identified him and from there he kidnapped him and threw
H
ABDULVAHABABDULMAJIDSHAIKHv.STATEOFGUJARAT[BALAKRISHNAN,CJ.J 557
_.
~.,..
him in Maruti Van applying old cap and took him to Devi Park. Taking A
the telephone number of victim's friends and relatives, Wahab and
(
Sherjada threatened them on phone and extorted money. On the next
day, Tripathi was released. I was taking lunch and Tiffin from outside
for Tripathi. But for this work, no money was paid to me. "

12. From the confession statement, it is evident that some persons came B
to Vasna area and while PW-3 Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was walking near
the Kundan Apartment, he was kidnapped and forced into the Maruti van and
his face and head were covered by an old cap and he was taken to Devi Park.
A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan speaks about the involvement of other accused
persons. In the confession, it is also stated that PW-3 Jayendra Mahendra
Tripathi was released on the next day after the ransom amount was paid. A-
c
9 Musakhan @ Babakhan also says that he was not paid anything in this
transaction. The fact that a Maruti van came and PW-3 Jayendra Mahendra
Tripathi was kidnapped in that vehicle is spoken to by the victim himself who
was examined as a witness for the prosecution.
D
13. These appeals before us are disposed of as follows.

Criminal Appeal No. 52512004

14. The main evidence in this case is the confessional statement of
accused Musakhan @ Babakhan. Of course, the confession statement is E
generally not treated as the primary evidence, but this Court in Nalini 's case
(supra) has held that the confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA
Act is a substantive piece of evidence and it could be accepted provided
there is corroboration by other material particulars. In the instant case, there
is substantial corroboration of the confession of A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan
'! by other items of evidence. The counsel for the appellants strongly urged F
before us that the confession itself is highly suspicious and it cannot be
relied upon to convict the appellants, but we find no force in that contention.
The confession was recorded strictly in accordance with Section 15 of the
TADA Act. The accused was apprised of the fact that in case any such
confession is made, it would be used against him. The police officer who G
recorded the confession also stated that it was voluntary in nature. The
- ;{ counsel for the ai;pellants contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was
readily available to record the confession and when such a facility was
avail~ble, the police officer should not have recorded the confession. It was
also pointed out that when A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan was produced before
the C.J.M., he retracted the confession and th.at itself is sufficient to hold that H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A the confession was not voluntary in nature. Under Section 15 of the TADA /
Act, a police officer is permitted to record the confessional statement of
accused and certain strict procedure is prescribed. The appellants have no
case that this procedure has in any way been violated. Merely because the
confession was retracted, it may not be presumed that the same was not
voluntary. It is important to note that when A-9 Musakhan@ Babakhan was
B produced before the Magistrate, he had no case that he was subjected to any
third degree method. He only stated that he had not made any confession
before the police.

15. In the confessional statement, A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan has
C given detailed narration of the incident relating to the abduction of victim
Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi. He stated that accused Vahab & Sherzada were
anned with revolvers. In the course of investigation, the revolver was recovered
from one of the accused. The accused was seen at the apartment near the
Mehta hospital in Vasna where the victim Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was
staying. The accused stated in his confession statement that Jayendra
D Mahendra Tripathi was abducted at about 4 p.m. when he came out of the
house. The victim Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was examined as PW-3. He
deposed that he had been staying at Kundan apartments in Vasna. He further
deposed that on 19.1.1994 at about 4 o' clock he started from his house for
his office and on the way 5-6 persons came in a Maruti van and he was
E forcibly dragged into that Maruti van and taken to some distant place. He also
deposed that he was asked to give the telephone number of his company and
that he gave the telephone number of his friend also. All these facts are
spoken. of by A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan in his confession statement.

16. To prove the abduction and extortion of money from Jayendra
p Mahendra Tripathi, the prosecution examined several other witnesses. PW-
7 deposed 'that Mahendrabhai, the partner of Tripathi had withdrawn Rs. 10
lakhs from the Union Bank of India by giving four cheques. PW-4 Kirtikumar
Tapsishanker Tripathi deposed that he had paid Rs. 3 lacs to one motorcyclist
on 21.1.1994. It is also pe1tinent to note that in the confession statement, A-
9 Musakhan@ Babakhan referred to the presence of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-
G 4 in the conspiracy and later in the abduction of Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi.
17. On consideration of confession statement, which is amply
corroborated by other items of evidence, we have no hesitation in accepting
the same as truthful and voluntary. The complicity of A-1 to A-4 in the
h abduction is proved beyond reason ab le doubt.
ABDUL VAHABABDULMAJID SHAIKH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [BALAKRISHNAN, CJ.] 559
J.
"-.:.. 18. In the result, the conviction of these three appellants for the offences A
punishable under Sections 120-B, 342, 365, 384 read with Section 120-B of the
IPC is only to be conf1IT11ed. Criminal Appeal No. 525 of2004 would accordingly
stand dismissed and the appellants would surrender to their bail bonds.

Criminal Appeal No. 131812004
B
19. It is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of A-6
and A-7. Counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the acquittal of A-
•... 6 and A-7 was palpably wrong as there is evidence to show that they were
party to the abduction and extortion of money from the victim. This submission
is based on the evidence of recovery of Rs. 50,000/- from the house of A-
6 Salim Noor Mohammed and Rs.1,75,000/- from the house of A-7 Yakub c
Ganibhai. The recovery of these amounts, though stands proved, the
prosecution could not prove that these amounts were actually the amounts
paid by the agents of Tripathi as ransom to these accused. These accused
gave some explanation as to how these amounts happened to be in their
house. A-6 claimed that it was an amount belonging to him and he was D
keeping it for his business purposes. There was no bank slip or any other
item of evidence to show that the amount was withdrawn from the bank on
21.1.1994. Though the bank officials were examined as prosecution witnesses,
they also could not give any satisfactory evidence to prove that the currency
notes recovered from these two accused were relatable to the amounts
withdrawn from the Bank. Moreover, in the confession statement, A-9 did not E
involve these accused. In the above circumstances, the acquittal of A-6 and
A-7 was correct. The appeal is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1316-1712004
• ., 20. These appeals are filed against acquittal of all the accused charged F
for offences punishable under the TADA Act. These accused were charged
under Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA Act read with Section 120-B IPC. The
ground urged by the appellant-State is that Jayendra Mahendra Tripathi was
abducted at gun point from a notified public place and that the accused are
hardcore criminals. Therefore, they ought to have been convicted under G
. -~ Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA Act.

21. The contention of the State is that these accused should not have
been acquitted of the charges under Sections 3 and 5 of TADA Act as the
crime committed by them was of grave nature and came within the purview
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A of the said provisions of the TADA Act. It is further contended that the /
·-
Special Judge has not given any specific reasons as to why these accused
were acquitted of the charges. But the prosecution could not adduce any
evidence to prove that these accused had committed the offences charged
against them. The act of kidnapping for extorting ransom from the victim
cannot be termed as an act committed "with intent to overawe the Government
B as by law established". There is also no evidence to show that the accused
intended to strike terror in the locality. Their primary objective was to extort
money from the victim. There is also no evidence to show that these accused
were supporting any communal elements or intended to create disharmony
amo~g different sections of the people. These are all main ingredients to
C constitute offence punishable under Section 3 of the TADA Act. So also,
there is no evidence to show that these accused were in possession of any
arms or ammunition during the commission of the crime, for which they have _
been charged. The accused have been rightly acquitted. Criminal Appeal Nos.
1316-17/2004 are without any merits and dismissed accordingly.

D D.G. Appeal dismissed.

i

_,

..