SALIM AKHTAR @ MOTAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

A                           SALIM AKHTAR@ MOTA
                                           v.
                            STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

                                   APRIL 9, 2003

B                [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G. P. MATHUR, JJ.]


          Criminal Trial:

          Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1985; Sections 4 &
C   5/Penal Code, /860; Sections 147, 148, 302 & 307: Arms Act, Section 251
    E.xplosive Substances Act, Section 5:

          Charges under TADA-Conviction-Statement of accused vis-a-vis
    recovery of incriminating articles-Factum of recovery-Held: since evidence
D   shows that cartridges were sealed but not the pistol which was allegedly
    recovered along with other incriminating articles, raises considerable doubt
    on the factum of recovery-Since the recovery was made from an open place
    accessible to all, recovery ofincriminating articles does not amount to conscious
    possession-Only that part of the statement indicating the place of recovery
    of the bag containing incriminating articles is admissible-Hence accused
E   cannot be held liable for possession of such incriminating articles-Evidence
    Act, /872- Section 27.

          Words & Phrases:

          'conscious possession '-Meaning of
F
          According to the prosecution, accused-appellant and others hurled
    bombs at a police picket resulting in the death of one police officer and
    injuries to several security personnel. After investigation and sanction of
    the concerned authorities, charge-sheets against the accused were
    submitted before the Designated Court (TAOA). The Designated Court
G   found all the accused guilty of committing offences under Section 25 of
    Arms Act, Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 8 of TADA
                                                                                        '·
    and convicted and sentenced them accordingly. Hence the present appeal
    preferred by one of the accused.


H                                         470
              SALIM AKHTAR@ MOTA,._ STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                 471

      It was contended for the appellant that he was detained/tortured in         A
the police custody for several days; that neither disclosure statement was
given by him nor any incriminating material was recorded at his instance;
that the photographer, one of the witnesses, was on the pay roll of the
police as such he was not an independent witness; that since recovery was
made from a place accessible to all and pistol allegedly recovered was not
sealed on the spot, appellant could not be held in possession of such articles.   B
      Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. The evidence on record clearly shows that the pistol
alleged to have been recovered from the polythene bag which was allegedly         C
taken out from the mud by the appellant was not sealed on the spot.
Though the cartridges were sealed but the most important object, namely,
the pistol was not sealed on the spot and the same was deposited as it is in
the police ·station. The fact th~t the pistol alleged to have been recovered
at the pointing out of the appellant was not sealed on the spot coupled
with the fact that neither its number nor its make, etc. to fix its identity      D
was mentioned in the recovery memo or in the FIR, raises considerable
doubt regarding the factum of recovery. [477-C-FI

     Amarjit Si11gh v. State of Punjab, 119951 Supp. 3 SCC 217 and Sahib
Singh v. Stale of Punjab, [1996) 11 SCC 685, relied on.
                                                                                  E
      1.2. The disclosure statement of the appellant was admittedly made
to police personnel and only that part of the statement would be admissible
which is permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case, what is admissible is the place from
where the polythene bag containing pistol and other articles was allegedly
recovered. The fact that some terrorist organisation had given the pistol         F
and other articles to the appellant or its use would not be admissible.
                                                         1477-G; 478-A-BI

     Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. v. Emperor, AIR (1947) PC 67, relied on.

      1.3. The recovery was made from an open place which was accessible          G
to all and PWJ has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the
recovery of the polythene bag was made from an open 'G her' in a lonely
place, where anyone could easily come. The principle laid down in the
various decisions of the apex Court that mere knowledge of the accused
that incriminating articles were l{ept at certain place does not amount to        H
    472                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A conscious possession is fully applicable here and it cannot be held that the
    appellant was in possession of the articles alleged to have been recovered
    from his possession. (478-C; 479-AI

          Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994) 5 SC 540, followed.

B         Trimbak v. State ofM P., AIR (1954) SC 39; Raosaheb Balu Killedar
    v. State of Maharasthra, (1995) 3 Crl. Law Journal 2632 and Khudeswar
    Dutta v. State of Assam, (19981 4 SCC 492, relied on.

          1.4. The evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to establish the
    charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence conviction
C   and also sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Designated Court, is
    set aside. (479-81

         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    685 of 2001.

D        From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.200 I of the Designated Court
    at Meerut in Crl. C. No. 24 of 1993.

          Uday Umesh Lalit and Atul Sharma for the Appellant.

          T.N. Singh and Pramod Swarup for A. S. Pundirt for the Respondent.
E
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        G. P. MATHUR, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment
  and order dated 30.3.200 l of the Designated Judge (TADA) Meerut by which
  the appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive
F Activities (Prevention) Act (for short "TADA") and has been sentenced to 5
  years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1tOOO and in default to undergo one month R.
    I.

         The case of the prosecutiont in brief, is that at about 7. 45 p. m. on
  26.1.1993, some miscreants hurled bombs at a police picket near Veterinary
G Hospital, Hapur Road, Meerut in which several security personnel received
  injuries and N.K. Mahender Prasad Sharma died. An FIR of the incident was
  lodged at 10. 15 p. m. on the same night at P. S. Civil Lines, Meerut and a
  case was registered under Sections 147/ 148/307/302 IPC and Sections 4 and
  5 of TADA. Some persons including Jabbar, Ayyub and the appellant Salim
H Akhtar @ Mota were arrested in connection with the aforesaid case and
              SALIM AKHTAR@ MOTA ~·. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH {MATHUR, J .]      473
        subsequently were taken on police remand. While in custody of the police, A
       they made disclosure statements of having concealed some weapon, bomb
       and explosive material. Accordingly, in the morning of 24.3 .1993, Inspector
       N.P. Rai of P.S. Lalkurti took the aforesaid persons to the place where
       according to their disclosure statement they had concealed the incriminating
       material. Inspector Shri Narayan Tripathi of P.S. Lisari Gate, some police B
       personnel and two public witnesses namely, Anuj Kaushik (PW3) and Vipin
       also accompanied them. The appellant Salim Akhtar @ Mota (A-1) took
...:
       them to a place by the side of Mansoor Denting Works on the road going to
       Lakkhipura. He took out a polythene bag from inside the mud which contained
       one pistol, cartridges, a moosli bomb and RDX weighing I kg. A recovery
       memo of the recovered articles was prepared on the spot and Anuj Kaushik C
       (PW3), who is a photographer and who had accompanied the police party,
       also took photographs of the recovery. From there, the police party went to
       a place near Agarwal Tubewell on the same road and from there accused
       Ayyub (A-2) took out a polythene bag from inside the mud which contained
       1 kg. RDX. Thereafter, accused Jabbar (A-3) took the police party towards
       South-West of the grove of Shri Kripal Singh near a kachcha rasta and dug D
       out a polythene bag which contained a factory made hand grenade. Recovery
       memos of the articles recovered on the' pointing out of A-2 and A-3 were also
       made. An FIR of the incident relating to recoveries made at the instance of
       the accused was lodged at 12.30 p. m. on 24.3.1993 at Police Outpost Pillokhari
       and the recovered articles were dispatched to PS Lisari Gate. S.P. Shanna, E
       SHO, PS Lisari Gate took over investigation of the case on 27.3.1993. He
       prepared site plans (Ext. Ka 4 to Ext. Ka 7) of the places of recoveries,
       obtained diffusion report from Shri Satish Kumar and sent the recovered
       material to Forensic Science Laboratory Agra for expert opinion. After
       concluding the investigation, he obtained sanction from the District Magistrate,
       Meerut, for prosecution of the accused under Arms Act and Explosive F
       Substances_ Act and also from Inspector General of Police for their prosecution
       under TADA and thereafter submitted charge-sheets against the three accused.

             The Designated Judge, Meerut, took cognizance of the offences and
       framed charges under Section 25 of the Anns Act, Section 5 of the Explosive G
       Substances Act and Section 5 of TADA against the three accused. The
       prosecution in support of its case examined 12 witnesses and filed some
       documentary evidence. The articles recovered were also produced in Court.
       The appellant Salim Akhtar@ Mota in his statement under Section 313 Cr.
       P. C. denied the case of the prosecution and stated that the police had arrested
       him on 26.2.1993 when he was going to offer Namaz. He was detained in the H
    474                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2003] 3 S.C.R.

A police station for several days and was produced in Court on 12.3.1993 and
    during this period he was also beaten in the police station. He examined 5
    witnesses in his defence. The other accused, namely, Ayyub (A-2) and Jabbar
    (A-3) also denied the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge (Designated
    Court) believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced all the
B   three accused. However, only Salim Akhtar @ Mota has preferred appeal
    against his conviction and sentence. The remaining two accused, namely A-
    2 and A-3 have not challenged their cor.viction and sentence probably on
    account of the fact that their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and
    sentence of imprisonment for life imposed thereunder in the case relating to
    throwing of bomb on police picket has been upheld up to this Coutt and they
C   are undergoing sentences in the said case.

         In order to appreciate the contention raised by Shri U. U. Lalit, learned
  counsel for the appellant, and also of the learned State counsel, it is necessary
  to notice the main evidence which has been adduced by the parties. PWl NP
  Rai, was posted as in-charge PS Lalkurti on 24.3.1993. He has deposed that
D the three accused, namely, A-1, A-2 and A-3 were taken on police remand
  from the Court in Crime Case No. 30 of 1993 under Section 302/207 IPC and
  Sections 3 and 4 of TADA and Sections 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances
  Act. The accused made disclosure statement that they will get bombs and
  explosive materials recovered. Accordingly, he along with some other police
E personnel and the accused proceeded for Lisari Gate, where PW2, SN Tripathi,
  Inspector in-charge ofthe said police station and some other police personnel
  also joined them. Two public witnesses, namely, Vipin and Anuj Kaushik
  (PW3) who is a photographer, were asked to accompany them. Accused A-
   I took them to near Mansoor Denting Works, which is situate on the road
  going to Lakkhipura. He took out a polythene bag from under the mud from
F a place which is near the boundary wall of the said factory. The bag contained
   one factory made pistol of 7. 62 bore, four live cartridges, a moosli bomb and
   1 kg. RDX. Similarly recovery of I kg. RDX was made at the pointing out
   of A-2 and one hand grenade at the pointin~ out of A-3 from different places.
   Photographs of the recoveries made was taken by PW3, Anuj Kaushik. After
G all the recoveries had been made, an FIR was lodged at Police Outpost
   Pillokhari and the recovered articles were deposited at PS Lisari Gate. PW2,
   SN Tripathi was posted as in-charge of PS Lisari Gate on 24.3.1993. He
   deposed that PWI, NP Rai, Inspector, accompanied by one Sub-inspector
   and three Constables along with three accused in custody, came to the police
   station at about 6. 30 a. m. He was informe.d that the accused had made a
H disclosure statement and were prepared to recover the articles concealed oy
       SAliM AKHTAR@ MOTA r. STATE OF ~TTAR PRADESH [MATHUR, J.]            475
them. Two public witnesses, namely, PW3 Anuj Kaushik and Vipin w-~re A
summoned and thereafter all of them proceeded towards Lakkhipura. A-I
asked them to stop near Mansoor Denting Works and he took out a polythene
bag from the side wall of the factory from under the mud. The bag contained
a pistol, four live cartridges, 1 kg. RDX and a moosli bomb. The witnesses
also deposed regarding the recovery made at the instance of A·2 and A·3. B
PW3 Anuj Kaushik is a photographer by profession and he deposed that the
police asked him to accompany them at about 6. 30 a. m. on 24.3. I 993 while
he was near Lisari Gate Chopala. The three accused were present along with
the police party. A· I asked to stop the police vehicle near Mansoor Denting
Works which is situate on the road going to Lakkhipura. He, thereafter, took
out a polythene bag from under the mud from a place near the southern C
boundary wall of the factory and the said bag contained one pistol, four
cartridges, one moosli bomb and 1 kg. RDX. He had taken photographs of
the recovery made by A-1 and had also signed the recovery memo. He also
deposed about the recoveries made at the instance of A-2 and A-3.

       PW5, Raj Singh recorded the FIR and registered the case at Police            D
Outpost Pillokhari. PWIO, Satish Kumar, Sl, was in-charge, Bomb Disposal
 Squad and gave diffusion report while PWI2, OP Taneja, Joint Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra examined and gave report regarding RDX.
PW6, Tej Pal Sharma, Head Constable, PW7, Harpal Singh, Malkhana
Moharrir, PW8, Ranvir Singh, Constable and PW9, Radhey Shyam Sharma,                E
head of annoury at Meerut have given evidence of formal character regarding
deposit of the recovered articles, their safe custody and taking them to Forensic
Science Laboratory, Agra. PW4, SP Sharma, SHO, PS Lisari Gate has given
details of the steps taken by him during the investigation of the case, obtaining
of sanctions from the District Magistrate, Meerut for prosecution under Arms        F
Act and Explosive Substances Act, which are Ext. Ka I 0 to Ext. Ka 13 and
sanctions granted by Shri SN Naseem, IG, Meerut Zone for prosecution of
the accused under TADA, which is Ext. Ka 7 to Ext. Ka 9. He has also
proved the charge sh~ets which were submitted by him.

      The appellant examined 5 witnesses in his defence. OWl, Mahipal G
Singh, Constable, who is working as Dispatch Clerk in the office of DIG
proved the telegram sent by the appellant's wife, which was received on
2.3.1993. DW2 Mohd. Farooq is the real brother of the appellant and he
deposed that the police had arrested the appellant on 26.2.1993 and he and
his family members sent many telegrams to higher authorities and also to the
Supreme Court on 9.3.1993 and a copy of the same has been filed as Ext. H
    476                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2003] 3 S.C.R.
A Kha 2. DW3, Mohd. Nazir, who is a neighbour of the appellant, gave a
    similar statement that the appellant was arrested on 26.2.1993. DW4, Smt.
    Munawar Jahan is the wife of the appellant and she deposed about the arrest
    of the appellant by the police on the said date. DW5 Banarsidas Gautam,
    clerk in the office of IG, Zone Meerut, stated that an application and also a
B   telegram had been received from Smt. Munawar Jahan, which were forwarded
    to DIG Range and SSP Meerut, respectively, for necessary action.

          Shri Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that A-1 was
    actually arrested by the police on 26.2.1993 and was detained at the police
    station for several days, during which he was beaten and thereafter he was
C   produced in Court on 12.3. 1993. He has further submitted that in fact no
    disclosure statement was given by the appellant nor any incriminating article
    was recovered on his pointing out. The witnesses examined on the point of
    recovery are police witnesses and PW3 Anuj Kaushik was a professional
    photographer who was on the pay roll of the police as he used to be called
    by the police on every occasion whenever a photograph was required to be
D   taken for which he was paid remuneration and as such he was not an
    independent witness. Learned counsel has also urged that after the alleged
    recovery was made the pistol was not sealed on the spot and that the recovery
    having been effected from an open place accessible to everyone, it is not
    possibie to hold that the appellant was in possession of the aforesaid articles.
E   Learned State counsel has supported the case of the prosecution and has
    urged that the evidence on record clearly established that the appellant was
    in exclusive possession of pistol, bomb and RDX and the learned Sessions
    Judge (Designated Court) had rightly convicted and sentenced him.

        PW 1, NP Rai, has stated that after reaching PS Lisari Gate, he had
F summoned two public witnesses, namely, Vipin and PW3 Anuj Kaushik out
  of whom only one has been examined in Court. PW3 has deposed that he
  works as a photographer for a magazine known as 'Sac hi Duniya'. He had
  received a phone call from his office that there was a traffic jam near Medical .
  College and accordingly he started for the said place on his scooter to take
G photographs. However, he saw some pol ice personnel near Lisari Gate Chaupla
  and inquired from them why they were standing there and on their asking he
  accompanied the police party. He has admitted that he often goes to the
  police stations in the city and he had been paid Rs. 640 for taking the
  photographs but he had not issued any receipt for the same. The statement
  of this witness shows that he is a frequent visitor to the police stations and
H this may be on account of the fact that the police may have been obliging him
         SALIM AKHTAR@ MOTA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [MATHUR, J.]             477
    by asking him to take photographs on those occasions in which taking of            A
    photographs was considered necessary. It is not possible to accept his statement
    that though he was paid Rs. 640 by the police for taking the photographs but
    he did not issue any receipt. PW1 has admitted that though Lisari Gate
    locality was only two or three furlongs from the place from where recovery
    was made but no witness was summoned there. It, therefore, shows that the
    police made no effort to get any independent public witness at the time when       B
-   the alleged recovery was made at the pointing out of A-1 and the only public
    witness examined, appears to be a person who was not only intimate but was
    also obliged to them.

          The evidence on record clearly shows that the pistol alleged to have         C
     been recovered from the polythene bag which was allegedly taken out from
    the mud by the appellant was not sealed on the spot. PWl in his cross-
    examination has stated that the pistol was not sealed as it was factory made
    and in the recovery memo its "number" or "make" was not written as the
    same was not clear and legible. However, the cartridges and bomb and RDX
    were sealed. Similar statement has been given by PW2, SN Tripathi and PW4          D
    SP Sharma that at the time when the pistol was deposited in the Malkhana,
    the same had not been sealed. In the FIR, no details have been given to fix
    the identity of the pistol. PW4 has stated that the same was of Chinese make
    while PW6 Tej Pal Sharma, Head Constable of PS Lisari Gate, where the
    recovered articles were deposited, has stated that the same was of English         E
    make. In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 217 and
    Sahib Singh v. State of Punjab, [ 1996} II SCC 685, it has been held that the
    possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out where the recovered articles
    were not sealed on the spot. We are little surprised that though the cartridges
    were sealed but the most important object, namely, the pistol was not sealed
    on the spot and the same was deposited as it is in the police station and,         F
    thereafter at the Malkhana. In our opinion the fact that the pistol alleged to
    have been recovered at the pointing out of the appellant was not sealed on
    the spot coupled with the fact that neither its number nor its make, etc. to fix
    its identity was mentioned in the recovery memo or in the FIR, raises
    considerable doubt regarding the factum of recovery.
                                                                                       G
           So far as the disclosure statement of the appellant is concerned, the
    same was admittedly made to police personnel and only that part of the
    statement would be admissible which is permissible under Section 27 of the
    Evidence Act. The scope of this provision was explained by the Privy Council
    in the well known case of Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. v. Emperor, AIR (1947) H
    478                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2003} 3 S.C.R.
                                                                                            I·~·




A    PC 67, wherein it was held that it is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered"
    within the section as equivalent to the object produced. The fact discovered
    embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of
    the accused as to this, and the infonnation given, must relate distinctly to this
    fact. Information as to the past user, or the past history, of the object produced
B   is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Therefore,
    what is admissible is the place from where the polythene bag containing
    pistol and other articles was allegedly recovered. The fact that some terrorist
    organisation had given the pistol and other articles to the appellant or its use
    would not be admissible.
                                                                                           --
C         The other feature of the case is that the recovery was made from an
  open place which was accessible to all and everyone. PWl NP Rai, has
  clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the recovery of the polythene
  bag was made from an open '0":r' in a lonely place, where anyone could
  easily come. In Sanjay Dutt v. State through C.B.I., Bombay, [1994] 5 SC
  540 it has been held by a Constitution Bench that with a view to hold an
D accused guilty of an offence under Section 5 of TADA, the prosecution is
  required to prove satisfactorily that the accused was in conscious possession,
  unauthorisedly in a notified area of any arm or ammunition of the specified
  description. In Trimbak v. State of MP, AIR ( 1954) SC 39 recovery of certain
  stolen articles was made at the pointing out of the accused and on that basis
E he was convicted under Section 411 IPC by the High Court. Reversing the
  judgment it was held by this Court that when the field from which the
  ornaments were recovered was an open one and accessible to all and sundry,
   it is difficult to hold positively that the accused was in possession of the~e
  articles. It was further held that the fact of recovery by the accused is
  compatible with the circumstance of somebody else having placed the articles
F there and of the accused somehow acquiring knowledge about their
  whereabouts and that being so, the fact of discovery cannot be regarded as
  conclusive proof that the accused was in possession of these articles. In
  Raosaheb Balu Killedar v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 3 Crl. Law Journal
   2632 the accused had made a disclosure statement and had led the police
G party to a place behind a mill, pointed out the place and himself removed the
  earth and from a pit about 6 inches deep recovered a revolver loaded with a
   Jive cartridge wrapped in a polythene bag. It was held by this Court that the
   statement made by the accused was capable of an interpretation that the
   appellant had the knowledge about the concealment of the revolver at the
   particular place from where it was got recovered and not that he had concealed
H the same and therefore it was not possible to say conclusively and beyond a
.....,.


               SALIM AKHTAR@MOTA v. STATEOFUTTARPRADESH [MATHUR, J.]              479
-         reasonable doubt that the appellant had conscious possession of the revolver A
          and the cartridge. This principle was reiterated in Khudeswar Dutta v. State
          of Assam, [1998] 4 SCC 492 and it was held that mere knowledge of the
          accused that incriminating articles were kept at certain place does not amount
          to conscious possession and conviction under Section 5 of TADA was set
          aside. The principle laid down in the decisions of this Court referred to above B
          is fully applicable here and it is not possible to hold that the appellant was
          in possession of the articles alleged to have been recovered from his possession.

                For the reasons discussed above, we are of the opinion that it will not
          be safe to uphold the conviction of the appellant as the evidence adduced by
          the prosecution fails to establish the charge against the appellant beyond      C
          reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the conviction of
          the appellant and also the sentence imposed upon him by the learned Sessions
          Judge (Designated Court), Meerut is set aside. The appellant is on bail. He
          need not surrender. His sureties and bail bonds are discharged.

          S.K.S.                                                      Appeal allowed.