ESSA@ ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH STF, CBI

Judgment

#2. leges posteriores priores conterarias abrogant (later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws). E generalia zpecialibus non derogant (a general provision does not derogate from a special one.) [para 318 and 342] [958-H; 959-A; 985-G- H; 986-A-B] F The principle that the latter Act would prevail over the earlier Act has consistently been held to be subject to the exception that a general provision does not derogate from a special one. It means that where the literal meaning G of the general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made by another enactment contained in the earlier Act, it would be presumed that the situation was intended to continue to be dealt with by the specific provision rather than the later general one. [para H 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A 343) [986-8-D]

14.2. The basic rule that general provisions should yield to the specific provisions is based on the principle that if two directions are issued by the competent authority, one covering a large number of matters in general and another to only some of them, his intention is that the latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards all the rest the earlier directions must be given effect to. [para 344) [986-D-E]

14.4. It is a settled legal proposition that while passing a special Act, the legislature devotes its entire consideration to a peculiar subject. Therefore, when a general Act is subsequently passed, it is logical to presume that the legislature has not repealed or modified the former special Act unless an inference may be drawn from the language of the special Act itself. [para 345) [986- F] 8 C D

14.5. In order to determine whether a statute is E special or general one, the court has to take into consideration the principal subject matter of the statute and the particular perspective for the reason that for certain purposes an Act may be general and for certain other purposes it may be special and such a distinction F cannot be blurred. [para 346) [986-G-H]

14.6. Thus, where there is inconsistency between the provisions of two statutes and both can be regarded as special in nature, the conflict has to be resolved by reference to the purpose and policy underlying the two G enactments and the clear intendment of the legislature conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein. A statute must be interpreted having regard to the purport and object of the Act. The doctrine of purposive construction must be resorted to. It would not be H permissible for the court to cor:istrue the provisions in ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI 645 such a manner which would destroy the very purpose for A which the same was enacted. It is the duty of the court to adopt a harmonious construction by which both the provisions remain operative. [para 341, 342 and 347] Shri Ram Narain vs. The Simla Banking and Industrial 8 Co. Ltd., 1956 SCR 603 = AIR 1956 SC 614; J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 1170: Kumaon Motor Owners' Union Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1966 SCR 121 = AIR 1966 SC 785; Shri Sarwan Singh vs. Shri Kasturi Lal, (1977) 1 SCC 750; The UP. State Electricity Board vs. Hari Shanker Jain C & Ors, 1979 (2) SCR 355 = (1978) 4 SCC 16; The Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. D.J. Bahadur, 1981 (1) SCR 1083 = AIR 1980 SC 2181; Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. 1990 (3) SCR 649 =AIR 1991 SC 855; and TM.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State D of Karnataka and Ors. 2002(3) Suppl. SCR 587 =AIR 2003 SC 355; Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Bassi Cold Storage, Khara and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2544; Mohan Karan vs. State of U.P. and Anr., 1998 (2) SCR 328 = AIR 1998 SC 1601; RBI vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment E Company Ltd., and Ors. 1987 (2) SCR 1 = (1987) 1 SCC 424; Employees Provident Fund Commr. vs. Official Liquidator, 2011 (15) SCR 336 =AIR 2012 SC 11; UCO Bank vs. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay & Anr. 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 294 = (1994) 5 SCC 1, AP. State Financial F Corpn. vs. Official Liquidator, 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 288 =(2000) 7 SCC 291, Textile Labour Assn. and Anr. vs. Official Liquidator and Another, 2004 (3) SCR 1161 = (2004) 9 SCC 741; Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commr. And Ors. 2009 G (15) SCR 1=(2009)10 SCC 123; Cantonment Board, Mhow & Anr. vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn., 1997 (3) SCR 813 =AIR 1997 SC 2013; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors., 2007 (5) SCR 997 = (2007) 6 SCC 81; and Krishna ·Kumar Bir/a vs. Rajendra Singh H 646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. ' A Lodha & Ors., 2008 (5) SCR 640 = (2008) 4 SCC 300 - referred to. 8

14.7. Section 6 of JJ Act contains a non-obstante clause giving overriding effect to any other law for the time being in force and provides that Juvenile Justice Board, where it has been constituted, shall "have power to deal exclusively" with all proceedings under this Act relating to juvenile in conflict with law. Section 18(i) further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in s.223 of the Code or any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with a person who is not a juvenile. More so, non-obstante clause contained in various provisions thereof, particularly, ss.15, 16, 18, 19, 29 and 37 make the legislative intent unambiguous that the JJ Act being a D special law would have overriding effect on any other statute for the time being in force. [para 361) [992-G-H; 993-A-C] C Sheela Barse & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1986 E (3) SCR 443 =AIR 1986 SCC 1773, Gaurav Jain vs. UO/ and Ors. 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 105 =AIR 1997 SC 3021; Amit Das vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2264; Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr .. AIR 2005 SC 2731; and Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2009 (7) SCR 623 = F (2009) 13 SCC 211; Abuzar Hossain @ Gu/am Hossain vs. State of West Bengal 2012 (9) SCR 244 = (2012) 10 SCC 489 - referred to.

#14. 8. Section 25 of TADA has a non-obstante clause providing for an overriding effect to the provisions over G anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment or any instrument having effect by virtue of any other enactment. Thus, TADA contains many other non-obstante clauses as well. The punishments provided imposed by ss. 5 and 6 of TADA are to be H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI 64 7 notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law. A [para 365] [994-A-B] Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 360 = (1994) 4 SCC 602 - referred to B

14.9. Section 3 of TADA provides for punishment for terrorist acts and provides whoever with intention commits such acts shall be punishable. Section 3 provides for punishment for terrorist acts and its submissions started with 'whoever', except clause 5 C which starts with 'any person'. Therefore, it covers every person including the juvenile. Section 4(1) provides for punishment for disruptive activities and also uses the same terminology i.e whoever. Section 6 provides for enhanced punishments and refers to any person. D Therefore, the phraseology used by legislature included every person whoever he may be. There is no justification whatsoever to restrict the meaning of ·any person' and 'whoever' only to a major or non-juvenile as such an interpretation would have a potentiality to defeat the E object of TADA. [para 369 and 370] [995-D-F]

14.10. Section 12(1) of the J J Act 2000 makes an exception as regards bail to a juvenile, in certain circumstances. Therefore, when the JJ Act itself provides for an exception under which even bail may not be granted, it cannot be accepted that JJ Act would over-ride the provisions of TADA in all circumstances without any exception: and in case the legislature itself has carved out an exception not to grant relief to a juvenile under the JJ Act it cannot be held that it would prevail over TADA G under all possible circumstances. [para 371-372] F

14.11. The expression, "ends of justice" has not been defined in any statute, however, it has been used in the Constitution of India under Art. 139-A(2) that the Supreme H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. B A Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice, transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any other High Court. Art. 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to pass an order which may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 confers unlimited inherent powers on the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Section 482 of the Code confers inherent power upon the High Court to pass an c order as may be necessary to secure the ends of justice. The words in s.151 of CPC to "secure the" seems to be more powerful than the term to meet the ends of justice as the former is of unfathomable limits. [para 373) [996- E-H] D L. Vijay Kumar vs. Public Prosecutor, A.P., 1979 (1) SCR 2 =AIR 1978 SC 1485; Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295 =AIR 1996 SC 2005 - referred to. E

14.12. While dealing with an issue, the court must not lose sight of the fact that meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to justice to all the parties. This phrase refers to the best interest of the public within the four corners of the statute. In fact, it means preservation of F proper balance between the Constitutional/Statutory rights of an individual and rights of the people at large to have the law enforced. The "ends of justice" does not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice, but justice according to the law of the land. Thus, the law has G to be interpreted in such a manner that it develops coherently in accordance with the principles, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice. [para 376-377) [997-C-E, F] State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma, 1996 ( 3) H SCR 972 = AIR 1996 SC 1669; and Mahadev Govind ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI 649 Gharge & Ors. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, A Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, 2011 (8 ) SCR 829 = (2011) 6 SCC 321 - referred to

14.13. This Court has interpreted the phrase "the law for the time being in force" to include the law in existence on the date of commencement of the Act having over riding effect and the law which may be enacted in future during the life of the Act having over-riding effect. Thus, it cannot be said that the JJ Act would have an over riding effect on TADA which was not in existence on the C date of commencement of the provisions of s. 1(4) of JJ Act. [para 379-380] [998-B-C, D] B Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 461 =AIR 1999 SC 3923; and Management of M.C.D. vs. Prem Chand Gupta & Anr., 1999 D (5 ) Suppl. SCR 403 =AIR 2000 SC 454 - referred to.

14.14. TADA, being a special Act, meant to curb the menace of terrorist and disruptive activities will have effect notwithstanding the fact that JJ Act is general and E beneficial legislation. On perusal of aims and objects of TADA, it is clear that the act is brought into the statute books to deal with a special category of persons, viz., Terrorists. TADA, being an act enacted for special purposes, will have precedence over any other act. [para 381-382] [998-E; 999~E] F Madan Singh· vs. State of Bihar, 2004 (3) SCR 692 = (2004) 4 sec 622 - referred to ..

14.15. From the facts of the instant case, it is clear G that the appellant from his conduct cannot by any stretch of imagination qualify as a child in need of care and protection, as the acts committed by him are so grave and heinous warranting the maximum penalty but the Designated Court after considering all these factors H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A awarded him lesser punishment when the co-accused who accompanied him to Fishermen's colony and committed similar acts were awarded with the maximum punishment for heinous acts committed by them along with co-accused. [para 383] [999-F-H] 8

14.16. From the reading of the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, it is established beyond doubt that the appellant-accused A-43 received training in handling of arms and explosives; he attended conspiratorial meeting at the residence of co-conspirators; he C participated in filling of ROX and iron scraps in vehicles in the intervening night of 11112.03.1993 at Al-Hussaini Building; he along with other co-accused lobbed hand· grenades at Mahim Fishermen's colony; he possessed 17 hand-grenades which were recovered at his instance. [Para 384] [1000-A-E] D

14.17. Upon a reading of the entire evidence, this Court holds that all the charges framed against appellant accused A 43 stand proved beyond any doubt. All the E materials placed show that the appellant knowingly and willingly participated at various stages of the conspiracy. Despite being fully aware of the conspiracy, the appellant proceeded to act by taking training, preparation of vehicle bombs and even throwing hand grenades in a populated F place, thereby, furthering the object of such a heinous conspiracy. Therefore, this Court confirms the conviction and sentence of RI for lie awarded to him by the Designated Court. [para 384, 387 and 388) [1000-E; 1003- B, D-E) G Crl. A. No. 924 of 2008 CA-57):

15.1. The evidence establishes that the appellant (A· 57) was a member of the conspiracy which resulted in the bomb blasts in Bombay on 12.03.1993; he played an H active role in the conspiracy; he participated in the ESSA,@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI 651 landing of arms and ammunitions and explosives and in A their transportation to stated place; he received training in handling weapons and explosives; he participated· in the survey/reconnaissance of the targeted place; he attended conspiratorial meetings; on the night of 11/ 12.03.1993, he participated in the filling of ROX in vehicles B for the preparation of vehicle bombs; and that he also introduced A-77 in the conspiracy and got him recruited for training in handling of arms and ammunitions and explosives in Pakistan. [para 405) [1024-H; 1025-A-E]

15.2. The appellant's claim that he disassociated C himself at the time of the first landing at the stated place, has not been made out in the light of otQer evidence on record. In fact, he was engaged in the commission of acts furthering the object of such a heinous conspiracy. The appellant participated in the overt acts willingly and with D complete knowledge. He knew that the arms and ammunitions, ROX and hand grenades, which were smuggled into India would be used for committing terrorist acts. [para 410-411) [1027-E-F]

15.3. Therefore, this Court holds that the conviction and sentence of RI for life awarded to him by the Designated Court is justified and there is no ground for interference. [para 412) [1027-H; 1028-A] Crl. A. Nos. 933-936 of 2008 (A-98): E F

16.1. The involvement of appellant-accused A-98 in the conspiracy and the other terrorist acts has been disclosed by him in his confession and the confessional statements of the co-accused A-16, A-29, A-32, A-36, A- G 39, A-49, A-52, A-57, A~64, A-94 and A-100, which establish that the appellant received training for handling arms and ammunitions and explosives in Pakistan; he was present in the conspiratorial meeting at the residence of A-96; and he was actively involved in reconnaissance of the H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A targeted place in order to commit terrorist acts. The involvement and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy is further disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses, which corroborates with the confessional statements of the co-accused persons B as well as the confession of the appellant in material particulars. The evidence of PW-2 further establishes the charges framed against the appellant. [para 421-423] (1034-F; 1035-8, D, F, G; 1036-C, E; 1037-B, D, F, H; 1038- E-F, G-H; 1039-A-8, G-H] c D

16.2. In view of the entire evidence on record, this Court holds that the appellant was actively involved in the conspiracy to cause blasts in Bombay. and consequence of the said involvement, he has committed the offences for which he has been charged. [para 430] [1041-E]

16.3. In view of the acceptable materials placed by the prosecution, relied on by the Designated Court and the reasoning appended therewith, this Court fully agrees E with the same and confirms the sentence of RI for life, as awarded to the appellant by the Designated Court. [para 435] [1042-D-E] Crl. A. Nos. 933-936 of 2008(A-100) F G H 17 .1. The confession of the appellant-accused A-100 has been corroborated by the confessional statements of the co-accused A-10, A-12, A-13, A-16, A-29, A-32, A-36, A-39, A-49, A-52, A-57, A-64 and A-98. After consideration of all the confessional statements of the co-accused, the involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is established inasmuch as he participated in the. landing of arms and explosives smuggled into India for the purpose of committing terrorist acts; he went to Pakistan and participated in the weapons training; .he participated in various conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai as well ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI 653 as in India; his involvement in the conspiracy was very A deep; he participated in all the stages of conspiracy, namely, landing, training, planning etc.; and that he was present at Al-Hussaini building on the night intervening 11112.03.1993 when activity of filling of ROX in vehicles was going on. Apart from the confessional statements of B the appellant and co-accused, the involvement and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses. [para 444- 445) (1053-E-H; 1054-A-E]

17.2. Taking note of the observation of the c Designated Court and of the fact that there is no dispute about appellant's participation in the training, the evidence disclosed that he was associated in unloading of weapons and there is no need to show any leniency in awarding sentence. Under these circumstances, this D Court fully agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Designated Court. The conviction and the sentence of RI for life awarded to appellant accused A-100 by the Designated Court is confirmed. [para 452-453) (1058-6-D] Case Law Reference: 1976 (2) SCR 11 relied on 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 relied on 2000 (1) SCR 200 2001 (1) SCR 111 2008 (16) SCR 155 2010 (9) SCR 563 relied on relied on relied on relied on 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 286 relied on 2011 (6) SCR 1072 2010 (2) SCR 633 2009 (7) SCR 623 relied on relied on E para 10 para 68 para 194 F para 194 para 194 para 276 para 277 para 278 para 291 G referred to para 339 H 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A 2012 (9) SCR 244 referred to para 339 1997 (3) SCR 813 2007 (5) SCR 997 referred to referred to para 341 para 341 2008 (5) SCR 640 referred to para 341 1954 SCR 603 referred to para 347 AIR 1960 SC 1170 referred to para 347 1966 SCR 121 (1977) 1 sec 150 referred to para 347 referred to para 347 1979 (2) SCR 35 referred to para 347 1981 (1) SCR 1083 referred to para 347 1990 (3) SCR 649 referred to para 347 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to para 347 1~94 AIR 2544 referred to para 348 1998 (2) SCR 328 referred to para 348 1987 (2) SCR 1 referred to para 349 2011 (15) SCR 336 referred to para 350 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 294 referred to para 350 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 288 referred to para 350 2004 (3) SCR 1161 referred to para 350 2009 (15) SCR 1 referred to para 351 1986 (3) SCR 443 referred to para 359 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 105 referred to para 359 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 360 referred to para 367 1979 (1) SCR 2 referred to para 374 8 c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI 655 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295 referred to para 375 A 1996 (3) SCR 972 referred to para 376 2011 (8) SCR 829 referred to para 376 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR461 referred to para 379 B 1999 (5) Suppl. SCR403 referred to para 379 2004 (3) SCR692 referred to para 381 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1178 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 27.07.2007 of the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court, under TADA (P) Act, 1987 for Bomay Blast Cases, Greater Bombay in Bombay Blast case No. 1 of 1993 c D WITH Crl. A. Nos. 1179/2007, 419/2011, 1181/2007, 1127- 1128/2007, 1252-1253/2007, 413/2011 , 1365/2007, 1224/ E 2007, 1440/2007, 1028/2012, 1441/2007, 401/2008, 1023/ 2012, 976-977/2008, 616/2008, 979-980/2008, 633/2008, 651- 652/2008, 653 & 656/2008, 924/2008 and 933-936/2008. Mukul Gupta, Huzefa Ahmadi, Faisal Farook, Shubail Farook, Rauf Rahim, Yudanand Bansal, H.K. Puri, Priya Puri, F Manish Priyadarshi, Anjali Jha, Farhana Shah, Satbir, Pilania, Somvir Aiwai, Faiz Raizwan Merchant, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Shree Prakash Sinha, Shekhar Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Mushtaq Ahmad, Shaikh Chand Sahab, Moinuddin Ansari, Jaspreet Gogia, K.N. Rai, Satyakam, Anubhav Kumar, Anchit Sharma, G Satya Vikram, Ajit Sharma, Nishi! Agrawal, Prerak Kakkar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, P. Parmeswaran, P.V. Yogeswaran, Prashant Bhushan, Asha G. Nair, Vishwa Pal Singh, T.N. Rao Anando Mukherjee, Harsh N. Parekh, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appearing parties. H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1178, 1179 of 2007, 419 of 201.1 and 1181 of 2007. 1. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appeared for the appellants (A-3, A-4 B and A-8) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI).

#2. The present appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated C 12.09.2006 and 27.07.2007 respectively whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. D E F G H Charges:

#3. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] . 657 ' ' or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or A persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to s .. distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the, said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till c its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal, terrorists/co conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the. terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance. firiancialor otherwise for accomplishing the object of the E conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air lndia Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at F Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Col9ny, Mahim and at Bay-52, $ahar International Airport· which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and G property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of H 0 65'8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-8 of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 98 (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and . within my cognizance." In addition to the above-said principal charge of conspiracy, the appellants were also charged on the following counts: At head Secondly; For commission of the offence under Section 3(3) of TADA, on the count of being an associate and related with Tiger Memon (AA) and in pursuance of the conspiracy during the period December, 1992 to April, 1993 in India, Dubai and Pakistan having conspired advocated, abetted, advised and knowingly facilitated the commission of terrorist act and acts preparatory to terrorist acts i.e. serial bomb blasts in Bombay and its suburbs on 12.03.1993 by doing the overt acts as specified in the said charge framed against each of them, namely,: Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) For allowing Flat No. 25 on the 6th floor of Al-Hussaini Co operative Housing Society Limited, Mahim and garage No.C-3 therein to be used by terrorists for planning and preparation of terrorist acts and for storing arms, ammunitions and explosives and thereby facilitating the commission of the terrorist acts. Yusuf Abdul Razak Memon (A-4) For allowing Flat No. 26 on the 6th floor of Al-Hussaini Co- A B c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 659 operative Housing Society Limited, Mahim and garage A No.0-3 therein to be used by terrorists for planning and preparation of terrqrist acts and for storing arms, ammunitions and explosives and thereby facilitating the commission of the terrorist acts. Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8) B (a) By knowingly facilitating the commission of terrorist act by making arrangements for finance through her bank account and by allowing her Maruti Van No. MFC - 1972 for using it as a transport vehicle by terrorist for carrying C co-conspirators, arms, ammunitions and explosives. (b) By allowing her Flat No. 25 on the 6th floor of Al Hussaini Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mahim and garage No.C-3 therein to be used by terrorists for o planning and preparation of terrorist acts and for storing arms, ammunitions and explosives and thereby facilitating the commizsion of the terrorist acts. 4 .. The charges mentioned above were proved against the appellants except A-8 who was acquitted of: (i) a part of charge E stated in clause (a) at head secondly framed against her in respect of having facilitated commission of terrorist acts by making arrangement for finance through her bank account; and (ii) charge stated in clause (b). The appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the above-said charges as under: F Conviction and Sentence: i. The appellants have been convicted for the offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section G 120-B of I PC read with the offences described at head firstly and sentenced to RI for life. A-8 vyas also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year whereas A-3 and A-4 were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default, to further undergo RI for 2 years. (charge firstly) H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R. A B ii. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 3 (3) of TADA for commission of offences at head secondly and sentenced to RJ for 7 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/ - each, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge secondly) Evidence

#5. The evidence against the appellants (A-3, A-4 and A- 8) is in the form of:- C (i) confessions made by other co-conspirators (co accused); (ii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and (iii) documentary evidence. D Confessional Statements of co-accused:

#6. The involvement of the appellants has been disclosed in the confessional statements of the co-accused. The legality E and acceptability of the confessions of the co-accused has already been considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion. The said confessions, insofar as they refer to the appellants (A-3, A-4 and A-8), are summarized hereinbelow: Confessional Statement of Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11) F Confessional statement of A-11 under section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (22:35 hrs.) and 18.04.1993 (01:15 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishan Jain, the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. His confession reveals that on the night of 7th March, G 1993, when A-11 went to the house of Tiger Memon at Al Hussaini building, he (Tiger) was having dinner with Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1 ), Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) and other members of the Memons' family. Confessional Statement of Mohd. Rafiq @ Rafiq Madi H Musa Biyariwala (A-46) ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J;] 661 Confessional statement of A-46 under section 15 of TADA A . has been recorded on 21.04.1993 (19:00.hrs.) and 22.04.1993 (21:25 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi, the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confessional stat!=ment of A-46, driver of Tiger Memon, reveals that A-3 used to drive one white Maruti 800 car owned by nger Memon. B Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @ Nasir Dhakla (A-64) Confessional statement of A-64 under section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 22.01.1995 (21:15 hrs.) and 24.01.1995 C (09:15 hrs.) by Shri H C Singh, Suptd. of Police; CBl/SPE/STF, New Delhi. His confession reveals that Tiger Memon and his family members used to reside together at Al-Hussaini building. A-64, in his confession, also stated that Tiger Memon fled away from India with his family bef<!>re the blasts on 12.03, 1993 and D that shortly after the blasts, police came to Al-Hussaini building in search of Tiger and his family members. Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

#7. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement and E the role of the appellants in the conspiracy, as stated above, is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses which are as follows: Al-Hussaini Building:- Place of residence for Memons' F family: Deposition of Dinkar D. Jadhav (PW-312) At the relevant time, PW-312 was working as a Ward Officer in Bombay Municipal Corporation The relevant material G in his evidence is as follows:- (i) In the Court, PW-312 identified the Report prepared by him (Exhibit 1190) establishing the ownership of A-8 over Flat No. 25 in Al-Hussaini H 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B building at Mahim. (ii) PW-312 also described about the said Report (Exhibit 1190) which was prepared by him after scrutinizing the property records establishing A-8 as the owner of the abovementioned flat at Al-Hussaini building. Deposition of Wahid Karim Shaikh (PW-87) The following facts emerge from the deposition of PW-87 c dated 04.08.1996: (i) PW-87, who repairs cycles for a living, was formerly a driver of Razak Memon. (ii) Memons' including A-3, A-4 and daughter-in-law of Razak Memon used to reside at Al-Hussaini building. PW-87 stated as under: "3. Razak Memon was residing at the said place along with his family members. The said members of his family were his wife, his daughter-in-law and his sons, namely: Anjumbhai (A-3), Yusufbhai (A-4), Yakubbhai (A-1) and Ayubbhai (AA)." (iii) Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) was having a small white colored Maruti car, a small blue Maruti Car, a red coloured Maruti 1000 and a red coloured Maruti van. D E F

#8. Deposition of PW-87 also corroborates with the confession of A-46 which establishes that the Memons' owned G a small white Maruti car (i.e. a Maruti 800 car) in addition to other cars. A-46 in his confession further stated that A-3 used to drive this white Maruti car.

#9. The evidence on record establishes that the vehicles owned by the Memons' were used for the purpose of organising H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 663 the blasts and later converted into vehicle bombs. These cars A were: a red coloured Maruti Van, a blue coloured Maruti Car, a white coloured Maruti car and a red coloured Maruti 1000. The blue coloured Maruti Car bearing Regn. No. 0672 was used for the blast at Stock Exchange Building. Also, at Sahar Airport, hand grenades were thrown using a motorcycle which 8 belonged to Ayub @ Abdul Razak Memon (AA). Another van bearing Registration No. MFC-1972 which was registered in the name of Rubina Suleman Abdul Razak Memon (A-8) has been used by A-9, A-12, A-44 and Anwar Theba (AA) on the eve of the blasts for taking 3 suitcases filled with bombs in order C to cause blasts at three Hotels.

#10. Although PW-87 was declared a hostile witness: his evidence can be relied upon in the light of the pronouncement of this Court in Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration AIR 1976 SC 294 wherein it was held that: D "52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a crirninal prosecution when a witness is cross examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of E law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that In the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of G his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge -----=---- should, as rnatter"'Of pruaeime. discard his evidence in . totc:r."'- . H -- F 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A (emphasis supplied) Departure from India prior to the blasts:

#11. It is also brought in evidence that each of the appellants left India prior to the blasts and arrived back only on 25.08.1994 B at New Delhi Airport. The fact stated above is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses which are as follows: Deposition of Ganayansingh Tallaram Padwal (PW-245) . ' PW-245, at the' relevant time, was working as an Immigration Officer at Sahar Airport, Bombay. He deposed that Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) departed from India on 11.03.1993 and he also recognized the embarkation card ('X-405') issued to A-3. c D Deposition of V. P. Kelkar (PW-229) PW-229 was also working as an lmmigratien Officer at that time. He deposed that A-4 departed from Bombay on E 11.03 .. 1993 and recognized the embarkation card (X-368') in the court issued for travel. Recoveries:

#12. The investigation into the role of the appellants can be F said to have begun with the recovery of Maruti Van bearing number MFC 1972 near the gate-of Siemens factory at Worli. This car was abandoned by the conspirators, viz., PW-2, A-57, Javed Chikna, Bashir Khan and Babloo when they were on their way to the Bombay Municipal Corporation Office on G 12.03.1993. The statement of PW 2 reveals that while they were on their way, they spotted a live detonator in the Van which exploded as soon as it was thrown outside the Van. This explosion scared the conspirators and they abandoned the Van near the gate of Siemens factory at Worli. This Van was then H spotted by the Security Guards of the factory and was reported ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 665 to the police and several items were recovered from the Van A including its registration documents. This ultimately led the police to the flat of Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8), owner of the said Van, at Al-Hussaini building. Recovery of abandoned Maruti Van No. MFC 1972 near B Siemens Factory

#13. It is relevant to note that the Maruti Van bearing number MFC 1972 recovered from outside the gate of Siemens factory at Worli on 12.03.1993 belonged to Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8). The prosecution examined PW-415, who was the C Security Guard, posted at the said factory who noticed the abandoned vehicle. PW-371, a Police Officer, reached the spot and prepared a spot panchnama (Exhibit No. 190) in the presence of a panch witness Narayan D. More (PW-46) mentioning the recovery of rifles, hand grenades, and cartridges D from the said vehicle when it was opened up using a hook by Mr. Nandkumar Anant Chaugule (PW-444), officer of the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad (BODS). The following prosecution witnesses also deposed with regard to the same in the following manner:- E ·neposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2) The deposition of PW-2 reveals as under:- (i) (ii) PW-2 along with Javed Chikna, Shaikh Ali Shaikh F Umar (A-57), Bashir Khan (AA) and Babloo, left in a Maruti car bearing number 1972 on 12.03.1993 from the house of Tiger Memon towards BMC building and the said car was laden with explosives. PW-2 and other, co-accused persons parked the said Maruti Van at the gate of Siemens factory when a live detonator exploded in the Van as soon as it was thrown outside the car. G H 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A 8 c (iii) PW-2 further deposed that they left the hand grenades, rifles, detonators and magazines in the Maruti car parked outside the said factory. Deposition of Divakar Ramakwal Mishra (PW-415) On 12.03.1993, PW-415 was the Security Watchman on duty at Siemens Factory, Worli on 12.03.1993. In his deposition dated 21.08.1998, he reveals as under: (i) PW-415 saw the Maruti van parked outside the rear gate of the Company at around 6:30 pm. (ii) His companion Sarabjit Singh lodged the complaint with the police regarding the abandoned vehicle. The Police arrived on the spot within an hour. D Deposition of Narayan D. More (PW-46) PW-46 acted as a panch witness to the recoveries made from the said Maruti Van on 12.03.1993. In his deposition dated 19.02.1996, he reveals as under: E F (i) PW-46 noticed 2 plastic bags in the Van. One bag was opened and was found to contain 7 rifles. The second bag was containing 4 bombs and 14 magazines; and (ii) PW-46 also noticed two white bags on the front row of the Van and a bag of dates, water bottles etc. Exhibit 190 is the spot panchnama prepared by the police documenting recoveries from the said Maruti Van. It shows PW G 46 as a panch witness and confirms recovery of rifles, hand grenades, magazines, dates and water bottles from the Maruti Van bearing number MFC 1972 near Siemens factory gate. Deposition of Dinesh Parshuram Kadam (PW-371) H PW-371 was working as a Detection Officer at Worli Police ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 667 Station on 12.03.1993. He deposed as under:- (i) After receiving information, he went to Siemens factory on 12.03.1993 and saw a Maruti Van bearing No. MFC 1972; (ii) He further deposed that 2 black bags were found from the Van containing rifles, hand grenades and magazines. PW-371, thereafter, lodged an FIR at Worli Police Station; and A B (iii) He further deposed that the registration details of c the Van revealed that the Van was in the name of Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8) ·residing at Al Hussaini building. Deposition of Nandkumar Anant Chaugule (PW-444) PW-444 was the officer of BODS. He deposed as under:- (i) PW-444 received information of a suspicious Maruti van parked behind Siemens Factory at Worli. (ii) He opened the door of the Maruti Van using a rope and a hook and found 2 black bags; and D E (iii) The said bags were found to be containing AK-56 rifles, 4 hand wenades and magazines. F Deposition of Sadanand Narayan Naik (PW-370) At the relevant time, PW-370 was an employee of the Regional Transport Office, Bombay. In his deposition dated 06.07.1998, he reveals as under: G (i) In the court, he recognized the entries made in the Registration Register maintained by the RTO in respect of vehicle number MFC 1972. H 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.. (ii) PW-370 had also prepared a true copy of the entries in the Register on 26.07.1993 on the request of police officials. Exhibit Nos. 1292 and 1292-A are the true copies of the Register maintained by RTO in respect of Maruti vehicle bearing number MFC 1972. The said Exhibits clearly show that Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8), resident of Al-Hussaini building, is the owner of the said Maruti car. Deposition of Waman Ramchandra Kulkarni (PW-6621 A 8 c PW-662, in his deposition dated 03.05.2000, reveals that he wrote a letter to the RTO dated 23.07.1993 (Exhibit 2433) seeking information in respect of the ownership of several vehicles including vehicle number MFC 1972, which was 0 abandoned ~ accused persons and was seized by the police on 12.03.1993 outside the Siemens Factory.

#14. The recoveries made from the Maruti Van bearing No. MFC 1972 were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser vide forwarding letter Exhibit 2439 who confirmed in his report E (Exhibit 2439-A) the presence of hand grenades amongst the recovered items. Similarly, his report dated 21.04.1993, Exhibit No. 2440-A also confirmed one Chinese Type 56-1 assault rifle and cartridges which were recovered from the said Maruti Van on 12.03.1993. Further, FSL Report (Exhibit No. 2440-C) F clearly reveals that the name "WAH NOBLE (PVT.) LTD. WAH CANTT." was inscribed on the cardboard boxes recovered at Al-Hussaini. Francis Xavier Xaxa (PW-435), an Indian national, working with the Ministry of External Affairs and attached with the Indian Consulate at Islamabad until 1995, has stated that a G company by name "Wah Noble (Pvt.) Limited" is listed as a manufacturer of explosives in the directory compiled by the Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry with its office at Wah Cant! .. Pakistan. It is, therefore, clear that the accused persons were carrying hand grenades, cartridges and assault H ~les in the Maruti van owned by Rubina Suleman Memon (A- ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 669 8) on 12.03.1993. A

#15. It was contended by the appellants/accused that liability cannot be imputed to A-8 for merely being the owner of the vehicle used by the conspirators for committing terrorist acts. It is pointed out by the prosecution that this factor was 8 considered and rejected by the Designated Court in Para 48, Part 30 wherein it was held that: "In the same context, the further defence submission that A-8 was at Dubai since August, 1992 and as such she cannot be held liable for such a user of the van also does C not appeal to the mind. A fact cannot be lost sight of that the said movable property was standing in the name of A- 8. Even accepting that A-8 was then at Dubai, still the possession of the said van will be required to be with her. In view of the same, if the said van was used for such D nefarious activities then the same would lead to a logical conclusion of such a user could not have been made without her permission of her connivance. Since A-8 having not tried to give any explanation for explaining the said facet clearly reveals that she cannot escape the E liability accruing due to van standing in her name being used for such a nefarious activity." We are in agreement with the said conclusion. Recoveries from Al-Hussaini building after the blasts F

#15. The abandoned Maruti car bearing number MFC 1972 which was recovered from outside the gate of Siemens factory at Worli on 12.03.1993 led the police to the flat of Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8) at Al-Hussaini building since the car G belonged to her. The Police officials also inspected Flat Nos. 26 and 22 at Al-Hussaini building and recovered several articles including Rs. 4 lacs in cash, jewellery, slippers, carpet pieces with traces of ROX and keys to the abandoned scooter containing explosives found. at Naigaon cross road vide H 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A panchnama Exhibit No. 337 in the presence of panch witnesses, viz., Uday Narayan Vasaikar (PW-67) and Sambaji Damodar Sawant. The following witnesses deposed with regard to the same:- B Deposition of Uday Narayan Vasaikar (PW-67) PW-67 was the panch witness to the recoveries made at Flat No. 26 of Al-Hussaini building on 12.03.1993. In his deposition dated 26.06.1996, he reveals as under: c D E (i) PW-67 described that Flat No. 27 had a spiral staircase which led to a flat on the 5th floor below. (ii) He further deposed that Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash and jewellery was recovered from the said apartment. . (iii) The police recovered a green carpet and slippers with black stains as Article Nos. 239-C and 238- 8, respectively from Flat No. 22 on the 5th floor. Further, a set of keys (Article 245-B(i)), including a scooter key number 449 was recovered. (iv) In the Court, PW-67 recognized the spot panchnama (Exhibit No. 337) as accurate. The evidence of PW-67, therefore, corroborates with the evidence of Police Officer Pharande and the spot panchnama F Exhibit No. 337 in material terms and, specifically, insofar as recording of recoveries made is concerned. Deposition of Homi Sorabji Irani (PW-553) G PW-553 was in-charge of the investigation regarding the scooter recovered at Naigaon cross road containing explosives. On 03.07.1993, PW-553 handed over the keys of the scooter recovered from Al-Hussaini building to PW-546 for verification. H Jayant Ramchandra Sarmokaddam (PW-546) ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 671 PW-546, a police officer, verified on 03.07.1993 that the A keys recovered from Flat No. 22 at Al-Hussaini building could be applied to the abandoned scooter seized by the police bearing number MH-04-Z-261 from Naigaon cross road containing explosives and prepared a panchnama being Exhibit No. 363 recording the same. Shaikh Sharfu (PW-69) B was the scooter mechanic who applied the keys to the scooter in the presence of panch witness Mohd. Hussain Noor (PW- 68). Recovery of ROX traces from Flat Nos. 22, 25 and 26 at C Al-Hussaini Building Deposition of Manohar Bhalchandra Tandel (PW-56)

#17. PW-56 was the panch witness to the recoveries made on 12.03.1993 from the Al-Hussaini building by the police and o Chemical Analyser. The evidence of PW-56 reveals that black stains were found on the walls of Flat No. 26 and staircase leading to the 7th floor and at the staircase plywood at Al Hussaini building Which were scraped using wet cotton swabs by Chemical Analyser and collected as evidence in plastic E bottles. Articles 169-A and 170-A were the cotton swabs used for taking the scrapping as mentioned above. Article 173-C are the pieces of plywood which were cut off from the ceiling portion outside the left side at Al-Hussaini. The recovery of black ROX traces made at Al-Hussaini building was recorded in panchnama marked as Exhibit No. 243 and corroborates with the evidence of panch witness PW-56. F Recoveries made from the garage and compound of Al Hussaini building Deposition of Nitin Narayan Mehar (PW-47)

#18. PW-47 was the panch witness to the recoveries made from the garage allotted to Flat No. 26 of the said building on 13.03.1993 and recorded the recovery of a safe marked as G H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A Article 113 in the spot panchnama marked as Exhibit No. 192 On 15.03.1993, the safe was opened and watches worth Rs. 2,00,0001-, jewellery and ornaments worth Rs. 41,00,000/- and cash were recovered and the recoveries were recorded in a panchnama marked as Exhibit No. 193. B Deposition of Ganesh Shankar Rao (PW-48) C PW-48 was a jeweller by profession and was called to Mahim police station on 15.03.1993 to examine the jewellery and the ornaments recovered from the safe (Article 113) found in the garage of Flat No. 26 of Al-Hussaini building on 13.03.1993. Duttanad Ramkrishna Ravankar (PW-49), a goldsmith by profession, was also called to the Mahim police station on 15.03.1993 to examine the gold ornaments and the jewellery found in the steel safe recovered from the garage at D Al-Hussaini building. Khalid Salam Arab (PW-40) was the key maker who made the keys to open the steel safe at Mahim police station on 15.03.1993. It is, therefore, clear that the evidence of PWs-48, 49 and 50 corroborates with the evidence recorded in panchnama Exhibit No. 193 insofar as opening of the steel safe and recovery of valuables therein is concerned. E Deposition of Esamoddin Zainoddin Sayed (PW-555) PW-555 was a police officer attached with the Mahim police station as API. PW-555 was approached by the guard F of Al-Hussaini building on 21.03.1993 and, thereafter, he went to the said building and recorded the recoveries made in panchnama marked as Exhibit No. 214 in the presence of panch witnesses Leonelson D'Souza (PW-52) and Yakub Yasin. '"'~ ,, Depositon of Leonelson D'Souza (PW-52) PW-52 was a resident of Al-Hussaini building in March 1993 and agreed to act as a panch witness in respect of the items recovered from the compound of the said building on H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 673

21.03.1993. He deposed as under:- (i) (ii) The recovered items included 31 gunny sack pieces, 25 folded cardboard boxes having marking of "Packric Packages Ltd. - Lahore Containers", 34 oil stained white clothes and some plastic bags. He further deposed that the recoveries were recorded in a panchnama marked as Exhibit No .. 214. A B The evidence of PW-52, therefore, corroborates with the c evidence of PW-555 and the panchna~ Exhibit No. 214.

#19. The prosecution submitted that the recoveries made from the flats and garages of the Memons' at Al-Hussaini building establish that the said building was the nucleus of the criminal conspiracy to carry out explosions in Bombay on 12.03.1993 and for several months, since December 1992, meetings were held to prepare plans and hold discussions and lastly to fill ROX in vehicles, which were eventually used as bombs. It is further clear that the Memons' including A-3, A-4 and A-8, used to reside together in Flat Nos. 22; 25 and 26 at · E Al-Hussaini building, and were present when several conspiratorial meetings took place in the said flats. It is, therefore, clear that A-3, A-4 and A-8 knew about the conspiracy and facilitated the commission of acts pursuant to the said conspiracy. 0 F Arrest of the Appellants

#20. It is submitted that the appellants arrived at the International Airport, New Delhi on .25.08.1994 and were· arrested on the same day after preliminary investigation by Iqbal G Singh Jaisingh Saroha (PW-674). H.M. Shiromani (PW-266) and S. Swarnasingh (PW-267), Immigration Officers, stamped the disembarkation cards of A-4, A-8 and A-3, respectively, at the time of their arrival at the Airport on 25.08.1994 and issued H 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A B c D temporary residential permits marked as Exhibit Nos. 1111-A, 1106-A, and 1107-A to A-3, A-4, and A-8, respectively, on the said date for their stay in India. The above fact is further clarified by the deposition of the following prosecution witnesses which are as follows:- Deposition of lqbalsingh Jaisingh Saroha (PW-674) PW-674, in his deposition dated 29.06.2000, reveals as under: (i) On 25.08.1994, PW-674 got information that members of Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim's gang were arriving at Delhi Airport to carry out terrorist activities.; and {ii) PW-674, thereafter, arrested the family members who arrived at New Delhi Airport on 25.08.1974 at 1100 hrs. He arrested the family members including A-3, A-4 and A-8.

#21. Exhibit No. 2500 is the seizure memo prepared by E PW-674 at the time of arrest of A-4. The following items were seized from A-4 on 25.08.1994: (i) Pakistani passport bearing No. AA 763654 dated 12.04.1993 issued in the name of lmran Ahmed Mohd. bearing the photograph of Yusuf Abdul Razak Memon (A-4); (ii) Pakistani photo identity card bearing No. AZ 021271510-91-224164 in the name of lmran Ahmed Mohd. bearing the photo of A-4; and (iii) Temporary residential permit issued for Pakistani nationals duly stamped at New Delhi Airport on 25.08.1994 in the name of lmran Ahmed Mohd.

#22. Exhibit No. 2501 is the seizure memo prepared by F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 675 PW-674 at the time of arrest of Essa Abdul Razak Memon (A- A 3). The following items were seized from A-3 on 25.08.1994: (i) Pakistani passport bearing No. AA-763650 dated 12.04.1993 in the name of Akhtar Ahmed Mohd. bearing the photograph of A-3; and B (ii) Temporary residential permit issued for Pakistani nationals duly stamped at New Delhi Airport on 25.08.1994 in the name of Akhtar Ahmed Mohd.

#23. Exhibit No. 2505 is the seizure memo prepared by C PW-674 at the time of arrest of Rubina Suleman Memon (A- 8). The following items wen~ seized from A-8 on 25. 08.1994: (i) .Pakistani passport bearing No. AC 001087 dated 27 .04.1994 in the name of Mrs. Mehtab bearing the 0 photograph of A-8; .(ii) Pakistani photo identity card bearing No. BQ 526267/509-69-270214 in the name of Mrs. Mehtab dated 29.03.1994 bearing the photo of A- 8; and (iii) Temporary residential permit issued for Pakistani nationals duly stamped at New Delhi Airport on 25.08.1994 in the name of Mrs. Mehtab Aftab.

#24. It is, therefore, clear that the recovery of Pakistani identity cards and Pakistani passports from the appellants at the time of their arrest at New. Delhi Airport clearly prove that the appellants had relocated to Dubai from Bombay just prior to the blasts on 12.03.1993 and, thereafter, to Pakistan. E F G

#25. The prosecution also brought to our notice that the conduct of the appellants after the blasts further establishes that the appellants did not intend to co-operate with the investigation authorities in India and instead travelled on a holiday to Bangkok from Karachi which is evident from the passport H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A entries made in Pakistani passports recovered from Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) at the time of his arrest at New Delhi Railway Station. After travelling to Bangkok, the appellants arrived at New Delhi Airport via Dubai where they were arrested on 25.08.1994 by PW-674. B

#26. Pakistani passport No. AA-763650 in respect of Akhtar Ahmed Mohd. (A-3) shows that the said passport holder left Karachi on 16.04.1993 and reached Bangkok on the same day itself. The said passport holder left Bangkok on C 27.04.1993. There is no arrival stamp of any country on the said passport. The said passport holder again left Karachi on 17. 06.1994 and reached Dubai on the same day. Again, the said passport holder left Dubai on 25.08.1994 and reached India on the same day itself (Exhibit No. 1553). It is clear from the photo on the passport that Akhtar Ahmed Mohd. and Essa D @ Anjum Razak Memon (A-3) are one and the same persons.

#27. Exhibit No. 1551 is the Pakistani passport No. AA- 763654 in respect of lmran Ahmed Mohammed (A-4) which reveals that the said passport holder left Karachi on E 17.04.1993 and reached Bangkok on the same day. The said passport holder left Bangkok on 29.04.1993. There is no arrival stamp of any country on the said passport. Again, the said passport holder left Karachi on 20.06.1994 and entered Dubai on the same day. The said passport holder left Dubai on F 28.06.1994. There is no arrival stamp of any country on the passport. Again, the said passport holder left Karachi on 25.07.1994 and reached Dubai. The said person left Dubai on 10.08.1994 and re-entered Dubai on 11.08.1994: Again, the said passport holder left Dubai on 25.08.1994 and arrived at G New Delhi on the same day. From the Indian Passport of Yusuf Abdul Razak Memon and Pakistani passport in respect of lmran Ahmed Mohd., it is clear that lmran Ahmed Mohd. and Yusuf Abdul Razak Memon are one and the same persons.

#28. Exhibit No~ 1562 is the Pakistani Passport No. AA- H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 677 763653 in respect of Mrs. Mehtab Aftab Ahmed (A-8) which A shows that Mrs. Mehtab Aftab Ahmed left Karachi on 16.04.1993 and reached Bangkok on the same day. Again, she left Bangkok on 27.04.1993. There is no arrival stamp of any country on the said passport. Pakistani Passport No. AC- 001087 in respect of Mrs. Mehtab Aftab Ahmed shows that she B left Karachi on 25.07.1994 and entered Dubai on the same day. She left Dubai on 10.08.1994 and entered Dubai on 11.08.1994. Again, she left Dubai on 25.08.1994 and entered India on the same day i.e., 25.08.1994. The said passports show that Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8) and Mrs. Mehtab c Aftab Ahmed are one and the same persons. Other evidence against the Appellants Deposition of Rashid Fakir Mohd. Khatri (PW-417)

#29. PW-417 was an Accounts Assistant at Memon Mehta Associates, a firm of Chartered Accountants in which Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) was a partner. He deposed that Essa@ Anjum (A-3) is the brother of A-1 and was looking after the business of M/s Tejarath International in Bombay in 1993. It is pertirient to note here that A-1 was charged and convicted at head secondly for arranging finance from the funds of M/s Tejarath International for achieving the objective to commit terrorist acts. The evidence on record establishes the involvement of Tejarath International in financing the air tickets of several co-accused persons. Deposition of Lakharaju Narsinhasai Rao (PW-672) D E F PW-672 was a police officer. In his deposition dated 20.6.2000, he deposed that he recovered the details of bank G accounts of Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8) from the HSBC Bank, Sandra Branch and that of Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) from the Development Co-operative Bank, Mahim Branch. It is pertinent to note here that Mis Tejarath H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A International was also having an account with the Development Co-op. Bank, Mahim. As already discussed above, evidence of PW-417 clearly establishes that A-3 was involved with the management of Mis Tejarath International, a firm whose funds were involved in financing the conspiratorial activities such as B booking of air tickets. Appeal by the State of Maharashtra through CBI: Criminal Appeal No. 419 of 2011 c D The above-said appeal has been filed by the State against acquittal of A-2, A-6, A-7 and A-8 of the charges framed against them. Except A-8, the CBI has not pressed the same against A-2, A-6 and A-7 before this Court, who was acquitted of (i) a part of charge stated in clause (a) at head secondly framed against her and (ii) charge stated in clause (b). After careful examination of all the materials placed, we are of the view that in the absence of any positive evidence, A-8 cannot be convicted for the acts done and mentioned hereinabove (part of charge mentioned at head secondly) and the E Designated Court has rightly acquitted her for the same. In the light of the above, the appeal of the State is liable to be dismissed. Sentence: F

#30. The Designated Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for life to each of the appellants for commission of offences under section 3(3) of TADA and under Section 120- B of IPC. The prosecution submitted that the appellants were given full opportunity to defend themselves on the question of G quantum of sentence. Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) A-3 filed a statement dated 14.09.2006 on the quantum of sentence, which is Exhibit 2942. A-3, inter alia, stated that: H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 679 (i) He was a B. Com. Student in the year 1993 and A the flat was purchased by his father (deceased) and he was only staying in it and was not the owner of the same; (ii) He has been in custody for 12 years; and (ii) He had serious medical ailments including brain tumor and diabetes. Yusuf Abdul Razak Memon (A-4) A-4 filed a statement dated 15.09.2006 on the quantum of sentence which is Exhibit 2944, A-4, inter alia, stated that: B c He is suffering from chronic schizophrenia; (i) (ii) The Flat at Al-Hussaini was purchased by his father o jointly with him since his father was managing his savings; and (iii) He has no crimin.al background. Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8) E A-8 filed a statement dated 14.09.2006 on the quantum of sentence which is Exhibit 2943. A-8, inter alia, stated that: (i) The vehicle bearing No. MFG 1972 was purchased by her father-in-law and she was unaware about F what had happened to the vehicle after she left for Dubai to be with her husband in August 1992; (ii) · She was not in India during August 1992 - August 1994; and G (iii) She has two children.

#31. The Designated Court has considered all the abovesaid factors in respect of the appellants. The evidence H 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A on record establishes that the A-8 was aware that the vehicle owned by her (i.e. MFC 1972) was being used for terrorist acts by Tiger Memon and his associates. It is further established that Flat Nos. 22, 25 and 26 at Al-Hussaini building, where members of the Memons' family resided jointly, were the nucleus of the B criminal conspiracy as they were the locations where Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon met with several other co-accused persons during the period of the conspiracy. Further, the arms and explosives smuggled into India for the purpose of the conspiracy were also kept at the said building and lastly ROX C was filled in the vehicles in and outside the garages allocated to the Memons' at Al-Hussaini building which were used/ planted as bombs at various places on 12.03.1993 by all the conspirators.

#32. Further, it is pertinent to note here that the evidence D on record reveals that the Maruti car used by A-3 was: (a) (b) (c) driven by several co-accused persons including A- 15, A-46 and A-11 to the landing point at Shekhadi' from Bombay for landing of weapons in February, 1993; loaded with RDX on the night of 11.03.1993 at Al Hussaini Building; and parked on 12.03.1993 at the Lucky Petrol Pump by A-16 and PW-2 near Shiv Sena Bhawan which exploded killing 4 persons and injuring 38 others. E F The above mentioned evidence establishes that the white car driven by A-3 was used for terrorist activities by Tiger G Memon and other co-accused persons.

#33. Further, A-3, A-4, and A-8 resided jointly at these flats where Tiger Memon, Yakub Memon (A-1) and their associates hatched the criminal conspiracy to carry out multiple explosions in Bombay. The conduct of the appellants in not reporting any H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 681 of these activities to the police and the fact that A-3 and A-4 A departed from India on 11.03.1993 in itself is an incriminating circumstance to be used against the appellants. None of the appellants responded to the proclamation requiring presence issued by the Designated Court, which was given wide publicity. B

#34. The evidence on record establishes that the appellants facilitated the commission of terrorist acts as defined in Section 3(1) of TADA by conniving with Tiger Memon and his associates and permitting them to use their flats and vehicles C for the purposes of criminal conspiracy. The actions of the appellants squarely fall within Section 3(3) of TADA insofar as the appellants have facilitated and abetted the conduct of terrorist acts by Tiger Memon and his associates.

#35. After the blasts that took place in Bombay on D

12.03.1993, the Memons' were living together in Dubai. They never disclosed the connection of Tiger with the blasts to anyone. Their conduct of living together after fleeing from Bombay and not informing about these blasts to any of the concerned authorities at Indian Embassy establishes that they E were also involved in the conspiracy to commit the bomb blasts.

#36. After the blasts, the Memons' fled to Pakistan from Dubai and there is evidence that in Pakistan they had obtained Pakistani Passports and National Identity Cards in assumed names. The Memons' and their family members were leading a comfortable and luxurious life after the blasts. They had acquired properties, started business in the name and style of Mis Home Land Builders, acquired fictitious qualification certificates, driving licences, etc, all of which established that they had chosen a comfortable life in Pakistan and were G determined not to return to India in their original identity. The above-said facts clearly establish that the members of Memons' family were connected with the Bombay Bomb Blasts. F

#37. All the members of Memons' family were declared H 682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A Proclaimed Offenders by the Designated Court, Bombay. The rewards were also declared in Indian as well as in foreign currency for their arrest. Despite that, they did not surrender. Instead, the Memons' travelled to Bangkok and Singapore from Karachi for holiday in assumed names on Pakistani Passports B during April, 1993. They have not taken any steps to surrender before Indian Authorities or Thailand Authorities on their arrival to Bangkok and Singapore after having come to know about the blasts engineered by Tiger Memon nor made any attempt to return to India openly if they had felt that bomb blasts are c offences committed in India. This conduct clearly establishes that they were aware of the blasts that were engineered by Tiger Memon who was living with them right from the time of blasts, i.e., 12th March 1993, in Dubai, Pakistan and other places. Their documents for travel to Bangkok and Singapore from D Karachi show that they have travelled on Pakistani Passports using fake names. This conduct also establishes their culpability. It is also in evidence that huge amount of jewellery and cash which was abandoned by the members of Memon's family was recovered from the Al-Hussaini building when they hurriedly left Bombay just before the blasts. This is also a proof that all the Memons' were fully aware of the blasts and their conduct in fleeing away very clearly establishes that they were aware of the blasts and association of Tiger Memon with the blasts. E F G

#38. In view of the materials placed on record by the prosecution and the ultimate analysis of the Designated Court, we fully agree with the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants, consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants are liable to be dismissed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1127-1128 of 2007 Sardar Shahwali Khan (A-54) ..... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra H (s)through STF, CBI Mumbai .. .. .. Respondents ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 683

#39. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appeared for A the appellant (A-54) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.

#40. The instant appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.2006 and 06.06.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant (A-54) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. C No. 1/1993. B Charges:

#41. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the present appellant (A-54). 0 The material portion of the first charge against the appellant (A- 54) is as follows: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and E Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law F established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable G substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to H 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 A B c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 685 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, A 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B (1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the B Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance." In addition to the above-said principal charge of conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following ~n•: C At head secondly; The appellant (A-54) was also charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA by committing the following overt acts:- (a) He participated in the training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives at Borghat and Sandheri along with Tiger Memon and other co-conspirators; D (b) He participated in the landing and transportation of arms, ammunitions and explosives which were smuggled E into India at Shekhadi; (c) He attended conspiratorial meetings at the residence of Babloo @ Nazir Ahmed Anwar Shaikh and Mobina @ Baya Moosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) for making plans to F commit terrorist act and he also attended conspiratorial meeting at Taj Mahal Hotel; (d) He surveyed and conducted reconnaissance of the Stock Exchange Building and B.M.C. Building along with A-44, PW-2 and Javed Chikna (AA) for causing G explosions there; and (e) He participated along with co-conspirators in loading explosives like ROX fitted with time-device detonators in H 686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. various vehicles in the preparation of vehicle bombs in the intervening night of 11/12th March, 1993.

#42. The charges mentioned above were proved against the appellant (A-54). The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the above said charges as under: A B Conviction and Sentence: (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy read with the offences described at head firstly and C sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge firstly) (ii) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 3 (3) of TADA except clause (b) and sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo D RI for 1 year. (charge secondly) Evidence:

#43. The evidence against the appellant (A-54) is in the form of: E F (i) confessions made by co-accused; (ii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and (iii) documentary evidence on record. Confessional Statements of co-accused: Confessional Statement of Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11)

#44. Confessional statement of A-11 under Section 15 of G TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 and 18.04.1993 by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. The said confession reveals as under: H · (i) The appellant (A-54) was present in the house of Mobina (A-96) along with Tiger Memon, Javed ·. ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF · .. MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 687 Chikna and other co-conspirators. A (ii) The appellant (A-54) took weapons training which was imparted by Tiger Memon. Confessional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani B Khairulla (A-13) Confessional statement of A-13 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 16.05.1993 (10:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993 (17:15 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then D.C.P. Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals C as under: (i) (ii) The appellant (A-54), along with co-accused persons, was present on the 7th floor of a building behind Bhabha Hospital. The appellant (A-54), on the instructions of Tiger Memon, administered oath to other co-accused persons that they will combat 'Jehad' and will not disclose anything to anybody. (iii) The appellant (A-54) attended training in handling of arms and ammunitions imparted by Tiger Memon. D E (iv) The appellant (A-54) was present at the residence F of Tiger Memon on 11.03.1993 around 11 p.m. Confessional Statement of Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh (A-23) Confessional statement of A-23 under Section 15 of G TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (1000 hrs.) and 22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A-23 made the following references with regard to the appellant in his confession: H 688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R .. A (i) The appellant (A-54), along with co-accused persons, was present on the 7th floor of a building behind Bhabha Hospital. 8 c (ii) The appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused persons, was administered oath by Tiger Memon that they will combat 'Jehad'. (iii) The appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused persons, participated in the training of arms and ammunitions and explosives imparted by Tiger Memon (iv) The appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused persons, was present in a meeting held at a flat in Sandra where Tiger Memon held discussions. D Confessional Statement of Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar Qureshi (A-29) Confessional statement of A-29 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 18.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and E 21.05.1993 (14:45 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. In his confession, A-29 stated that the appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused persons, was present at the house of Tiger Memon on 11.03.1993. F Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd. Shaikh (A-32) Confessional statement of A-32 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 16.05.1993 (11:25 hrs.) and 19.05.1993 (17:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), G the then DCP, Zone 111, Bombay. In his confession, A-32 stated that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, was present at Al-Hussaini building on the night intervening 11/ 12.03.1993. H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 689 Confessional Statement of Mohd. Mushtaq Moosa Tarani A (A-44) Confessional statement of A-44 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 26.05.1993 (16:55 hrs.) and 22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), B the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. In his confession, A-44 stated that the appellant (A-54), along with him, Javed Chikna, PW-2 and Tiger Memon did reconnaissance of the BMC building. Confessional Statement of Naslm Ashraf Shaikh Ali Ba~are~) C Confessional statement of A-49 under Section 15 of TADA has been recor'c:l.ed on .16.05.1993 (09:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993 by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. In his confession, A-49 stated that on D 09.03.1993 the appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused persons, was present in a flat at Bandra, Hill Road where Tiger Memon discussed his plans with them. Confessional Statement of Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57) Confessional statement of A-57 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (1200 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. In his confession, A-57 made the following references with regard to the appellant: (i) The appellant (A-54) was a friend of Javed Chikna and he met Tiger Memon through him. (ii) The appellant (A-54) went to Ajmer along with Javed Chikna and other accused persons. (iii) The appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused persons, was present at Al-Hussaini Building on 11.03.1993. E F G H 690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A Confessional Statement of Niyaz Mohd. @ Aslam Iqbal Ahmed Shaikh (A-98) Confessional statement of A-98 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 17.05.1993 (14:30 hrs.) and B 20.05.1993 (11 :30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnol (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. In his confession, A-98 stated that the appellant, along with PW-2 and others, conducted reconnaissance of the BMC Building. Confessional Statement of P·arvez Mohd. Parvez Zulfikar C Qureshi (A-100) D Confessional statement of A-100 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (23:30 hrs.) and 17.04.1993 (17:00 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. In his confession, A-100 stated that the appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused persons, was present at a flat in Bandra where Tiger Memon distributed Rs.5,000/- to each one of the accused persons.

#45. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the E above accused, viz., A-11, A-13, A-23, A-29, A-32, A-44, A- 49, A-57, A-98 and A-100 clearly establish the fact that it corroborate with each other in material particulars with regard to the involvement of the appellant. After consideration of all the abovesaid confessional statements of the co-accused, the involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is established inasmuch as:- F (i) (ii) The appellant participated in the training in handling of arms and ammunitions and explosives at Borghat and Sandheri along with Tiger Memon and other co-conspirators; The appellant attended conspiratorial meetings wherein plans were chalked out to commit terrorist acts; G H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 691 (iii) The appellant surveyed and conducted A reconnaissance of the Stock Exchange Building and BMC building for causing explosions along with A-44, PW-2 and Javed Chikna (AA); (iv) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini building B at the time when loading of explosives like RDX fitted with time device detonators in various vehicles was being done in the intervening night of 11/ 12. 03.1993; (v) The appellant was closely associated with Tiger C Memon and on being asked by him, A-54 administered oath to other co-accused persons; (vi) The appellant also took oath to take part in 'Jehad'; (vii) There was a close link between the appellant and Javed Chikna (AA), who had played a crucial and pivotal role in achieving ·the object of the conspiracy; (viii) The appellant was fully aware and conscious of the fact that he was waging 'Jehad' and taking and administering of oath by him shows his intent and determination to cause damage and destruction; (ix) The appellant was fully aware and conscious of the consequences of his actions, and accordingly, played an important role in the entire conspiracy. Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

#46. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement and role of the appellant in the conspiracy, as stated above, is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses which are as under: D E F G H 692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2) After going through his entire evidence, we summarize his evidence with reference to the appellant (A-54) as under: B c D E F G H (i) He knows the appellant as 'Sardar'; (ii) He identified the appellant before the Court during dock proceedings; (iii) He deposed that the appellant, along with other co accused persons, was involved in planning, conspiring and training; (iv) He deposed that on 04.03.1993, at Taj Mahal Hotel, Tiger Memon asked PW-2, Bashir, Javed Chikna to survey BMC building along with the appellant. (v) On 05.03.1993, Bashir Khan administered oath to the accused that whatever they will do, will do for Islam and take revenge. (vi) The appellant readily agreed to take revenge and offered to go to Pakistan for training; (vii) PW-2, along with other co-accused, went to the house of the appellant; (viii) On 07.03.1993, A-54 attended the meeting held by Tiger Memon at the residence of Shakil in which Tiger Memon organized separate groups; (ix) A-54 also attended the meeting on 08.03.1993 at the residence of Babloo. He agreed to do the work assigned to him in the organized group where Tiger Memon selected the targets which were to be attacked. (x) PW-2, Tiger Memon and other accused took A-54 to BMC building on 09.03.1993 where entry and ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J] 693 exit points to the said building were shown for the A purpose of attacking the BJP and Shiv Sena Councillors; (xi) On 10.03.1993, A-54 attended the meeting at the residence of Shakil where separate groups were formed by Tiger Memon; (xii) A-54 was present on the night of 11.03.1993 at Al Hussaini Building. Training at Sandheri and Borghat Districts: Deposition of Harish Chandra Keshav Pawar (PW-105) PW-105 is an eye-witness to the incident of firing. He deposed as under: B c D (i) At the relevant time, he was studying in 8th standard and was residing at Sandheri; (ii) On 08.03.1993, at about 0900 hrs., an event occurred on the eastern side hillock to village Sandheri; E (iii) The said event was in connection with gun firing; (iv) 10-11 persons participated in the said firing incident; F (v) Cardboard sheets were placed by the side of hillock; (vi) 4/5 persons from the group of 8/1 O persons were firing at the said cardboards using guns; G (vii) He deposed that he knew 3 persons from the group, namely, A-17, A-79 and A-78 (since deceased) as they were from Sandheri Village; H 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A 8 (viii) He was there for 20-25 seconds along with his friends. When Hamid Dafedar (A-78) noticed them standing, he threatened them to go otherwise they would be killed. PW 105 is an eyewitness to the practice session which took place at the hillocks of Sandheri Village. He was thoroughly cross-examinP.d by the defence and he withstood the rigorous cross-examination without being shaken. The evidence of PW- 105 corroborates the fact that the training in fire arms was conducted at the hillocks of Sandheri and 10-11 persons C participated in the said training. Deposition of Rajaram Ramchandra Kadam (PW-106) PW 106 is an eye-witriess to the incident. In his evidence, 0 he deposed as under: E F (i) He is an agriculturist and resides at Sandheri; (ii) On 08.03.1993, at about 09.30 a.m., he heard the sound of firing from the side of Chinchechammal; (iii) He went to the said place and saw two men standing armed with guns and a cardboard target that was placed near the hillock; (iv) He deposed that he knew 5 persons from the group as they were from Sandheri Village; (v) He identified them before the Court as A-79, A-106, A-131, A-111 and A-78. PW-106 is also an eye-witness to the training session G which took place at the hillocks of Sandheri Village. Both these witnesses corroborate with each other on the fact that training in fire arms was conducted at the above-said place. These witnesses also corroborate the confessional statements insofar as the said training is concerned. H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 695 Deposition of Namdeo Pundlik Mahajan (PW-587) A PW-587 was a Constable attached with Goregaon Police Station, District Raigad at the relevant time. The witness deposed that: (i) (ii) He inspected the site of the incident and collected 3 empties, 6 lead pieces, cardboard target, stones bearing the marks of hitting of bullets and a broken branch of tree. B The aforesaid articles were collected and seized by C him in the presence of panchas and a panchnama was drawn. (iii) He wrote a complaint which was registered by Head Constable. The evidence of PW-587 further proves that firing took place at the hillocks of village Sandheri. Deposition of Mahadeo Jadhav (PW-103) PW-103 deposed about the seizures affected by the police at the hillocks of Village Sandheri on 29.03.1993.

#47. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that there is, in fact, no evidence on record to prove his role in the entire conspiracy. On the other hand, mere perusal of the entire evidence as mentioned herein above makes it clear that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellant actively participated in the attainment of the objects behind the conspiracy.

#48. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that his name is 'Sardar Shahwali Khan' and not 'Sardar' alone and none of the confessions actually refer to him as 'Sardar Shahwali Khan'. On perusal of the instant appeal, particularly, Memo of Parties filed by the appellant (A-54), it is clearly D E F G H 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A discernible that his name is 'Sardar Shahwali Khan S/o Shahwali Khan', therefore, his first name is 'Sardar' with father's name 'Shahwali' and surname 'Khan'.

#49. From the materials relied on by the prosecution, it is established that: · (i) Pursuant to the conspiracy, the appellant participated in the training in handling of arms and ammunitions and explosives at Borghat and Sandheri along with Tiger Memon and other co conspirators; (ii) The appellant participated in various conspiratorial meetings at the residence of Babloo @ Nazir Ahmed Anwar Shaikh and Mobina @ Bayamoosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) and was a part of the core group making plans; (iii) The appellant surveyed and conducted reconnaissance of the Stock Exchange building and BMC building along with A-44, PW-2 and Javed Chikna (AA) which were the proposed targets of explosion; and (iv) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini building in the intervening night of 11/12th March, 1993, at the crucial time, when the activities like filling of ROX explosives in various vehicles were going on. 8 c D E F On the basis of the above said evidence, the charges framed against the appellant (A-54) have been fully proved G beyond all reasonable doubt. Sentence

#50. We are also satisfied that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself on the question of quantum of H sentence. The appellant filed a statement dated 27 .11.2006 in ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 697 which he prayed that the following factors may be considered A while determining his sentence: (i) He is the sole bread winner of his family; (ii) He has been in custody for five years and five months; and (iii) He has to look after his 90 years old father who is blind. Conclusion: B c

#51. The appellant has participated in various stages of the conspiracy from planning till execution. He was also present during the filling of RDX in the vehicles which were planted at various locations resulting in the death of hundreds of people and injuries to many. The crimes committed by the accused D including the appellant (A-54) have shocked the conscience of the society. The blasts on 12.03.1993 have caused massive loss to life and property and were carried out in an organized and systematic manner in which the appellant (A-54) has played an active role. E

#52. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Designated Court to the appellant (A-54) is sustainable and justified, consequently, the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1252-1253 of 2007 Ashrafur Rehman Azimulla .... Appellant(s) Shaikh @ Lallu (A-71) vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2011 F G H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A The State of Maharashtra, through CBI .... Appellant(s) vs. Ashrafur Rehman Azimulla Shaikh @ Lallu (A-71) .... Respondent(s)

#53. Mr. Prakash Sinha, learned counsel appeared for the B appellant (A-71) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI).

#54. The appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1252-1253 of c 2007 are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.11.2006 and 31.05.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant (A-71) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast D Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2011 filed by the CBI is directed against the acquittal of A-71 under the common charge framed at head firstly, i.e., conspiracy. For convenience, henceforth, we will refer accused (A-71) as appellant. E Charges:

#55. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellant. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: F G H "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL ~K MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 699 A B amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to c distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centau~ at G Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining. Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and H E F D 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of I PC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1 A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B (1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance." In addition to the principal common charge of conspiracy framed at head firstly against all the co-conspirators including the appellant, he was also charged on the following counts: At head Secondly: During the period between January April, 1993, the appellant agreed to keep in his possession 85 hand grenades, 350 electronic detonators, 3270 live cartridges of AK-56 rifles which were smuggled by Tiger Memon and his associates for committing terrorist acts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA. At head Thirdly: The appellant possessed the above mentioned arms and ammunitions and concealed the same in three suitcases in the damaged unused lavatory situated at the eastern side of the 2nd floor of Musafirkhana, Bombay and thus unauthorisedly possessed them within the notified area of Greater Bombay and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA. At head Fourthly: The appellant, during the above A B c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 701 mentioned period, possessed the said arms and A ammunitions with an intent to aid terrorists, contravened the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, Explosives Act, 1884, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Explosives Rules, 1983 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of TADA. B At head Fifthly: The appellant possessed the above mentioned arms and ammunitions which were recovered ;, at his behest on 27.03.1993 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with C Sections 25(1A) and (1 B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

#56. The Designated Court, after considering the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, found the appellant guilty on all the charges except the charges mentioned at head firstly and secondly. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced D for the above said charges as under: Conviction and Sentence: (i) (ii) (iii) The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of TADA for commission of offence at head thirdly and sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge thirdly) The appellant has been convicted under Section 6 of TADA for commission of offence at head fourthly and sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge fourthly) E F The appellant has also been convicted under G Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1-A), 25(1- B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 for commission of offence athead fifthly but no separate sentence was awarded on the said count. (charge fifthly) H 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A Evidence

#57. The evidence against the appellant (A-71) is in the form of:- B c (i) his own confession; (ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co accused); (iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and (iv) evidence of memorandum/discovery. Out of the above-referred 4 categories of evidence, the appellant's own confession and confessions made by other co accu sed were disbelieved by the Designated Court for D rendering conviction in respect of charge thirdly and fourthly as well as offences under the Arms Act. The Designated Court mainly relied on the evidence of Memorandum/discovery and testimony of prosecution witnesses. Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses: E

#58. The involvement and the role of the appellant is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses which are as follows: F Deposition of Abdul Kadar Abubakar Khan (PW-323) PW-323 was attached with DCB, CID as an Assistant sub Inspector of Police. The relevant facts in his deposition are as under:- G (i) He deposed that on 27.03.1993, on the basis of the information received from reliable SQurces, he arrested the appellant. (ii) During interrogation, the appellant showed willingness to make a voluntary statement. H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 703 (iii) He deposed that he called two panch witnesses. A (iv) He deposed that the appellant lead the police party and the panchas to Musafirkhana. (v) In Musafirkhana, the appellant lead them to an unused lavatory on the second floor where three bags of Encore Company were kept on the floor. B (vi) He deposed that the keys of the said bags were lying next to them. (vii) The appellant opened all the bags with the keys. (viii) The first bag was found to be containing 85 hand grenades, second bag was found to be having 350 detonators and the third bag was containing 3,270 cartridges of AK-56 rifles. (ix) He deposed that Pl Shri Nandkumar Anant Chaugule (PW-444) of the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad (BODS) was called to defuse the hand grenades. (x) He deposed that he lodged the complaint on 27 :03.1993 and the same was marked as Exh. 1210. c D E (xi) He identified the appellant before the court in the F dock. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the deposition of this witness indicates that the police did no investigation qua the alleged recovery and neither any independent witness was G made to witness the same even though such witnesses were available in the Musafirkhana. He further pointed out that the police took no efforts in this direction. He further stated that the alleged disclosure statement in the memorandum panchnama is a fabricated one and, therefore, the case of the prosecution H 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R A must fail. On perusal of his entire evidence and the discussion of the trial Judge, we are unable to accept the above objection. Deposition of Nandkumar Chaugule (PW-444) The witness was working as an lncharge, Senior Inspector B of Police, Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad (BODS) of CID Intelligence, Bombay at the relevant time. He deposed that: c D E F (i) On 27.03.1993, he went to Musafirkhana and reached the lavatory on the second floor. (ii) On the spot, he saw three suitcases. Out of them, one was containing green coloured hand grenades, the second was containing electronic detonators and the third suitcase was containing cartridges for AK-56 rifles. (iii) He deposed that he asked his officer, P.I. Zarapkar to diffuse one hand grenade. Five electronic detonators were diffused by S.I. Desai. Thereafter, parts of the grenades and the detonators were handed over to Pl Shivaji Shankar Sawant (PW- 524 ). Learned counsel for the appellant commented that it (deposition) does not connect the appellant with the alleged recovery at Musafirkhana. On perusal of his entire evidence, we reject the above objection of the counsel for the appellant. Deposition of Shivaji Shankar Sawant (PW-524) PW-524 was working as a Police Inspector since 1984. G At the time of the incident, he was attached with Unit Ill of DCB, CID (Crime Branch). He deposed that: (i) He noted the voluntary disclosure statement made by the appellant which has been marked as Exhibit 439. H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 705 (ii) He deposed that the appellant led the police party A to the second floor of Musafirkhana. (iii) From there, 3 suitcases were recovered and the same were containing 350 detonators, 3270 bullets of AK-47 and AK-56 rifles and 85 hand grenades. (iv) PW 444 arrived at the spot and defused the hand · grenades and the detonators. (v) He drew the discovery panchnama which was marked as Exhibit 439A. B C (vi) He deposed that he sent the articles seized for chemical analysis vide forwarding letter. dated 09.06.1993 marked as Exh. Nos. 1810 and 1811. (vii) He deposed that the CA report dated 20c07 .1993 D and 07. 07 .1993 were received and the same were marked as Exh. Nos. 1810-A and 1811-A. (viii) He deposed that from the perusal of CA reports, it is clearly discernible that the articles seized at the E · behest of the appellant are explosive materials. Mr. Sinha submitted that though this witness claims recovery of large quantity of arms, none of the police personnel enquired the other occupants of Musafirkhana on the said date. On perusal of his entire evidence, we are satisfied that there is no substance in the said objection. F Deposition of Rajan Pinanath Dhoble (PW-585) At the time of the incident, he was attached with DCB, CID, G Unit-I as a P.1. He deposed as under: (i) On 27.03.1993 after receipt of information, he arrested A-71 in C.R. No. 71193. (ii) Senior P.I. Shri Shivaji Sawant did the interrogation H 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F G of the said accused. (iii) He was also present at the said stage. (iv) During the said interrogation, the voluntary statement made by the accused was recorded by drawing the memorandum panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. (v) Thereafter, the accused led panchas and police to an unused latrine on the second floor of Haji Sabu Siddique MusafirKhana. (vi) At the said place, the accused had taken out three suitcases. (vii) The suitcases were found to be containing 85 hand grenades, 3270 live cartridges and 350 detonators. (viii) The same were taken charge by the police by further drawing recovery panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. (ix) Senior P.I. Shri Sawant registered separate case regarding the said seizure. (x) In the month of August, 1993, he came to the conclusion that the material collected during the investigation disclosed the involvement of the arrested accused in the commission of offences under the Explosive Substances Act. Here again, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that not even a single entry was made in Station Diary of DCB, CID qua receiving information as to the movement of police team from their office to the house of the appellant and vice versa. Merely because of non-furnishing of any proof with regard to the movement in the Station Diary, his evidence H cannot be rejected. ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 707 Deposition of Faquih Abdul Sattar (PW-331) At the relevant time, he was working as an Assistant Manager in the office of Mohmmed Haji Sabu Siddique Musafir Khana Trust. The relevant facts in his deposition are as under:- (i) (ii) He deposed that he knew a person ~y name Lalubhai (A-71). On 08.03.1993, a person came to him and told that he was sent by Lalubhai (A-71) and he wanted two rooms for 4/5 days. (iii) He booked the rooms and allotted Room Nos. 16 and 17. (iv) The said person was in possession of the rooms from 08.03.1993 to 19.03.1993. A B c D The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the statement of PW-331 and the manner in which memorandum/discovery panchnamas were prepared without obtaining his signature indicates that the appellant was framed by the police. On E perusal of his evidence, we reject the said contention.

#59. From the entire evidence on record, the following stood established: (i) The recovery of large quantity of arms and ammunitions from Musafirkhana at the instance of A-71 clearly establishes that he was in conscious possession of the arms and ammunitions and explosives. (ii) He was a smuggler and had association with Tiger Memon, Dawood Ibrahim, Haji Mastan who were all smugglers; F G (iii) He had booked the rooms in the MusafirKhana, from where large quantity of arms were seized; and H 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A (iv) He was aware of the fact that arms and ammunitions were kept in both the rooms;

#60. Though counsel for the appellant commented on the prosecution witnesses who spoke about the role of the present B appellant (A-71), as discussed above, we find no merit in the said contention. Recovery: Memorandum of Discovery Panchnama c

#61. The Memorandum of Panchnamas (Exh. Nos. 439 and 439A) were recorded between 12:30 p.m. and 12:45 p.m. on 27.03.1993 in the office of DCB, CID. The panchas were a) Dasarath Govind Londe (not examined since expired); and b) Syed Badshah Gouse Mohideen (PW-85), who turned hostile. D As per the prosecution, the police have recovered three suit cases of "Encore" Company containing 85 handgrenades, 350 electronic detonators and 3270 live cartridges of AK-57 rifles from the unused lavatory of second floor of Musafirkhana. E F memorandum or discovery panchnama,

#62. Both the documents, namely, Exh. Nos. 439 and 439A were having the signatures of the pan ch witnesses. Apart from this, Pl Shivaji Shankar Sawant (PW-524), also signed the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the absence of signature of the appellant on either side of the the entire memorandum has to be ignored. However, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, by pointing out the signature in the said document, claimed that such signature was that of the appellant. Even if we accept that the appellant-accused has not G signed the panchnama, in view of the contents therein and the statement of panch witness (though he turned hostile at a later point of time), it cannot be rejected as claimed by the counsel for the appellant. Further, one of the panchas i.e., PW-85 though turned hostile, the fact remains that he accepted his signature. H He also admitted the contents and informed the Court that the ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 709 same was explained to him. Admittedly, this was not challenged A by the appellant (A-71) while cross examining him. These aspects support the stand of the prosecution. B

#63. The document Exh. 439 and 439A makes it clear that the accused appellant led the police party on foot up to the eastern side of the Musafirkhana and pointed out one damaged and unused lavatory as the place where he had kept the three suit cases. The said lavatory was having a broken door which was open. A-71 pointed out 3 bags kept inside the lavatory which were kept on the floor of the same. All the three C bags were of Encore Company and were almost of the same size. The keys of the said bags were also lying at the said place. The said keys were in three separate bunches. A-71 took up one bunch of keys and opened one of the bags out of the three. The said bag was found to be containing 85 hand grenades. By way of sample, one of the hand grenade from the said bag was taken by Pl Sawant. Thereafter, with the help of second bunch of keys, A-71 opened another bag. The bag was found to be containing 4 bundles of detonators. Three bundles out of the said 4 bundles were containing 100 detonators each while the fourth bundle was containing 50 detonators. For sample, one detonator from each bundle was taken by Pl Sawant. Thereafter, A-71 opened the third bag with the help of keys. The said bag was found to be containing 3270 cartridges of AK-56 rifles. The said cartridges were bearing three different types of markings. Pl Sawant took samples of 5 cartridges, 4 cartridges and 1 cartridge having different types of marking from the said bag. D F E

#64. In respect of the said discovery, FIR being LAC No. 15 of 1993 dated 27.03.1993 was lodged at 15.30 hrs. by PS/ G DGP/CID on the complaint of Abdul Kadar Abubakkar Khan (PW-323).

#65. While considering the common charge, namely, conspiracy, the Designated Court has recorded a finding that H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A there is no evidence on record to establish that the recovered contraband was smuggled by Tiger Memon and his associates. The Court also recorded that the evidence brought in has failed to establish precisely the period for which A-71 was in possession of the said contraband material and further, there s is nothing on record to suggest for what purpose the appellant was in possession of such a huge quantity of contraband.

#66. It is relevant to point out that at the trial, the appellant accused along with A-103, in addition to the principal charge of conspiracy framed at head firstly was further charged at head C secondly for commission of offence under Section 3(3) of TADA on account of A-71, in pursuance of the conspiracy, during the period, i.e., January, 1993 to April, 1993 having agreed to keep in his possession 85 hand grenades, 350 electronic detonators, 3270 live cartridges of AK-56 rifles unauthorisedly, D which were part of consignment smuggled by co-conspirators Tiger Memon and his associates for commission of terrorist acts. E

#67. Regarding the discovery of arms and ammunitions in large quantities, the Designated Judge has noted that though one of the panch witness had not supported the prosecution case, however, the Designated Court has held that the evidence of the officer from BODS cannot be termed to be an interested witness as the said investigation was not affected at his behest. F Considering all the relevant materials pertaining to the statement made by the accused and discovery/seizure effected in pursuance of the same and the said evidence being duly corroborated by contemporaneous document i.e. Panchnama referred to hereinabove and other evidence establishing the nature of contraband articles, the same will lead to the G conclusion that A-71 was in possession of such article which he had kept in the unused lavatory.

#68. As rightly concluded by the Designated Judge, all the said evidence, in clear terms, reveal that A- 71 was in H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 711 possession of huge quantity of contraband material within the A · notified area of Greater Bombay attracting the provisions of Section 5 of TADA and failing to rebut the presumption arising out of such unlawful possession. The said presumption has been explained by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt vs. State thr. CBI, Bombay, (1994) 5 sec B 410 as the presumption of having himself possessed the same for commission of terrorist activity. In view of the same, the Designated Judge has rightly held A-71 guilty of commission of offence under Section 5 of TADA.

#69. Considering the large quantity of contraband materials in the possession of A-71, the period in which he was found to be in possession of the same and all the other relevant circumstances, it lead to the conclusion that A-71 himself being possessed the same and in the said process having contravened the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, the Explosives Act, 1884 etc. thereby having made himself liable for commission of offences under Section 6 of TADA and also under Sections 3 and 7 read with Section 25 (1-A) and (1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

#70. Upon a conjoint reading of the entire evidence, it is clearly established that the appellant was fully conscious and aware of the ultimate use of the smuggled arms and ammunitions and explosives. Thus, the charges framed at head thirdly and fourthly against the accused stood established. Appeal by the State of Maharashtra through CBI: Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2011 c D E F

#71. We have already extracted the common charge of G conspiracy in the earlier part of our order. The Designated Court, on going through the confessional statement of the appellant and co-accused persons, viz., A-10 and A-12 disbelieved their version and rejected the same. Though Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the CBI pointed out certain materials H 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A regarding the charge framed at head firstly, i.e., conspiracy, we are satisfied that the prosecution failed to establish the relevant .. materials, viz., contraband, being part of the material smuggled into India by Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim for commission of terrorist act or the same being given to A-71 by Tiger Memon s qr any other co-conspirator and in the absence of further acceptable material in order to prove the nexus of A-71 with the conspiracy for which the charge was framed at head firstly, . A-71 cannot be held liable for commission of the said offence. We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Designated c Court and the appeal of the State is liable to be dismissed. Sentence

#72. It is brought to our notice that the appellant was given an opportunity to defend himself on the question of quantum of D sentence. The appellant filed statement dated 07.11.2006 on the quantum of sentence which is Exh. Nos. 3000 and 3000A. The appellant prayed that the following, amongst other factors, may be considered while determining his sentence: E F "(1) I am 65 yrs. of age. (2) I had suffered from schizophrenia about three years (3) Due to the same, I was required to take medicines and so also shock treatment. (4) lam still under medication (5) I am also suffering from the ailment of kidney stone. G (6) I was not involved in commission of any terrorist act. (7) I have faced the legal proceedings for about 13 years. (8) I had already remained in custody for 2 yrs. and 6 months. H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 713 (9) Hardly. there is any record of myself having not complied A with any of the conditions imposed by the court while granting the bail. (10) I have no antecedent. (11) I am producing zerox copies of ration card, election card and papers showing my age and I.am suffering from ailment of kidney. ( marked as Exhibit : 3000-A colly. ) B (12) Considering circumstances peculiar to me i.e. I was not involved in commission of terrorist act, my age and I am sick person, I may be given the lesser punishment." c

#73. The Designated Court considered all these factors while determining the sentence for the appellant. After considering the acts committed and the statement regarding the quantum of sentence, it was held: D "809) On the aforesaid backdrop considering submission advanced by Ld. advocate Mr. HH Panda for A-71 that considering character of evidence about guilt of accused i.e. the same being based upon the Disclosure Statement E leading to recovery of huge contraband articles from a lavatory at a public plaee or quantity of material recovered denoting that the same were with A-71 merely for storage purpose and hence considering his age being of 65 years or he is a sick person minimum sentence as provided F under law would be warranted does not appeal to mind after taking .into consideration all the relevant circumstances relating to the offences for which A-71 has been found guilty. Such a conclusion is inevitable as a fact cannot be overlooked that A-71 was possessing such G contraband mate.rial capable of causing mass destruction within the rv:>tified area. It needs no saying that the weapon of such a nature cannot be acquired and/or possessed without incurring any appreciable expenditure. Truly speaking possession of such a large quantity of H 714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H contraband material with A-71 viewed from any angle i.e. either himself having acquired the same or somebody else having kept with him and taking into consideration the purpose for which the same can be said to have been possessed i.e. illegal use of same for illegal purpose would warrant levying the maximum punishment prescribed under law. 810) Thus after taking into consideration the gravity of acts committed by A-71, nature of material possessed by him but the same being not recovered from his house and the same being recovered from a unused lavatory in Musafirkhana but concealed at the said place, A-71 being not found involved in terrorist act and considering matters disclosed from clauses No. 1 to 12 in answer to relevant question asked to him while recording his statement upon quantum of sentence to be imposed i.e. at Exh.3000 i.e. his age, the ailments suffered by him, himself being not fully recovered, himself having faced legal proceedings for 13 years, himself having no antecedents, himself having not involved in any terrorist act, court having not received any adverse report about his conduct etc., during long drawn trial and having regard to sentence given to A-107, 72 and few others having regard to quantity of contraband material possessed by them and the material possessed by A-71 sentence of RI for Life and a fine of Rs. I lakh with a suitable sentence of further RI in event of non-payment of fine for commission of offence u/s.5 of TADA and sentence of RI for life and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh with a suitable sentence of further RI in event of non-payment of fine for commission of offence u/s. 6 of TADA with no separate sentence for the reasons stated earlier for commission of offence under Sec. 3 and 7 r/w Sec. 25 (1A) (1 B)(a) of Arms Act for A- 71 would serve the ends of justice. Needless to add that contraband material seized will require to be confiscated."

#74. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAzAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 715 the facts and circumstances of the case, the Designated Court A while sentencing the appellant erred in not striking a balance between 'doctrine of proportionality' and 'doctrine of rehabilitation' and according to him, the appellant was granted maximum punishment prescribed under Sections 5 and 6 of TADA whereas minimum punishment prescribed is 5 years. He B further submitted that considering his age, ailment and conduct the appellant did not deserve the maximum punishment. He also pointed out that the appellant had already undergone a period of 8 Y, (eight and a half) years approximately without remission.

#75. It is relevant to note that even according to the C prosecution, all the above mentioned goods though being smuggled, kept only in the open lavatory within the Musafirkhana. In other words, admittedly, the recovery was from an open and accessible place to all the persons visiting the Musafirkhana for any purpose including prayer or the persons D staying therein. It is also relevant to point out that the prosecution failed to lead acceptable evidence to show that such recovered contrabands were used in any crime by the appellant and even the Designated Court came to the same finding. As per the proved charges under Sections 5 and 6 of E TADA, the minimum punishment prescribed is 5 years and maximum is life sentence. Taking note of the age, ailments and conduct of the appellant as recorded by the Designated Court itself in Part 46 of the impugned judgment noted down while confirming the conviction, 'we feel that the appellant did not F deserve the maximum sentence of life imprisonment'. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that as on date, the appellant is more than 70 years of age and is suffering from a number of ailments. About his medical condition and ailments, learned counsel has furnished all the G details in Crl.MP No. 5225-5226 of 2011 wherein it has been stated that the appellant is on liquid diet, he has no criminal antecedent and there is no adverse report with respect to him during the trial. It is also pointed out that the appellant has already undergone a period of 8 Y. years (approximately) H 716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A without remission. Taking note of all these aspects, we feel that while confirming the conviction, ends of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of the appellant to RI for 1 O years. 8

#76. Consequently, we dispose of the appeals filed by the appellant (A-71) while confirming the conviction and reduce the sentence to RI for 10 years. The appeal filed by the State in respect of acquittal ordered by the Designated Court relating to the common charge of conspiracy is also dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2007 c lmtiyaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15) The State of Maharashtra, through CBl-STF, Bombay vs. ... Appellant(s) ... Respondent(s) D

#77. Ms. F arhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant (A-15) and Mr. Mukul Gupta - learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI).

#78. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and E order of conviction and sentence dated 16.11.2006 and 17.07.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant (A-15) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. F G H Charges:

#79. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-15). The relevant portion of the charge is reproduced hereunder:- "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 717 A B object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK- 56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of c or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators,· hand grenades and high explosives like RDX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, .ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co-conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy G to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea H D E F 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-8 of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A). (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 98 (1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance." In addition to the above-said principal charge of conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following counts: · At head Secondly; The appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA by committing the following overt acts: (a) He participated in the landings and transportation of arms, ammunitions and explosives smuggled into India at Shekhadi on 03.02.1993 and 07.02.1993; (b) He participated in the preparation of vehicle bombs at Al-Hussaini Building on the night of 11/ A B c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 719

12.03.1993. At head Thirdly; The appellant planted explosives laden scooter No. MH-02-2924 at Dhanji Street, Bombay on · 12.03.1993 for causing explosion and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA. At head Fourthly; The appellant, by planting the above meritioned explosives laden scooter with the intention of committing murder, has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. At head Fifthly; The appellant, by planting the above mentioned explosives laden scooter at Dhanji Street with · the intention and knowledge of causing damage to the property, has committed an offence punishable under Section 435 read with Section 511 IPC. At head Sixthly; The appellant, by planting the above mentioned scooter, committed an offence under Section 436 read with Section 511 IPC. At head Seventhly; The appellant, by possessing the above-mentioned explosives laden scooter which was planted by him at Dhanji Street, has committed an offence punishable under Section 4 (a)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. At head Eighthly; The appellant, by possessing the RDX explosives in the above-mentioned scooter, without valid licence, has committed an offence under Section 98(1 )(b) . of the Explosives Act, 1884. A B c D E F

#80. The Designated Judge found the appellant (A-15) guilty G on all the aforesaid charges except charge (b) at head secondly. The appellant (A-~ 5) has been convicted and sentenced for the abovesaid charges as follows: Conviction and Sentence: H 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA and under Section 120-B I PC read with the offences described at head firstly and sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge firstly) (ii) The appellant has been convicted under Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of offences at head secondly and sentenced to RI for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge secondly) (iii) The appellant has been convicted under Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of offences mentioned at head thirdly and sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge thirdly) (iv) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 307 of IPC for commission of offences mentioned at head fourthly and sentenced to RI for 1 O years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge fourthly) (v) The appellant has been convicted under Section 435 read with Section 511 of IPC for commission of offences at head fifthly and sentenced to RI for 3 Y. (three and a half) years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge fifthly) (vi) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 436 read with Section 511 of IPC for commission of offences at head sixthly and sentenced to RI for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 12,500/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 months. G (charge sixthly) (vii) The appellant has been convicted under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of offence at head seventhly and sentenced to RI for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for · H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 721 1 year. (charge seventhly) A (viii) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 98(1 )(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 for commission of offence · at head eighthly and sentenced to RI for 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 2 months. 8 (charge eighthly) Evidence

#81. The evidence against the appellant (A-15) is in the form ~- (i) his own confession; (ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co accused); (iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and (iv) documentary evidence. c D Confessional Statement of lmtiyaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15) E

#82. Confessional statement of A-15 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 07 .05.1993 (12:30 hrs.) and 09.05.1993 (13:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The following facts emerge from F his confession:- (i) He was a resident of 23, Naupada, 1st Floor, Sandra (E), Bombay. (ii) He was a good friend of Anwar Haji Theba (AA), G who was his neighbour and used to work for Tiger Memon. (iii) He was introduced to Tiger Memon by Anwar. (iv) He, along with Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10), Abdul H 722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F Ismail Gani Turk (A-11), Rafiq Madi (A-46), Anwar Theba (AA), Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh (A-12), Shafi (AA) and Salim, was working for Tiger in his hawala business. (v) On 23/24.01.1993, Anwar told the appellant that he had received a phone call from Tiger that he will be coming on that day and they had to go to the Airport to receive him. (vi) He along with Anwar, Shafi and A-11 went to the Airport to receive Tiger Memon. (vii) During the last week of January, 1993 he along with Shafi (AA), A-11, Anwar, Rafiq Madi (A-46) and A- 12 participated in the landing at Shekhadi. The landing did not take place for 3-4 days. During that period, they stayed at Hotel Vasava and then shifted to Hotel Big Splash, Alibaug. (viii) He was also present when smuggled arms and explosives were opened at Waghani Tower and re- loaded in cavities of vehicles and when bags containing explosives were sent by Tiger Memon through Dawood Taklya for safe custody. (ix) He also helped in loading, unloading, emptying and re-loading of arms and explosives. The bags which had been brought in the vehicles were opened and found that it contained AK-56 rifles, magazines, pistols, hand-grenades, cartridges and bundles of wires. G (x) H At the instance of Tiger Memon, he brought one jeep containing arms and ammunitions to Bombay and kept it in the garage of Gulam Hafiz Shaikh @ Baba (A-73) and handed over the key of the jeep to him. ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF · MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.) 723 (xi) Anwar had told him that during the riots in January, A 1993, their community had suffered severe loss and in order to take revenge, Tiger was imparting . training of weapons to some of the persons in Dubai. (xii) After getting training at Dubai, he came back to Bombay and Anwar met the appellant 1-2 times at Sandra Talab and told him that he has taken training in handling weapons and bombs in Dubai and very soon they would take the revenge of the injustice C caused to the Muslims in Bombay. B (xiii) Anwar arrived at Al-Hussaini building on 12.03.1993 and checked the dickeys of all the scooters. Thereafter, he took a steel grey coloured pencil from his coat pocket and inserted it in each D of the black coloured soap like chemical, i.e., gun powder kept in the dickeys. · (xiv) The appellant then asked Anwar as to what he was doing, to which he replied that the bombs were E ready and by using these bombs, they would take revenge for the injustice caused to their community. (xv) As directed by Anwar, he took one old blue coloured explosives laden scooter bearing registration No. 2924 and parked the same in a F corner of Diamond· Market. (xvi) After 5-6 days of the blast, he was arrested by Worli P.S.

#83. From a perusal of the confession of the appellant, it G emerges that he worked in close association with the other co accused persons towards attainment of the objects behind the conspiracy and he also actively participated in the landings and transportation of arms and ammunitions and explosives which H 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A landed at Shekhadi. It is also very much clear from his confession that he parked a scooter laden with explosives and fitted with a time pencil detonator in the Diamond Market. Confessional Statements of co-accused B

#84. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the appellant has also been disclosed in the confessional statements of the following co-accused. The legality and acceptability of the confessions of the co-accused has already been considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion. The C said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant (A-15) are summarized hereinbelow: D E F G Confessional Statement of Mohammed Shoaib Mohammed Kasam Ghansar (A-9) Confessional statement of A-9 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (13:10 hrs.) and 22.04.1993 (00:30 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishan Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. The following facts emerge from the abovesaid confession with regard to the appellant (A-15): (i) A-9 used to see Gani (A-11), Rafique Madi (A-46), lmtiyaz (A-15), Parvez (A-12), Shafi, Salim and Anwar in the office at Dongri. (ii) A-15 was present in the house of Anwar on 12.03.1993, when Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10), Mohd. Shoeb and Parvez (A-12) went there with three suitcases filled with ROX. (iii) A-15 was present along with other co-accused persons at Al-Hussaini building on 12.03.1993 when Anwar inserted time based detonators into the black chemical filled up in the dickeys of the scooters. H Confessional Statement of Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10) ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J] 725 Confessional statement of A-1 O under Section 15 of A TADA has been recorded on 23.04.1994 (18:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The following facts emerge from the abovesaid confession with regard to the appellant (A-15): (i) (ii) A-15 used to attend Tiger's office at Dongri and assisting in the activities of Hawala transactions including the delivery and receipt of funds. B A-15 was asked by Anwar to reach the residence of Tiger Memon at Al-Hussaini building on C 12.03.1993. (iii) A-15 took an explosives laden scooter fitted with a time pencil detonator at the instance of Anwar. Confessional Statement of Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11) D Confessional statement of A-11 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (22:35 hrs.) and 18.04.1993 (01:15 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A-11, with reference to the E appellant, stated as under:- (i) A-15 was working with Tiger Memon. (ii) A-15 was present at the Al-Hussaini Building on 27/ 28th January along with co-accused Tiger Memon, F Anwar, Shafi, Yakub Memon, Rahin Memon, Parvez Shaikh, Rafique Madi and from there all of them went to Mhasla and Shekhadi for landings. (iii) A-15 also visited Shekhadi for 2-3 times and on G account of landing not taking place for a few days, they stayed at Hotel Vasava and, thereafter, at Hotel Big Splash, Alibaug. (iv) On 02/03.02.1993, he visited the Waghani Tower H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A B along with A-15 and others and smuggled goods were also brought in using vehicles by co-accused Tiger, Javed Chikna, Dadabhai (A~17), Dawood Taklya and Anwar. The said goods were unloaded and checked by Tiger Memon (AA) and were found to be handgrenades, rifles, pistols; .black soap, rounds, electric wires, which were reloaded in vehicles and sent to Bombay. (v) A-15 was present at Sandra along with Anwar. C (vi) . On 07.03.1993, he told the accused that Tiger Memon had returned from Dubai. Confessional Statement of Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh (A-12) Confessional statement of A-12 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 18.04.1993 (14:00 hrs.) and 21.04.1993 (06:50 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A-12, with reference to the appellant, stated as under: (i) He was working in the office of Tiger Memon. (ii) A-15 took the accused (A-12) to Al-Hussaini Building on the pretext that they have to go for Tiger's work wherefrom all the accused persons present there including Tiger Memon left for Mhasla. (iii) He went to the Shekhadi Coast along with other associates to help Tiger Memon (AA) in the landing of arms and ammunitions and explosives, which was delayed and effected on 03.02.1993, and alsp in the transportation. of the said material to the Waghani Tower and then to Bombay using vehicles containing secret cavities for the said purposes. (iv) In the second week of February 1993, he again D E F G H ' ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 727 went along with other associates and helped Tiger A in landing at Shekhadi Coast and transportation of the consignments to the Tower and thereafter to Bombay. (v) Tiger Memon gave two passports to Mohammed B Hussain with the instruction to hand over the same . to the appellant. (vi) He was present at the residence. of Anwar Theba, when Anwar arid A-44 left in Maruti Van with A-9, A-1 O and A-12 for planting the bombs. C (vii) Thereafter, he reached Al-Hussaini building when Anwar inserted time device detonator in the dickey of the scooters containing black chemical. Confessional Statement of Dawood @ Dawood Taktya D Mohd. Phanse @ Phanasmiyan (A-14) Confessional statement of A-14 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (17:55 hrs.) and 17.04.1993 (19:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), E the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A-14, in his confessional statement, iNith reference to the appellant stated that on 19th January, A-15 along with Rafiq Madi contacted him and informed about the confirmation of his ticket for Dubai and also escorted him to the Airport. F Confessional Statement of Sayyed Abdul Rehman Shaikh (A-28) Confessional statement of A-28 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 23.04.1993 (17:00 hrs.) and G 01.05:1993 (23:30 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. His confession further establishes that the appellant (A-15) was a close associate of Tiger Memon and was involved in smuggling activities with him. H 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A Confessional Statement of Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar Qureshi (A-29) Confessional statement of A-29 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 18.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and B 21.05.1993 (14:45 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. His confession reveals the following facts: c (i) The appellant came along with Tiger Memon. (ii) He actively participated in the landing of arms ammunitions and explosives at Shekhadi. He was driving the jeep and transported the arms and ammunitions and explosives smuggled at Shekhadi from Waghani Tower to Bombay. D Confessional Statement of Mohd. Mushtaq Moosa Tarani (A-44) Confessional statement of A-44 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 26.05.1993 (16:55 hrs.) and E 22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone 111, Bombay. His confession reveals the following facts: (i) The appellant was present at the house of Anwar. On the instructions of Anwar, he along with A-44, visited the Al-Hussaini building to see A-10 and left a message with the watchman of the said building to send A-10 with the vehicle at the residence of Anwar. The appellant returned along with A-44. The appellant was also present when A-44 and Anwar left in the Maruti Van which was brought by A-10 alongwith two other boys. (ii) Anwar showed the time based detonator pencils before the appellant. F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 729 (iii) The appellant (A-15) was present at the Al-Hussaini A building when A-44 returned after planting the suitcase and told that he had planted the suitcase in the room as per the conspiratorial plan. Confessional Statement of Mohd. Rafiqu@ Rafiq Madi Musa Biyariwala (A-46) B Confessional statement of A-46 under Section 15 of TADA has been r~corded on 21.04.1993 (19:00 hrs.) and 23.04.1993 (21:25 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. His statement reveals as under: C (i) (ii) The appellant worked with Tiger Memon and attended his Dongri office for assisting him in the business activities apart from landing operations of the smuggled goods. He along with the accused and other associates assisted Tiger Memon in the landing at Shekhadi which took place on 03.02.1993, after delay of 2-3 days, and then he arranged for transportation along with Dadabhai (A-17) and others. Confessional Statement of Sahikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57) Confessional statement of A-57 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (12:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone 111, Bombay. His confession corroborates with the testimony of other accused with cegard to the fact that the appellant (A-15) was working with Tiger Memon. D E F Confessional Statement of Sujjad Alam @ Iqbal Abdul G Hakim Nazir (A-61) Confessiona1 statement of A-61 under Section 15 of TADA was recorded on 21.04.1993 by Shri K.L. Bishnoi (PW- 193). His confessional statement corroborates with the H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A abovesaid confessions that the appellant (A-15) participated in the landing in February, 1993. Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @ Nasir Dhakla (A-64) B Confessional statement of A-64 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 22.01.1995 and 24.01.1995 by Shri H.C. Singh (PW-474), the then Superintendent of Police, CBl/SPE/STF, New Delhi. The confession of A-64 corroborates with the abovesaid confessions that the appellant (A-15) C participated in the landing in February, 1993. Confessional Statement of Gulam Hafiz Shaikh @ Baba (A-73) Confessional statement of A-73 under Section 15 of TADA D has been recorded on 15.05.1993 (22:05 hrs.) and 17.05.1993 (01 :45 hrs.) by Shri Vinod Balwant Lokhande, the then DCP, Airport Zone, Bombay. His confession reveals as under: (i) A- 73 knows Tiger Memon and his partners including the appellant and other co-accused. (ii) A-15 was present at the Tower in Mhasla along with other co-accused. (iii) A-15 was present while unloading of goods was being done from a truck and also at the time of re loading in the Jeep and tempo. Confessional Statement of Mobina @ Baya Moosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) Confessional statement of A-96 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 30.04.1993 (18:00 hrs.) and 02.05.1993 (18:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. She stated that she knew the appellant (A-15) as one of Tiger's men. E F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 731

#85. From the aforementioned confessional statements, it A is established that: (i) The appellant was closely associated with Tiger Memon. (ii) He was also a close associate of Anwar. B (iii) He used to work with Tiger Memon and assiting him in his smuggling activities. (iv) A-15 actively participated in the landings of arms and ammunitions and explosives which took place at Shekhadi. on both the occasions. c (v) He was present at Anwar's house on 12.03.1993 when the other co-accused came there with. 3 suitcases filled with ROX. D (vi) The appellant knew that time based detonators were being used to cause explosions at the various · seleeted targets. (vii) He was also present at Al-Hussaini building on 12.03.1993 at the time when the bombs (vehicles) were being taken to the various locations (targets) selected. (viii) He drove the scooter filled. with ROX, fitted with time device detonator and parked the same at Diamond House. E F Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

#86. Apart from the. aforesaid evidence, the involvement and G the role of the appellant in the conspiracy as stated above is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses which are as under: Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2) H 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A The relevant material in his evidence is as under:- (i) He knows the appellant as 'lmtiyaz'; (ii) He identified the appellant before the court; B (iii) nger Memon, Anwar, A-15, Nazir and one other person were present at Hotel Big Splash; c D (iv) A meeting was held at about 12.00 p.m. in Hotel Big Splash by Tiger Memon in which PW-2 and the appellant (A-15) and many others were present, thereafter, they all left for Shekhadi coast. From the evidence of the Approver (PW2), it is duly established that the appellant participated in the landing at Shekhadi along with other co-accused persons. Deposition of Deepak Narottamdas Seth (PW-21) PW-21 is an eye-witness. At the relevant time, he was a Broker in Zaveri Bazaar. The following facts emerge from his E deposition: (i) On 12.03.1993, at 2 p.m., he saw the appellant (A- 15) quarrelling with a feriwala in front of Diamond House. (ii) The appellant forcibly parked a blue scooter bearing registration no. MH-02-C-2924. (iii) The appellant left the scooter on the pretext of urgent work and said that he would take it away after 5 to 10 minutes. (iv) He identified the appellant before the Court. (v) Earlier, he had identified the appellant in the TIP held on 13.05.1993 by Sharad Vichare (PW-459) for which Memorandum Panchnama Exhibit Nos. F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 733 1459 and 1459-A were prepared by him. A Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of PW-21 is contradictory to that of PW-453, who is a Constable and PW-547, Pl Jadhav, in view of the above, we are unable to accept the said argument. Equally, her claim that PW-21 is not trustworthy and his evidence should be discarded, is liable to be rejected. B Deposition of Tukaram Ganpat Shelambkar (PW-25) PW-25 is an eye-witness to the occurrence. He was a c hawker in Zaveri Bazaar. From his deposition, the following facts emerge: (i) He had an argument with the appellant as he wanted to park the scooter at the place where PW- 25 wanted to sell his goods. D (ii) The appellant parked the scooter and left away. (iii) He identified the Bajaj blue coloured scooter MH 2924 (Article 22) which was parked on 12.03.1993 E at the Police Station. (iv) He identified the appellant in the TIP held on 21.03.1993 and 13.05.1993 conducted by Shri Vasant Kamble (PW-462) and Shri Sharad Vichare (PW-459) respectively. Though he failed to identify F the appellant in the Court, he identified the scooter which was parked at Dhanji Road. From the materials on record, it is clear that the id§mtity of the appellant who parked the blue scooter bearing registration G no. MH-02-C-2924 has been established.

#87. It was contended by Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant that PW-25 has not identified the appellant before the Court, so his evidence should not be relied H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R A upon. It is to be noted that the witness deposed before the Court on 13.12.1995, i.e., after a lapse of two and a half years after the incident. After a gap of more than two years, it is plausible that memory could have faded and accordingly the witness failed to identify him before the court. However, during the identification parades, which were conducted soon after the incident, PW-25 identified the appellant to be the person who quarreled with him and parked the scooter at Diamond House. The deposition of PW 25 also corroborates with the evidence of PW-21. 8 C Subhash Dattaram Jhadav (PW-547) PW-54 7 is a police officer and was attached with L.T. Marg Police Station as Pl. He deposed as under: D E F (i) He reached the spot along with Panch witnesses and Inspector Nand Kumar Chaugule (PW-444). (ii) He saw the dickey of the scooter full of a blackish oily substance with pallets and he also saw one pipe and three tubes embedded in the said material. (iii) He took sample of the blackish material and the remaining material was taken out and sealed in bags. (iv) He drew a spot Panchnama being Exhibit 1447 The above fact is also corroborated by the deposition of Nandkumar Chaugule (PW-444), who was an Inspector and has deposed about the fact of going to Diamond House and G defusing the detonator which was inserted in the blackish substance. The abovesaid articles were seized and sent to FSL for opinion vide letter Exhibit No. 1866. The FSL Report Exhibit No. 1867 confirms that the material which was taken out from H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 735 the dickey of the scooter was highly explosive substance. A Purchase of Bajaj Scooter The scooter bearing registration No. MH-02-C-2924 (Article 22) was purchased by Anwar Theba (AA) which fact B. has been proved by Shamshudin Shaikh (PW-268), VifhO was engaged in the business of buying and selling motorbikes and scooters. He deposed that he knew Anwar Theba (AAfand had sold the said scooter to him for a cost of Rs. 19,000/- which was paid by him in cash. The deposition of PW-268 is marked as Exhibit 1113. C Deposition of Shankar 8. More (PW 275) PW-275 was working as a Pump Operator for water pump installed at Nutan Nagar Cooperative Society. Besides this, he used to clean the vehicles of the members residing in the society for which they used to pay him. He identified the scooter bearing Registration No. MH-02-C-2924 (Art. 22) and informed that it belonged to Anwar Bhai as he used to clean the scooter for him. 0 E

#88. In the earlier part of our order, we have expressed our views about the acceptability of the statement of Md. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2), validity of the confessional statement of the accused as well as co-accused implicating the appellant (A- 15) and his relationship with Tiger as well as the part played F by him in association witti him. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for discarding his confession. However, in view of the explanation and the evidence of 1.0.s and recording officers, discussion and ultimate conclusion of the Designated Court, we reject her request. The appellant's involvement in G landing, his association with Tiger Memon, participation in planting scooter bomb have been fully established by the prosecution. We agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Designated Court. . Sentence: H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A

#89. Even at the beginning, Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant highlighted that out of the life imprisonment, the appellant had served nearly 14 years in jail. She also highlighted that the appellant is suffering with AIDS/ HIV+ and is a sick person. She also placed his treatment B particulars furnished by J .J. Hospital and recent medical reports showing his CD Count and his Blood Count. She further pointed out that in spite of continuous treatment, even at this stage, he is suffering from AIDS. As a matter of fact, considering his health condition, this Court has granted him interim bail on C medical grounds and that is being continued even now. The fact that the appellant is suffering from AIDS/HIV+ has not been disputed by the CBI. Taking note of all these aspects including the fact that he was in jail nearly for 14 years, while confirming the conviction and sentence, in view of special circumstances, though the life sentence is the appropriate sentence for the proved charges, we order that there is no need to send him back to prison. In the peculiar circumstance, we make it clear that the period already undergone would be sufficient and with this direction, we dispose of his appeal. D E Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2007 Smt. Vim al Thapa vyto Late Somnath Kakaram Thapa (A-112) ... Appellant(s) vs. F The State of Maharashtra .. .. . Respondent( s)

#90. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned counsel appeared for the appellant, who is wife of A-112 and Mr. Mukul Gupta - learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI). G H

#91. Late Shri S.K. Thapa - Accused No. 112 died during the pendency of this appeal because of lungs cancer. His widow has stepped in and is pursuing this appeal. The above said appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2006 and 20.07.2007 ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF · MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 737 respectively, whereby A-112 (husband ofthe appellant tierein) ·A. was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993.

#92. Late Shri S.K. Thapa belonged to the 1972 batch of ·Indian Custom Excise Service. In the year 1993, he was posted as Additional Collector of Marine and Preventive Wing of ·. Customs, Collectorate at Bombay. The other wing of the Collectorate was Rummaging and Intelligence and at the relevant time, Shri M.N. Dholphode (PW-171) was the Additional Collector and the Customs (Preventive) Collectorate C was headed by Stiri S.K. Bhardwaj (PW-470). 8 Charges:

#93. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against D · all the co-conspirators including A-112. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 · at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and E Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law F established,. to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e: Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable G substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of cir damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to H 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like RDX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] · 739 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences A under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B (1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and B within my cognizance." . ·In addition to the above-said principal charge of· conspiracy, A-112 was also charged on the following counts: "In addition, to Charge First, you accused, Somnath C Kakaram Thapa is also charged for having committed the following offences in pursuance to the Criminal Conspiracy described in Charge First: - At head Secondly; That you Somnath Kakaram Thapa D during the period you were posted as Additional Collector of Customs, Preventive, Bombay and particularly during the period from January, 1993 to February, 1993 in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of its object abetted a~d 'knowingly facilitated E the commission of terrorists' acts and acts preparatory to terrorists' act, i.e., bomb blast and such other acts which were committed in Bombay and its suburbs on 12.03.1993 by intentionally aiding, and abetting Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, Mohmed Dosa and Mushtaq @ Ibrahim @ Tiger Abdul Razak Memon and their associates and knowingly facilitated smuggling of arms, ammunitions and explosives which were smuggled into India by Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, Mohammed Dossa, Mushtaq @ Ibrahim @ Tiger Abdul Razak Memon and their associates for the purpose of committing terrorists acts by your non- interference G · inspite of the fact that you had specific· information and knowledge that arms, ammunitions and explosives were being smuggled into the country by terrorists and as Additional Collector of Customs, Preventive, you were legally bound to prevent it and that you thereby committed H F 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A 8 an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and within my cognizance."

#94. The charges mentioned above were proved against A-112 and he had been convicted and sentenced for the above said charges as under: Conviction and Sentence: (i) A-112 has been convicted for t~e offence of conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 120-8 of IPC read c with the offences described at head firstly and sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge firstly) (ii) A-112 has also been convicted under Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of offences at head secondly and D sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,60,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge secondly) Evidence E

#95. The evidence against A-112 is in the form of:- (i) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co accused); (ii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and F (iii) documentary evidence. . ,. .- . ' 96. It is brought to our notice that A-112 was one of the two Additional Collectors who were posted at Bombay. He was Additional Collector (Marine and Preventive) Wing and 8 G Assistant Collectors were reporting to him including Shri R.K. Singh (A-102) who was Assistant Collector for Alibaug Division. Confessional Statements of co-accused: H Confessional Statement of Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF . MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 7 41 Mechanic Chacha (A-136) A

#97. Confessional statement of A-136 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 09.11.1999 (15:40 hrs.) and 10.11.1999 (09:00 hrs.) by Shri O.P. Chhatwal (PW-684), the then S.P., CBl-STF, New Delhi. A-136 was working as a driver 8 for Mohd. Dossa (AA). A brief summary of his confession with regard to A-112 is reproduced here.under: (i) About 6-8 months prior to the blasts, a meeting was held between Mohd. Dossa and the Collector Thapa Saheb (A-112) in President Hotel which was C organized by Customs Officer Iqbal Singh. (ii) A-112 went to the Hotel with Iqbal Singh. (iii) (iv) A-112 told Mohd. Dossa that he can continue with his smuggling activities but for that he has to give D some cases of seized goods of smuggling .. On 09.01.1993, arms were unloaded at Dighi Jetty. . '··. . ' Upon perusal of the confession of A-136 it is clear that A- E 112 agreed io render help to Moh.d. Dossa for the smuggling activities.

#98. It has been contended by Mr. Jaspal Singh on behalf. · of A-112 that the fact that A-112 met Mohd, Dossa has been held against him by the trial court, however, merely meeting with F a smuggler is ·not sufficient since his job was to control smuggling and Customs Offic~rs often mix with smugglers to make seizures or increase the number of their informants. It is also contended that there is no direct evidence that A-1.12 aide.d Mohd. Dosa or·other smugglers. It is further contended G by Mr. Jaspal Singh that the confession of A-136 makes it clear that meeting of A-112 with Mohd. Dqsa took place before the conspiracy started. '

#99. Jn an answer, the counsel for the CBI· submitted that H 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A although ex-facie it appears that the case against A-112 is of dereliction of duty and negligence, a closer scrutiny of the entire evidence on record would show that the appellant had a connection and understanding with the smugglers in order to facilitate a safe passage to them. It is further submitted that at s the same time A-112 has created the record to show that he has done possibly everything in his official capacity to prevent the smuggling of arms and ammunitions.

#100. It has been established through the confession of A- 136 that there was a meeting between A-136, Mohd. Dossa C and Dawood Ibrahim, where they agreed to take revenge for the atrocities committed against the Muslims. A similar meeting of Tiger Memon with Dawood Ibrahim and A-14 has also been proved through the confession of A-14. The confession of A- 136 also establishes that arms and ammunitions were sent by D Mustafa Dosa, who was the brother of Mohd. Dosa, for which A-134 was instructed by Mohd. Dosa to make arrangements. Apart from the confession of A-136 which indicates the link between Mohd. Dosa and A-112, it has also emerged that A- 112 was acquainted with Tiger Memon. E Confessional Statement of Mohmed Sultan Sayyed (A-90) Confessional statement of A-90 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 29.04.1993 and 30.04.1993 (14:30 hrs.) by Shri C. Prabhakar (PW-186), the then Superintendent of F Police, Thane Rural, Camp Alibaug (Raigad). A-90 was working as a Superintendent, Marine and Preventive Wing of Customs, Alibaug Circle. A-90 was working under the orders of Shri R.K. Singh, (A-102), Assitant Collector. In his confessional statement A-90 stated that A-102 had told him that A-112 had asked him G (A-102) to meet Dawood Phanse (A-14) who was a landing agent.

#101. It was contended by Mr. Jaspal Singh on behalf of A-112 that the confessional statements of the co-accµsed relied H upon by the prosecution were recorded by a police officer and ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 743 it i:. not safe to base the conviction on the said confessions A under Section 15 of TADA. This aspect has been elaborately dealt with in the appeal of A-1. In view of our conclusion therein, there is no need to discuss the same once again. Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

#102. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement and the role of A-112 in the conspiracy, as stated above, is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses which are as under: Deposition of Akbarkhan Munawarkhan Pathan (PW-98) PW-98 was an Inspector posted in the Night Mobile Patrolling Unit of Marine and Prevention Wing of Customs Department. From his deposition, the following facts emerge: (i) He knew A-112 as he was his superior officer in the year 1993. (ii) PW-98 identified A-112 in the court during the dock proceedings. (iii) On 30.01.1993, A-112 gave instructions to other officers to assemble in the Thane office. B c D E (iv) After the meeting, they all first went to lndraprastha Hotel at Nagothane and then reached Purar Phata F in Raigad district by sunset following A-112. (v) PW-98 deposed that A-112 gave officers their positions at the spot. (vi) PW-98 deposed that A-112 told the officers that G contraband was to be smuggled into India by Tiger Memon and he \/Viii. be coming in a commander jeep and would be sitting next to the driver with his body guards sitting at the rear side, fully armed and in a ready position to fire. A-112 also told the H 744 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. officers that a truck or tempo will be carrying the contraband following the jeep. (vii) PW-98 deposed that A-112 told that they have to intercept the convoy and affect the seizure. (viii) PW-98 deposed that they took positions and waited at the spot for about 5 hours upto midnight and thereafter A-112 called them up and asked to be in touch with him in Bombay office. Thereafter, the operation was called off. (ix) On 31.01.1993, the officers along with A-112 went to Dehan Phata where he gave the same instructions as. given at Purar Phata and surveillance was kept for the same person (Tiger Memon). After waiting for six hours, A-112 called off the ambush as no convoy arrived carrying contraband. ' (x) (xi) Thereafter, no instructions were received from A- 112 after 31.01.1993. PW-98 also prnved Exh. Nos. 530 and 531, Reports prepared by him about the operations at Purar Phata and Dehan Phata in the night of 301 31.0f 1993 respectively. (xii) PW-98 state.d that there was discussion. between Mr. Madhav Sriram Agharkar (PW-9!i!) (~enior most Inspector in the raiding par:fy) and A-112 \NhQ made a suggestion that we should maintain the · watch near the junction. .. •' . ' , (xiii) PW-98 deposed that he does· not remember the junction today but stated lhat,A-112 told Mr .. Agarj<ar . · that the said place was ihe b~st place to keep the watch and as per the infOfrJ1ation, the -said place was the perfect p[ace for interception. .. A B c D E F ' G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK. MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 7 45 (xiv) On 31st January, in the night around 10:30 p.m., A- A 112 had sent a party to Shekhadi to see if there was any activity there. PW-98 and Mr. Mhatre were also there in that party.

#103. Upon perusal of the aforesaid deposition, it is clear B that A-112 had specific information that contraband was being smuggled into India by Tiger Memon and will be transported in a Truck or Tempo and that Tiger Memon will accompany the same and will be seated next to the driver and body guards will sit in the rear side armed with guns in ready to shoot C position.

#104. It is also clear that the above fact shows that A-112 · was aware of even minute details of travel of Tiger Memon with contraband. It is further submitted that it is also clear that A- 112 also did not pay any heed to the suggestion of PW-99 who D . was a senior Inspector and suggested a better place for watch. Deposition of Madhav Sriram. Agharkar (PW-99)

#105. PW-99. was an lns.pector of Customs (Marine and . Preventive) Wing. From his testimony, the following facts E emerge: · (i) A-112 called him on 30.01.1993 and told him to reach Thane office. · (ii) He was ·further instructed to arrange for a Tempo and ·a Maruti Van. . . (iii) · A-112 told him that he had specific information about the landing of .contraband silver on a · particular route at a particular place. F G (iv)· A-112 then asked PW-99 to suggest the best place for keeping a watch. As the information had revealed that the contraband silver was to be landed somewhere at Shekhadi and Shrivardhan H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. area and the same was to be transported via Mhasala-Goregaon road, PW-99 suggested him two spots for keeping a watch at Purar Phata and Dehan Phata (v) A-112 asked all of them to leave the Thane Office . and to proceed towards Nagothane. He also accompanied them. (vi) All the officers including A-112 left Nagothane at about 5.00 p.m. and went to Purar Phata and reached there by sunset. (vii) After reaching Purar Phata, A-112 called the other Inspectors who were accompanying the squad and disclosed the information that the 'contraband silver would be transported in transport vehicles such as Truck or Tempo and that Tiger Memon would be piloting the said transport vehicles in the open Commander Jeep and he would be sitting beside the driver with three to four bodyguards sitting behind him and all of them would be fully armed'. (viii) Before taking positions at 'Purar Phata', PW-99 told A-112 that junction of Mhsala- Saimorbaugh- Mangaon Road and Mhsala- Goregaon Road would be better for keeping surveillance and suggested the said spot in order to cover both the said routes coming from Mhasala to Bombay. (ix) A-112 responded and said that his information was specific that goods will go through 'Purar Phata' Road. (x) At about midnight, A-112 called off the watch/ operation (xi) Again, they went to Dehan Phata where A-112 told A B c D E F G H • ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF,CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J] 747 them that the previous day information was also for Dehan Phata. (xii) Thereafter, the operation was called off at midnight by A-112 who also told that he will give information if watch has to be continued on the next day: PW- 99 deposed that no information was received from A-112. (xiii) The witness also proved the reports regarding operation on 30th and 31st January 1993, bearing Exh. Nos. 530 and 531 which were prepared by PW-98. (xiv) He identified A-112 before the court. (xv) In the second week of February 1993, A-112 had asked PW-99 to find out whether any chemical in liquid form, packed in barrels, had been landed by Tiger Memon at Shekhadi. Hence, the deposftion of PW-99 corroborates and ·supports the deposition of PW-98.

#106. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned counsel for the defence contended that A-112 acted immediately after he received the information about landing/smuggling of arms and set up an ambush. The fact that ambush could have been set up at a better location (i.e., at the intersection of two roads going to Bombay) with benefit of hindsight cannot be held against A-112. A B c D E F

#107. It is further contended that no evidence establishes that A-112 d~liberately set up the ambush· at one road so as to permit the vehicles carrying arrns to take the other road to G Bombay.

#108. The above submissions are unacceptable. The evidence of PW-99 establishes that the setting up of the ambush at the place of choice of A-112 was done deliberately H 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) .15 S.C .. R. A by him. A-112 told his subordinates that he has specific information about the particular route and time of landing. A- 112 also told them about Tiger Memon. A-112 further told them that he has specific information that they will go through Purar Phata. A-112 called off the vigil at midnight and does not B organize the same after 31st. Ex-facie it appears that it could have been an error of judgment of the officer. None of the information on record shows the smuggling of arms would be conducted by Tiger Memon; the said goods would be transported through Purar Phata; and it would be done only on c 30th and 31st night.

#109. From the topography of the area, it is also clear that the vigil at Purar Phata was kept deliberately to provide a safe passage to the smugglers: · D E F As rightly pointed out by the prosecution, from the aforesaid topography, it is clear that the ambush could have G been kept at the junction as suggested by PW-99 which could have covered both the routes to Bombay. The materials clearly show that A-112 knowingly directed Nakabandi at 'Purar Phata' and "Behar Phat<1' which left Sai-Morba Road route open for the smugglers to travel safely. 'H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM. J.] 749 110: It is also brought to our notice that A-112 also spread A rumour of a specific information when there was none. It is also not clear as to why the vigil was called off at midnight when as a matter of practice smuggling takes place after midnight. It is also not clear why no vigil was kept after 31st night of January, 1993. All the aforesaid was justified on--the basis of non- B · existence of specific information.

#111. The above said conduct of A-112 has to be considered in the light of the fact that A-112 was duly informed by his superior that they have intelligence that ISi may send C weapons along with silver or gold. The said information requested the. Officer to be alert. It is also to be seen that the information of the above said landing was the first such . information after the alert notice of 25.01.1993. The said information, amongst others, has been proved by PW-470. D [)eposition of SR Bharadwai (PW-470)

#112. PW-470 was working as Collector of Customs (Preventive) at Bombay. From his testimony, the following facts emerge: E (i) He was the senior officer and A-112 was working under him. (ii) On 24/25.01.1993, he received information from DRI that some ISi syndicate located in Middle-East F ·may try to smuggle contraband items into India. He told A"112 "and A-102 about this information. (iii) A-112 told him in the end of January that there was no landing of contraband since either the G information was leaked or the movement of customs officials was known. PW-470 told A-112 to ask the local officers to keep the track of the said information. A perusal of deposition of PW-470 establishes that he H 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A asked A-112 to ask local officers to keep track of the said information and further he had issued a letter being Exhibit No. 1536 informing Mr. R.K. Singh (A-102) about landing of large quantity of automatic weapons in next 15-30 days. This letter was copied to A-112 also. The evidence of PW-470 has to be B considered in the light of the conduct of A-112, emerging from the evidence of PW-98 and PW-99. Deposition of Bhaskar Krishanji Naik (PW-168) PW-168 was working as a Superintendent, Customs C (Marine and Preventive) Wing since 28.12.1992, in Central Intelligence Unit (C.l.U.) at Everest House, Bombay. He identified in the Court the entry in the Inward Register marked as X-181 pertaining to the confidential letter written by PW-470 to R.K. Singh and which was also forwarded to A-112 stating that large quantity of automatic weapons along with contraband items like gold and silver were likely to land around Bombay in the next 15-20 days, and therefore, necessary action should be taken. D

#113. The deposition of this witness proves that A-112 had E been informed well in advance that landing of arms was going · to take place and it could happen anytime within 15-20 days from the time the letter was written, i.e., 25.01.1993.

#114. lnspite of clear information that large quantity of F automatic weapons will land in next 15 days, A-112 only kept ambush for 2 days. and that too at wrong places and also. spread a rumour that the place was appropriate, since he has a specific information. G Deposition of Vishwambhal M. Doiphode (PW.171)

#115. PW-171 was Additional Collector of Customs (Rummaging and Intelligence) Bombay. From his testimony, the following facts emerge: H (i) He knew A-112 as he was also working under the ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 751 Collector of Custom (Preventive), Shri S.K. A Bharadwaj (PW-470). (ii) The word 'Panther' is used to denote 'Additional Collector'. (iii) On the night of 01.02.1993, he received a call at B about 2 a.m. from his sources informing him that landing of contraband was taking place at Mhasla. PW-171 immediately told the same to A-112. (iv) A-112, thereafter, gave an alert message to Mhasla, C Banko! and Alibaug divisions. It is pointed out by the prosecution that deposition of PW- 171 clearly est.ablishes that A-112 alerted the customs officials at Bankot and Alibaug also whereas the information received was for landing at Mhasla only. 0

#116. It is argued on the side of the CBI that the paper work of giving alert was done by A-112 since the message was given by an Additional Collector and something was to be shown to have been done. Exhibit 2594 - X-711 is the VHF Radio E . logbook. The relevant extract of message reads as under: "Something has happened at Banko! therefore maximum alert to be kept at D-31 division starting immediately". F It shows that A-112 had asked to keep a strict vigil at Bankot in the face of clear and specific information that the landing was to take place at Mhasla. The said. specific information was distorted as well as converted into a vague message that something is happening in the Alibaug division which is a very big division. In view of the specific information G given by a senior officer, the message circulated by A-112 about Banko! was completely misleading since B.ankot is about 45 kms. from Mhasla. Deposition of Liladhar Dattaray Mhatre (PW-172) H 752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A

#117. PW-172 was an Officer in Central Excise Department in Bombay. From his testimony, the following facts emerge: (i) He received information on 29.01.1993 from his sources that landing of silver was to take place at Shekhadi on 29/31.01.1993. (ii) He immediately told A-112 about this information. (iii) PW-172 received information after about 7-8 days (around 5th or 6th February) that instead of silver, landing of some chemical had taken place on 03.02.1993 at Shekhadi. He told A-112 about this information and A-112 said 'kya ho sakta hat'? (what can be done) and in cross PW-172 says 'Acha thik hai, main dekhta huin kya hoga' (let me see what can be done). B c D

#118. The conduct of A-112 has to be considered in the light of the letter dated 25.01.1993 proved by PW-470. It may also be considered that the second landing could have been obstructed, if immediate action on the said letter was taken. E Even the said arms and ammunitions which landed on 03.02.1993 could have been traced, if the said information was shared with the Customs Department as well as the Police. The appellant not only avoided alerting the Department, but also did not share the said piece of information till 25.03.1993 with the F Department.

#119. It has been contended by learned senior counsel for A-112 that he was surprised to hear about the landing of chemicals instead of silver and thus it can be inferred that A- G 112 was not aware of the landing of ROX at She.khadi. As per the letter issued by PW-4 70, the information was specific that automatic weapons were to land in next 15-20 days near Bombay. lnspite of this clear information, A-112 only kept ambush for two days and told the officers on duty that he will issue directions, if further ambush is required. We are also H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 753 satisfied that A-112 deliberately did not keep a vigil at the A required· place and even after the information tl:le chemical had landed and he did not take any steps to further pass on the information until 25.03.1993. It may also be seen in the light of his conduct of diverting attention of the Department from Mhasla to Banko! despite there being specific information from a senior B officer of landing on 1st/2nd of February. · Deposition of Vivek Vishwanath Kadam (PW-163) .120. PW-163 was Inspector of Customs, Mari11e Preventive. From his testimony, the following fact emerges: C (i) (i) A-112, in a meeting of Customs officials told S.K. Bharadwaj (PW-470) and other officers present that 60 drums of liquid chemicals had landed somewhere at the coast. The meeting took place D on 25.03.1993. A-112 did not tell in the meeting that he had received the information of landing that took place on 03.02.1993 on the next day itself. (ii) A-112 did not disclose that he had information about the landing any time before 25.03.1993. The above evidence. proves that A-112 had information about the landing that took place on 03.02.1993; however, he chose.not to share it with the other officers. Deposition of Prabhakar Natarajan (PW-152) PW-152 was an Inspector of Customs at Shrivardhan Post. From his testimony, the following facts emerge: (i) On 25.03.1993, a meeting was called by the Collector of Customs at the Customs Office at Murud where A-112 remarked that a landing of chemicals might have taken place at Shekhadi E F G H A B c D E F G 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. during the first week of February. (ii) Until the said date, i.e. 25.03.1993, S.N. Thapa had not taken any action regarding any landing of ROX which was said to have taken place at Shekhadi on 03.02.1993. (iii) A-112 did not tell the other officers in the meeting that he had information about the landing. Deposition of Saryuprasad Ramnivaj Maurya (PW-100) PW-100 was working in the Customs Office, Shrivardhan as an O.T.C. (Operator Tele Communication). His duty was to send and receive wireless messages. He deposed as under:- (i) He deposed that the record of message received and sent on wireless is maintained by recording the same in VHF/Wireless log book. (ii) He was shown the VHF radio log book for a period from 11.11.1992 to 06.04.1993; . (iii) He proved Exh. No. 534 (Box No. 17) in court which is the VHF Radio log for 02.02.1993. This message was received from Bombay by Additional Collector of Customs. A-112 was the then Additional Collector of Customs in Bombay. The entry of 02.02.1993 was marked as Exh. No. 534A. (iv) Panther word is wireless code for Additional Collector (i.e. A-112).

#121. In view of the above, the following facts emerge: (i) A-112 was fully aware of the information that the weapons of mass destruction may be smuggled to India along with silver and gold; H (ii) He kept vigil at a place which leaves room for the ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 755 smugglers to escape from another route to Bombay A under the guise of specific information; (iii) He failed to produce any such specific information ever; (iv) A-112 told that he has specific information that Tiger Memon is going to come through that route in a particular manner; B (v) Actually, there was no specific information that the smuggler was Tiger Memon and that he was to pass C through a particular route; (vi) The onus was on the accused to prove his specific information for a particular course of conduct undertaken by him; D (vii) He also spread rumour of specific ·information to mislead and misguide the Department so as to help the smugglers; (viii) He mis-directed the Department by distorting a E specific message of landing at Mhasla to be something happening at Banko! about 45 kilometers away from Mahasla, particularly, when the said information came from a senior officer of the Department; F (ix) He failed to explain as to why he did that; (x) He further failed to take account of what was done pursuant to the said information; (xi) He did not do anything on specific information that along with Silver some chemicals have arrived at Shekhadi on 03.02.1993; and (xii) Any timely action on the part of A-112 could have G H 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. traced the smuggled goods. The said action could have prevented second landing that took place subsequently.

#122. All the above said circumstances cumulatively establish the charges framed against A-112 at the trial. The said circumstances leave no room for any alternative hypothesis. We are also satisfied that pursuant to a conspiracy with Tiger Memon and his other co-conspirators, A-112 misused his official position in order to knowingly facilitate the terrorist act. A 8 c

#123. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established the guilt against the appellant and the Designated Court has rightly convicted him and sentenced him. Since he died during the pendency of this appeal, there D cannot be any direction except confirming the decision of the Designated Court and clarifying the position. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2007 E Muzammil Umar Kadri (A-25) ... Appellant(s) The State of Maharashtra through CBl-STF, Mumbai vs. AND F ... Respondent(s) Criminal Appeal No. 1028 of 2012 The State of Maharashtra through CBl-STF, Mumbai vs. ... Appellant(s) G Muzammil Umar Kadri (A-25) ... Respondent(s)

#124. Heard Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant (A-25) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the CBI. H

#125. Criminal Appeal No. 1440 of 2007 is directed against ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 757 the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.10.2006 and 30.05.2007 respectively, whereby the. appellant (A-25) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. Criminal Appeal No. 1028. of 2012 is filed by the CBI against the acquittal of A-25 insofar as the charge framed at head firstly, i.e., Conspiracy. For convenience, henceforth, we will refer accused (A-25) as the appellant. Charges:

#126. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-25). The material part of the said charge is reproduced herein: A B c D E "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles,. carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to_ cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies G of services essential to the 1ife of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators. hand grenades and high explosives like RDX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of H F 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 98 (1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.] 759 the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the A Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance." In addition to the aforesaid principal charge of conspiracy, the appellant (A-25) was also charged on other counts which 8 are summarized as under: At head Secondly; He committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA by participating in the landing and transportation of smuggled arms, ammunitions and explosives at Shekhadi for the purpose of committing C terrorist acts. At head Thirdly; In or around January 1993, with intent to aid terrorists, he possessed 16 AK-56 rifles and 26 magazines in contravention of the provisions of the Arms D Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 1962 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of TADA. At head Fourthly; By possessing the aforementioned rifles and magazines, he committed an offence punishable under Se9tion 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1- A) and 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. Conviction & Sentence

#127. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the above said charges as under: E F (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA read with Section 120- B of IPC read with the offences described at head firstly and G sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge firstly) (ii) The appellant has also been convicted for the offence under Section 3(3) of TADA and sentenced to RI for 10 years H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge secondly) (ii) The appellant has also been convicted for the offence under Section 6 of TADA and sentenced to RI for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge thirdly) 8 (iii) The appellant has also been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1-A) and 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 bulno separate C sentence was awarded on the said count. (charge fourthly)

#128. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant (A-25), after taking us through the relevant materials relied on by the prosecution, submitted that firstly his own confession is D not voluntary and not genuine and, in any event, he retracted the same, hence, the conviction based on his confession is not sustainable. He also submitted that though the prosecution has relied on confessional statement of co-accused, particularly, Dawood @Dawood Taklya Mohd. Phanse@ Phanasmiyan (A- E 14), Khalil Ahmed Syed Ali Nazir (A-42) and Sujjad Alam @ Iqbal Abdul Hakim Nazir (A-61), they have not attributed to any specific role of the appellant A-25. He further submitted that the recoveries alleged to have been made by the prosecution are not acceptable and, in any event, it contained several infirmities. F G

#129. Learned counsel appearing for the CBI refuted all the above contentions and after basing reliance on oral and documentary evidence submitted that the prosecution has established the charges leveled against the appellant and the Designated Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him for life. Evidence

#130. The evidence against the appellant (A-25) is in the form of:- H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 761 (i) his own confession; (ii) · confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co accused}; (iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and (iv) documentary evidence. A B Confessional Statement of Muzammil Umar Kadri (A-25)

#131. The prosecution projected that the involvement of the appellant (A-25) in the conspiracy is evident from his own C confession recorded under Section 15 of TADA on 17.04.1993 (14:00 hrs.) and 20.04.1993 (12:00 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the then DCP, Zone-VIII., Bombay. ·

#132. It is seen that except the appellant, the recorc:ling o E officer (PW-492) asked all the persons to leave the Chamber and there was no one who could hear and see the proceedings of the same. Thereafter, PW-492 apprised about himself and also ascertained whether he has any complaint against the police and also informed him that he is not bound to make a statement and if such a statement is made, the same can be used against him. He also ascertained whether any police official or any other person threatened him to make a statement etc. After apprising all the formalities and after satisfying himself that the accused is willing to make a statement voluntarily, he directed the officer concerned for production of the accused on 19.04.1993 after expiry of 48 hours. It is further seen that he was produced on 20.04.1993 by API Gaikwad. Again, after putting several questions to ascertain his willingness and genuineness, PW-492 recorded his statement. Though learned G counsel for the appellant submitted that he was forced to make such a statement, a perusal of the entire proceedings clearly show that the officer, who recorded the confession, followed the procedure strictly and recorded hi_s statement after satisfying -~self that the accused is giving confession voluntarily without -ap.y:,pressure from any corner. F H 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A

#133. We were taken through the entire confession of the appellant. The confession of appellant (A-25) is summarized below:- B c D E F (i) At the relevant time, he was an auto-rickshaw driver. (ii) He was a resident of Mhasla and became acquainted with Dawood Taklya (A-14) who also lived in the same locality. He knew that Taklya was involved in the landing of smuggled goods. (iii) He also knew that Rahim Laundrywala (deceased accused) and Sharif Abdul Gafoor Parkar @ Dadabhai (A-17) were the partners of Dawood Taklya in the aforesaid activities. (iv) In or around March-April 1992, he was taken by Dawood Taklya to Shekhadi for unloading of smuggled silver and its transportation to a Tower, at which time, he saw Tiger Memon, Anwar and Shafi (AA). The silver was smuggled by Tiger Memon. (v) He was paid Rs. 1,200/- by Dawood Taklya for the said assignment. (vi) Again, in August, 1992, he was taken by Dawood Taklya to Shekhadi for unloading of smuggled silver and its transportation to Waghani Tower, at which time, Rahim Laundrywala and A-17 were also present. He was paid Rs. 1,500/- by Dawood Taklya. The silver was smuggled by Tiger Memon. G (vii) In January, 1993, he was called at the residence of Khalil Ahmed Sayed Ali Nasir (A-42) by Rahim Laundrywala and Shafi and was asked to keep 16 rifles and 32 cassettes at his residence, which he kept with him. H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 763 (viii) On 03.02.1993, he escorted the truck carrying the smuggled consignment from Borli to Waghani Tower where he saw Tiger Memon, Dawood Taklya, A-17, Anwar, Shafi and others. (ix) On 07 .02.1993, Dawood had taken the appellant to Shekhadi in the rickshaw of Sajjad Alam @ Iqbal Abdul Hakim Nazir (A-61) since the appellant had already sold his rickshaw. (x) On 07.02.1993, at about 11.30 a.m., Dawood Taklya had come to his house in the rickshaw of A- 61 and took 3 rifles and 6 magazines out of the 16 rifles and 32 magazines which were kept at his house and told that the message was received from Tiger Memon regarding the same. (xi) Thereafter, Dawood Taklya also took him in the rickshaw of A-61 to Shekhadi and they reached Shekhadi at about 9.00 p.m. A B c D (xii) Thereafter, Sajjad Alam was told to go to the Tower in the rickshaw and the appellant was asked to get down at Mehendadi. E F

#134. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant, by drawing our attention to Exh. 1654 (Hindi version of his confession) pointed out that there are certain overlappings and corrections, hence, in the absence of any explanation, the same cannot be used against him. In the light of the said contention, we have carefully verified the translated version in English. We find no substance in the said contention. On the other hand, at several places, A-25 conveyed his desire G to make a statement and at the end he informed the officer, who recorded the statement, that he understood everything and the entire recorded statement is true and acceptable. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the stand taken by the appellant. However, though the very same appellant had H 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A retracted his confession but the same was done only on 03.10.1993, i.e., after a gap of nearly about 6 months. In the absence of any proper explanation for not retracting immediately after making such a statement, even though he appeared before the Magistrate/senior officers on several B occasions, the fact remains that he had not retracted. Even otherwise, as observed in the earlier part of our judgment, a perusal of the retracted statement shows that the same was prepared by someone and he merely signed the same.

#135. The panchnama dated 26.03.1993 was prepared in C Marath.i with regard to recoveries made from A-25. The English translation of the same was also placed on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that out of 2 panch witnesses, namely, Mr. Walmik Shankar Gite and Mr. Laxman Loku Karkera, the prosecution has examined Mr. Walmik D Shankar Gite only. According to the counsel, he is a resident of Bombay and he was taken by the police to a place which is at a distance of 250 km. The said Panchnama recorded details of arms and ammunitions seized from the house of the appellant. Learned counsel has also pointed out some E discrepancy in the signature of panch witnesses. We also verified the xerox copy of the Panchnama dated 26.03.1993 and we do not find any glaring discrepancy as pointed out by the counsel.

#136. A perusal of the above confession of A-25 shows that he was willingly involved in the landing of smuggled arms and ammunitions at Shekhadi and that he also possessed and stored arms and ammunitions at the instructions of Tiger Memon.

#137. We are also satisfied that the A-25 has made the above confession voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion and the same has been recorded after following all the safeguards enumerated under Section 15 of TADA and the rules framed thereunder. F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 765 Confessional Statements of co-accused A

#138. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the appellant (A-25) has also been disclosed in the confessional statements of three other co-accused. The legality and acceptability of the confessions of the co-accused has already B been considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion. The said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant (A-25) are summarized hereinbelow: Confessional Statement of Dawood @ Dawood Taklya C Mohd. Phanse @ Phanasmiyan (A-14) Confessional statement of A-14 under Section 15 of TADA was recorded on 15.04.1993 (17:55 hrs.) and 17.04.1993 (19:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP. Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals D as under: (i) (ii) His son, Sarfaraj informed him that Shafi had kept the weapons at the appellant's house. The appellant was present at the time of the first landing at Shekhadi. E (iii) The appellant alongwith Iqbal and A-42 patrolled the car in which Tiger and others (including A-14) were travelling when they were on their way to Waghani F Tower alongwith the truck which was loaded with arms and ammunitions that had landed at Shekhadi. (iv) The appellant was present when the arms and G ammunitions were unloaded from the truck at Waghani Tower. (v) At the instance of Tiger, and his men, he went to the residence of the appellant to get 3 rifles and 6 H 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c magazines which were kept at his house and later on gave the same to Tiger. (vi) The appellant was present at the time of the second landing at Shekhadi and after completion of the landing operation, A-14 returned home alongwith the appellant and others. (vii) A-14 paid Rs. 4,000/- to the appellant for the work done during the landing operation. The above statement of A-14 makes clear the relationship of A-25 with Tiger and his men and his participation in landing and transportation of arms as well as keeping of arms in his house as directed by Tiger and taking of arms from his house. 0 Confessional Statement of Khalil Ahmed Sved Ali Nazir (A-42) Confessional statement of A-42 under Section 15 of TADA was recorded on 16.04.1993 (20:30 hrs.) and 19.04.1993 (21:00 hrs.) by Mr. P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then E DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The said confession reveals that on the night of 03.03.1993, the appellant, alongwith others, was sitting in the truck and after reaching Shekhadi, the smuggled material was loaded in the said truck. F Confessional Statement of Suiiad Alam @ Iqbal Abdul Hakim Nazir (A-61) Confessional statement of A-61 under Section 15 of TADA was recorded on 19.04.1993 (11 :40 hrs.) and 21.04.1993 (10:50 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals as under: (i) The appellant w9s the man of Tiger and was present at the residence of A-42 in the evening of 20.01.1993. Shafi was also present there and they G H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 767 were unloading some goods from a gunny bag in A a jeep. At that time, Sarfaraj (Dawood Taklya's son) was also present. After opening the gunny bags, A- 61 saw 16 rifles and 32 magazines in it. (ii) Thereafter, A-61, A-42 and the appellant took the 8 above rifles and magazines in an auto-rickshaw to the his (A-25) residence. (iii) The appellant was preiient at Waghani Tower during the first landing at Shekhadi. (iv) On 09.02.1993, A-61 alongwith A-14 and A-42 went to the appellant's residence. A-14 told the appellant to hand over 3 rifles and 6 cassettes to him. Accordingly, the appellant handed over the same in a gunny bag which was later on collected by Tiger D Memon from Lone Phata. c (v) The appellant also accompanied A-61 and others while going to Shekhadi for the second landing.

#139. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the E above three accused persons, namely, A-14, A-42 and A-61 establish the fact that it corroborates with the confessional statement of A-25 in material particulars. The involvement of the appellant is established inasmuch as:- (i) (ii) The appellant kept 16 rifles and 32 cassettes at his residence at the instance of Shafi. The appellant participated and assisted in both the landings of arms and ammunitions at Shekhadi. (iii) The appellant was also involved in the transportation of smuggled consignment of weapons from Worli to Waghani Tower. (iv) On 09.02.1993, A-14 had come to his house to take F G H 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A 3 rifles and 6 magazines at the behest of Tiger Memon. Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

#140. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement B and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy, as stated above, is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses which are as under: Deposition of Laxman Karkera (PW-45) PW-45 revealed as under: (i) On 26.03.1993, he acted as a panch witness and, on the said day, the appellant led the panchas and the police to his (A-25) house near Urdu school in village Mehandadi . (ii) While conducting a search in his house, the police found 3 gunny bags that were buried three feet deep in a half constructed bathroom. When the gunny bags were opened by the police, the same were found to be containing 13 AK-56 rifles and 26 empty magazines of AK-56 rifles. The rifles and magazines were examined by the police and the magazines could be fitted into the cavity of the said rifles. (iii) The Police then took charge of the rifles and magazines and the labels of signatures of PW-45 and others were pasted. on each AK-56 rifle and magazine. Then, the same were wrapped in a paper and were labeled and sealed and signatures of PW-45 and others were obtained on the same. The police also took charge of the 3 gunny bags. All the above events were recorded by one police officer in a Panchnama and the same was signed c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 769 by Pl Pawar, PW-45 and the co-panch. The A panchanama - Exh. 158 was read over to PW-45 and the co-panch and was found to be correctly drawn. (iv) He has correctly identified the Panchanama. He has also correctly identified Pl Pawar as the one who had signed the said panchanama and PSI Nerlekar as the one who had written the said panchanama. B (v) The rifles, magazines and 3 gunny bags seized by C the police, as stated above, were duly identified by him in the court. Deposition of HB Pawar (PW-596) PW-596 revealed as under: (i) As instructed by DCP Shri Rakesh Maria, he went alongwith other police officers and staff to Mhasala on 26.03.1993. (ii) After receiving information from a person, A-14 was arrested by him in Buddha Wada locality of Mhasala. (iii) After interrogation, A-14 led PSI Rane, PW-596 and others to Mhendadi village and they arrested the appellant and A-42 from the chowk of the said village. D E F (iv) Thereafter, he interrogated both the said accused and decided to search their houses. One Shri G Laxman Karkera (PW-45) agreed to act as a panch witness. (v) Thereafter, the panch witnesses and the police party along with the appellant went to his house near H -. !11!1" I ii 111 11 .. q1 I ·;1, !I ) ' I ~ . I I 11· '·Ii ·ii ;) ' : ij •1r; !I :-,i . :1 t' !! : • I ' . 'l 'ii' 11· ' . . ' . . I . I !I " i :' I ii I - 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. . an Urdu School of the said village. The said house was shown to them by the appellant himself. . ' (vi) The search .of the said house was taken in the presence of the panch witnesses. 3 gunny bags · were found to _be concealed about 3 feet deep under the tiles of a bathroom.· I • ~ • ' (vii) The said 3 gunny bags were opened and were found to be containing 13 AK-56 rifles and 26 empty magazines of AK-56 rifles. Thereafter, each of the AK-56 rifles was wrapped in a t:rown paper and the said packet was tied by means of a string · and labels of signatures of panch witnesses and his signature was affixed on each of the packet and the same were also sealed by using the lac seal and in the same manner.the 26 empty magazines and the said 3 gunny bags were also wrapped in a . brown paper and labellea and sealed. He recorded .... the description of the rifles and magazines in. a · panchanama by dictating the matter to PSI Nerlekar. He also took charge of the rifles, · . magazines and gunny bags. . . . (viii) The panchanama was read over to the panch witnesses and their signatures were obtained to ·ensure its corre'ctness. He also countersigned the same. ": '· · 1 ·'· • • ·· A B c D E F

#141. The above depositions of PW-45 and PW-596, corroborate with the confession of the appellant and those of the 3 co~accused persons mentioned above 'and unmistakably G establish the posse·ssion of the. contraband material by the appellant within a·riotified area. Even lengthy cross-examination of the above witnesses has failed to destroy their testimonies.

#142. The recovered articles were se'rit to FS.L for opinion . H by Waman Kulkarni (PW-662)vide Exh. 2440 and a positive ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]. 771 FSL Report Exh. 2440-A was received by the Police. A

#143. Apart from the evidence of Police Inspector, i.e., PW- 596, PW-588, PW-605 and PW-606, the abovesaid· confessional statements of A-14, A-42 and A-61 prove the prosecution case with reference to the role of A-25 in handling and transporting arms and ammunitions from Shekhadi port to various places and it is also clear that arms were stored in his, house and taken to the place as directed by the Tiger.

#144. We have already highlighted the Panchnama containing all the details of arms and ammunitions collected from the residence of A-25. PW-45 explained all those details and he admitted the said Panchnama as well as his signature therein. Though A-25 was represented by a counsel before the trial Court, there was no cross-examination at alL c D E

#145. Taking note of all the above materials, the Designated Court, after analyzing the same, came to the conclusion that the material contained in the confession of A-25 clearly reveals his involvement in landing at Shekhadi and its transportation. The corroborative material contained in the confession of A-25 i.e. his involvement in landing at Shekhadi and its transportation, for which he was charged with, has also been proved in the confessions of A-14, A-42 and A-61. Considering the role played by him i.e., he was possessing such a large number of arms and ammunitions after the Shekhadi operation was over and was holding the same for a considerable period, the same also denotes that he was a man of close confidence of prime accused persons. The Designated Court also rightly concluded that the act committed by him was for furthering the object of conspiracy and he himself having committed the same during the 1st half of February, 1993 i.e. much prior to even Tiger G Memon fixing the target for committing serial bomb blasts in Bombay and is guilty for the offence of conspiracy to commit terrorist acts punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA. F

#146. In view of the evidence discussed above, we hold that H ' 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A the appellant was actively involved in the conspiracy to cause blasts in Bombay and in consequence of the said involvement, he has committed the offences for which he has been charged and we affirm the same. B

#147. As rightly pointed out by the prosecution, the facts and events stated by the appellant in his own confession are duly corroborated by the confessions of other co-accused, thereby clearly revealing his involvement in the landings at Shekhadi and that he was unauthorisedly in possession of the contraband material. Therefore, the appellant is guilty for the C offences for which he has been charged from head firstly to fourthly. Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra through CBI 0 Criminal Appeal No. 1028 of 2012

#148. Insofar as the appeal filed by the CBI against acquittal of the appeliant (A-25) for the charge mentioned at head firstly, viz., conspiracy is concerned, in view of the fact that the appellant (A-25) has already been convicted for the same and E sentenced to RI for life, learned senior counsel for the CBI has not pressed the appeal before this Court, hence, we are of the view that there is no need to consider this appeal in view of the reason appended above and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. F Sentence:

#149. Regarding sentence, the prosecution submitted that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself on the question of quantum of sentence. His statement was recorded G on 17.10.2006 (Exh.2984) in which he prayed that the following factors, amongst others, may be considered while determining his sentence : H (i) He is the sole bread winner of his family comprising of his wife and three small children; and ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J] 773 (ii) His wife is suffering from a mental ailment. A With respect to the above contentions regarding quantum of sentence, the prosecution submitted that the appellant was in possession and storage of 13 AK-56 rifles and 26 magazines for a considerable period of time. B

#150. From the materials, it is clear that the appellant neither dissociated himself nor resisted from participating in the landings at Shekhadi or transportation of contraband material to Waghani Tower nor did he inform the same to the police authorities or took any steps for the same. This is c sufficient to show that he was responsible for the blasts in Bombay and he was very well aware of its consequences.

#151. In view of the above, we are of the view that the sentence awarded by the Designated Court to the appellant is justified and the same is confirmed. Consequently, the appeal D is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2007 Vijay Krishnaji Patil (A-116) .... Appellant(s) vs. E The State of Maharashtra, through .... Respondent(s) Superintendent of Police, CBI (STF), Mumbai **********

#152. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel F appeared for the appellant (A-116) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.

#153. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated G 26.09.2006 and 22.05.2007 respectively whereby the appellant (A-116) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1 /1993. H 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R. A Charges:

#154. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-116). The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: B c D E F G H "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 775 B handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit A terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea c Rock at Bandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport 0 which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby E committed ,offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance." G F In addition to the above-said principal charge of ,,conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on other count which reads as under: H 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c At head Secondly; The appellant, in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, intentionally aided and abetted co-accused persons by allowing them to smuggle into India and transport arms and ammunitions, which were brought into the country for the purpose of committing terrorist acts which were intercepted by a team of Police Officers on the night of 09/01/1993 at Gondghar Phata and allowed to pass the said contraband items in lieu of a bribe of Rs. 7,00,000/- and thereby facilitated the commission of terrorist acts, punishable under section 3(3) of TADA Act, 1987."

#155. The charges mentioned above were proved against the appellant (A-116). The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the above-said charges as under: D Conviction and Sentence: (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy read with the offences described at head firstly and sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge firstly) (ii) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of offences at head secondly and sentenced to RI for life along with a firie of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge secondly) E F Evidence

#156. At the time of commission of offence, the appellant G (A-116) was posted as P.S.I. (Police Sub-Inspector), Police Station, Shrivardhan. The evidence against the appellant (A- 116) is in the form of:- H (i) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co- accused); ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 777 (ii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and A (iii) documentary evidence. Confessional Statements of co-accused:

#157. The involvement of the appellant has been disclosed B in the confessional statements of the following co-accused. The legality and acceptability of the confessions of the co-accused has already been considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion. The said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant (A-116) are summarized hereinbelow: c Confessional Statement of Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ Mohd. Kalia @ Mechanic Chacha (A-136) Confessional statement of A-136 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 09.11.1999 (15:40 hrs.) and D 10.11.1999 (09:00 hrs.) by Shri O.P. Chhatwal (PW-684), the then SP, CBl-STF, New Delhi. A brief summary of the confession of A-136 with reference to the appellant is as under:- (i) (ii) The landing agents used to talk to officers of E Customs and Police Department. The money used to be sent to the officers of the Customs and Police Department through landing agents. At Dighi Jetty, about 265 silver ingots each weighing 35-40 kgs, 15-20 wooden boxes and 15- 20 tin boxes referred to as 'Samaan' were unloaded from the ship. He further described that the word 'Samaan' is equivalent to the word 'arms' in the language of criminals. (iii) A-136 was travelling in a car which was followed by a truck and the tempo containing arms and silver ingots. After noticing that the said two vehicles were not following, their car came back and saw that the F G H 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D said two vehicles had been intercepted by a police party. (iv) An officer by name 'Patil' (the appellant) stopped the said two vehicles and told Salim (A-134) that you people go after landing and did not pay anything. At that time, Uttam Shantaram Poddar (A- 30) along with one Customs officer came and it was settled that Rs. 8 lakhs will be paid to the police for the said landing. Since the accused persons were not carrying such a huge amount with them, the appellant kept 5 silver bars as security on the premise that it will be returned as and when payment will be made. Accordingly, the truck bearing No. 1051 and the tempo containing silver bags and arms respectively, were allowed to pass through. Confessional Statement of Mohammed Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta (A-134) Confessional statement of A-134 under Section 15 of E TADA has been recorded on 18.08.1995 (16:00 hrs.) and 19.08.1995 (16:00 hrs.) by Shri Satyakant Rohinikant Saikia (PW-481), the then DIG-CID Crime and Railways, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. A brief summary of the confession of A-134 with reference to the appellant is as under :- F (i) A-134 stated that silver bags, 25/30 wooden boxes and 15/20 green coloured canvas bags were unloaded and reloaded into two trucks. There were about 250/300 silver ingots. (ii) He futher stated that on their return from Dighi Jetty after loading, their truck was stopped by a police official (sub- Inspector). The Police officer was annoyed because he had not received any money for the said landing. Later, Customs Officer, G H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 779 Jaywant Keshav Gurav (A-82) reached there in a A Jeep driven by A-30 and all of them spoke to the said police officer who agreed to release the trucks after accepting 617 silver bars as security in lieu of the bribe of Rs. 1 O lacs (approx.) After few days, Feroz· paid cash to the officer and got back the B silver bars. (iii) Afsal Gadbad and Arif Lamboo told A-134 that some of the arms and ammunitions which had landed at Dighi Jetty were delivered by them to a C man of Tiger Memon. Confessional Statement of Uttam Shantaram Poddar (A- 30) Confessional statement of A-30 under Section 15 of D TADA has been recorded on 12.07.1993 (17:20 hrs.) and 15.07 .1993 by Meera Borwankar (PW-187), the then Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department (Crimes) Pune. A-30 stated as under:- (i) (ii) He stated that he gave Rs. 2-5,000/- to Mali Hawaldar (A-101) for Vijay Patil (A-116), sub Inspector of Shrivardhan in December, 1992 in lieu of another landing of silver. On 9th in the night, A-30 came to Dighi, thereafter, he was sent on the road to check, where he met Inspector Gurav (A-82) and sat in his Jeep. At Gondghar Phata they saw that Vijay Patil, SI, Shrivardhan had stopped two trucks. A-136 made an offer of Rs. 1 O lacs to the police. (iii) Due to non-availability of ready cash, A-136 gave some silver bars in lieu of cash to the police and left with the trucks. E F G H 780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A (iv) A-30 sen! a message to A-116 that he would deliver the money at his residence. The accused also stated that Feroz gave Rs. 2 lacs to the Inspector at Shrivardhan. 8 Confessional Statement of Jaywant Keshav Gurav (A-82) Confessional statement of A-82 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 04.05.1993 and 06.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Tikaram Shrawan Bhal (PW-191), the then Superintendent of Police, Alibaug, Raigad. A-82, in hill C confessional statement, referred to the role of the appellant as under:- (i) He confessed that in December, 1992, customs officials received a letter indicating that weapons would be smuggled into India from the foreign country and landing thereof would be made at Western Coast and for that purpose, otders were issued to carry out patrolling and to remain alert. (ii) A-30 met him on 09.01.1993 and said that silver landing was to take place that night from Dighi Jetty. (iii) A-82 met A-30 again at 12:00 a.m. and went towards Gondghar Phata. Around 12:30 a.m., he noticed that the trucks had been stopped by a police party led by Inspector Patil (A-116). (iv) He saw that A-116 and 5-7 policemen of Shrivardhan Police Station were standing near the Police jeep. (v) A-30 went to Police Sub-Inspector Patil. At that place, Shabbir and 4-5 persons of Mohammed Dosa were also standing. (vi) A-116 went to A-82 and asked as to what was to D E F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 781 be done. A-82 told him, "you settle among A yourselves". The police, after half an hour following settlement, released the detained trucks. Confessional Statement of Sharif Abdul Gafoor Parkar @ Dadabhai (A-17) Confessional statement of A-17 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 18.04.1993 and 20.04.1993 by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. In his confession, he stated that Rs. 25,000/- was paid to Shrivardhan Police Station for landing on two occasions. 8 c

#158. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, by pointing out the above confessional statements, particularly, the confession of A-30, submitted that the prosecution has not shown or produced any material on record that the police officer D was aware of the arms and ammunitions that had landed at Oighi Jetty and that the sarr.e were transported along with silver boxes. We have carefully analysed the confessional statements including that of A-30 and we find no force in the submission made by learned senior counsel for the appellant. On the other E hand, we are unable to accept the said submission.

#159. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the above accused, namely, A-17, A-30, A-82, A-134 and A-136 clearly establish the fact that it corroborates with each other. After consideration of all the abovesaid confessional F statements of the co-accused, the involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is established inasmuch as:- (i) The arms and ammunitions had landed at Dighi Jetty in the second week of January, 1993. G (ii) The landing agents used to talk to the officers of . Customs/Police Department. (iii) The appellant knowingly let off a truck and a tempo carrying smuggled goods pursuant to negotiations H 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A on acceptance of bribe of Rs. 8/1 O lakhs. (iv) As the accused persons were not carrying such a huge amount, the appellant kept 5/8 silver bars as a token for security. B (v) The special negotiation and special amount agreed upon shows that the appellant demanded unusual amount in view of the nature of goods smuggled. In other words, he was aware that the consignment was containing arms and ammunitions. c D E F (vi) The appellant, after consultation with A-82, Custom official (who had knowledge that goods could be weapons after the Departmental alert of December, 1992) allowed the trucks loaded with smuggled goods to proceed. (vii) The confession of A-134 establishes the link between the landing and Mohammed Mustafa Dosa and Dawood Ibrahim and also the landed arms and ammunitions with Tiger Memon. Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

#160. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy, as stated above, is disclosed by the depositions of various prosecution witnesses which are as under: Deposition of Dilip Bhiku Pansare (PW-97) PW-97 was working as a Mechanic in State Transport G Corporation. In his deposition dated 12.09.1996, he stated as under:- (i) H He drove one of the two trucks bearing no. 5533 in which silver bars as told to him by Shabbir Kadri were loaded on 09.01.1993 at Dighi Jetty. ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.J 783 (ii) He stated that at Gondghar Phata, he was stopped A by a police jeep. (iii) He stated that the police men boarded the said truck and started shouting that there was silver in the truck. (iv) He stated that meanwhile another truck also came following his truck and when the police men were trying to board the truck, the persons who were travelling in the said truck said 'Saab Andar Math Jae, J1n_dar Kaanch ka Saman Hai' B c (v) He stated that thereafter, Shabbir Kadri came and started asking A-116 'what had happened'. (vi) He stated that he took the appellant nearby a white car which was stationed behind the said truck. D (vii) He stated that meanwhile A-30 and A-82 also came there and discussion took place for about half an hour. (viii) He stated that, thereafter, 5 silver bars were taken out of the truck bearing No. 5533 and were kept in the police jeep. E (ix) He stated that when he left the said spot, the other truck alongwith the police jeep was still there. F (x) He stated that the person who shouted to take out the keys of my truck was at the rear side portion of the truck. (xi) He stated that police checked his truck for 15 minutes and took ten minutes for checking the other truck. Deposition.of Eknath Raghav Pedhvi (PW-156) G H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A At the relevant time, PW-156 was working as a Chowkidar and Safaidar (Cleaner) at the Dighi Port. In his deposition dated 15.01.1997, he stated as under:- (i) He stated that on 09.01.1993, one Shri Mane from the Dighi Police Station came to his house and told him to give the keys of the Jetty to the person who would approach him. (ii) On the same night, he was approached by Shabbir who inquired about the jetty and also asked as to who had the keys of the gate to the jetty. (iii) He gave the keys to Shabbir (AA) and told him that there was no need to worry as he had told everything to the Police. (iv) Shabbir came back at 5:30 am and returned the key of the jetty to him. (v) After 3-4 days, the policeman named Mane went to his room and took him to the residence of A-116. (vi) At the house of A-116, he received Rs. 2,000/- which was handed over to him by Mane for giving keys of Jetty to Shabbir. (vii) He stated that the said amount was taken out by Mane underneath the bed-sheet. Deposition of Shankar Rao Anna Patil (PW-574) PW-574 was in the Maharashtra Police Force since 1964. In his deposition dated 02.02.2000, he stated that on 22.04.1993, he went to the residence of A-116 and recovered Rs. 2,50,000/- from his house and a panchnama dated 22.04.1993 marked as Exhibit 689 was drawn by him in the presence of panch witnesses. B c D E F G H I' ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 785 Deposition of Vinod Babu Chavan (PW-590) A The deposition of PW-590 was recorded on 22.02.2000. He stated that on 12.04.1993, he took charge of the weekly diary of the appellant. The said diary is marked as Art. 326. A panchnama dated 12.04.1993, marked as Exhibit 571, was 8 also effected. Deposition of Ravlndra Kaka Patil (PW-94) At the relevant time, PW-94 was a Junior Engineer in Kharland Office of the Irrigation Department in village c Srivardhan. In his deposition dated 10.09.1996, he stated as under: (i) He stated that he knew A-116 as the police officer who used to requisite their office Jeep for the work of bandobast. The driver of PW-94 became conversant with A-116 and as a result the witness also became conversant with A-116. (ii) He stated that in March, 1993, the appellant came to his house and told him that while he (PW 94) was away in January 1993, the appellant had kept five silver bricks in his room. (iii) On being asked as to why the appellant had kept the same, A-116 replied that he placed the same as nobody could have seen it as he was not at his house. 0 E F (iv) He stated that the appellant had telephoned him and asked him in first or second week of January, 1993 that there was a function of offering 'oaty' at G his residence and people who had arrived from Mahad for the said function were waiting outside the sweetmeat shop and that he should take the 'burfi' which was with the said persons to his house. H 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F (v) He stated that he reached on motorcycle to the Naka and two or three persons were standing and one of them took two packets wrapped in a newspaper and kept the same in the dickey of his motorcycle. Later, the appellant came following him from behind. (vi) He stated that on the way, the appellant asked him to handover the 'burfr' (sweets) to him since he was also going home. The appellant thereafter took both the packets.

#161. From the perusal of the above, it is clear that:- (i) The appellant was well known to the accused persons who referred to him in casual manner. (ii) The police party, after checking both the trucks for a considerable period of time had negotiations with the smugglers. (iii) Pursuant to the negotiations, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 8/10 lakhs from the smugglers and kept 4-5 silver bars as a token for security. (iv) The keys of the jetty were given to Shabbir {AA) at the instance of the police. (v) The appellant paid Rs. 2,0001- to PW-156 which was handed over to him by Mane (A-101) for giving keys of the Jetty to Shabbir. G It is relevant to mention that the said witness was not even cross-examined on behalf of the appellant (A-116). Other witnesses: Deposition of Yeshwant Govind Kadam (PW-109) H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 787

#162. PW-109 is a panch witness and deposed that A Panchnama dated 21.04.1993 marked as Exhibit 563 was drawn in his presence. The said Panchnama records that Ramesh Datiatray Mali (A-101), Police Constable was given Rs. 15,000/-· by A-116 in connection with smuggling matter and this money was produced by Mali (A-101) in presence of two B panchas.

#163. The said witness also deposed about the Panchnama dated 22.04.1993 marked as Exhibit 564. The panchnama records that out of the monies taken by A-116 in smuggling, C he handed over Rs. 25,000/- to P.C. Krishna Tukaram Pingle, B. No. 1499 and that P.C. Pingle was producing the money taken in the Police Station.

#164. He further deposed and proved the Panchnama dated 25.04.1993 marked as Exh. 565 which records that Inspector D Ashok Narayan Muneshwar (A-70) was given Rs. 30,000 in connection with smuggling of goods at Dighi and that he produced the said money in front of panchas.

#165. By pointing out the above evidence, learned senior E counsel for the appellant, argued that at the most it denotes that at the time of interception, the police found only silver bricks in one truck and similar bricks and some boxes in the other truck. Even after counting, they found 100 silver bricks and some boxes. He further submitted that when the police enquired about the contents of the boxes, Chacha (A-136) replied that the boxes contained 'watches'. In other words, according to him, the evidence and the entire materials relied on by the prosecution denote that the police had knowledge of only silver bricks and watches, i.e., the contents of the boxes. Finally, he submitted that the knowledge in furtherance of the act of G abetment as contemplated under Section 3(3) of TADA seems to be absent and cannot be inferred on the basis of surmises merely because the appellant was the PSI. In the light of the vehement arguments, we have carefully analysed the prosecution witnesses and the materials placed. Here again, H F 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A we are unable to concur with the arguments. On the other hand, we are unable to accept the same.

#166. On perusal of the entire evidence as placed by the prosecution, the following facts emerge:- B c D (i) The appellant (A-116) arranged for the keys to be given to Shabbir (AA) for the purposes of landing. (ii) A police party led by the appellant intercepted two trucks at Gondghar Phata and after checking for a considerable period of time and after negotiating for half an hour, let fhem off; (iii) The appellant was well acquainted with the smugglers; (iv) The appellant had secret negotiations with the smugglers as well as consultation with the Custom official Gurav (A-82) for fixing the special bribe amount; E (v) The appellant took silver bars as security in lieu of cash and kept the same in the house of PW-94 who duly corroborates with the fact that he kept the bars in his house; F (vi) The appellant paid Rs. 2,000/- to PW-156 for handing over the keys of the Dig hi Jetty to Shabbir Kadri (AA) on 09.01.1993 the day when arms and ammunitions landed at Dighi. It may be pointed out here that sufficient evidence has G been placed on record by the prosecution to show that part of the consignment which landed at Dighi was also delivered to Tiger Memon. Sentence H

#167. Coming to sentence, it is not in dispute that the ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 789 appellant (A-116) was the head of the police party. The A evidence clearly reveals that the appellant was primarily responsible for the decision arrived at in allowing the said contraband smuggled material to be transported further without the same being intercepted/checked by the police in lieu of the bribe amount to be received. B

#168. Further, the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself on the question of quantum of sentence. The appellant filed statement dated 24.01.2007 on the quantum of sentence which is Exh. 2954. The appellant prayed that the following, amongst other factors, may be considered while C determining his sentence:- . (i) He was the sole bread winner of his family; an.d (ii) He was in the government service. D

#169. The Designated Court, after considering the factors pleaded by the appellant and the nature of crime committed by him, held as under:- "499 ..... considering the facts that A-116 was head of local E police and as such was duty bound to make every attempt to prevent commission of a crime, but instead of carrying his duty, he had allowed commission of crime and so also further crimes by allowing transportation of contraband material and having acted in such a manner for receiving F a bribe amount makes it extremely difficult to accept submission for leniency .... "

#170. As rightly pointed out by learned senior counsel fo~ the CBI, the crime of the appellant may be considered in the light of the fact that he was the protector of law and he has G · breached the trust of the people of the country. Had he honestly done his duty, perhaps the whole disaster could have been obviated. H 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A

#171. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the sentence awarded by the Designated Court to the appellant is justified. The above said evidence substantiates and establishes the charge of conspiracy framed against the appellant (A-116). We fully agree with the reasoning and B ultimate conclusion of the Designated Court both on the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2008 C Mohd. Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh ... Appellant(s) @ Salim Kutta (A-134) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBl-STF, Mumbai . .. Respondent(s)

#172. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel appeared for the appellant (A-134) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI).

#173. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.10.2006 and 05.06.2007 respectively whereby the appellant (A-134) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. D E F Charges: G

#174. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellant herein. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 791 B c at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District A Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist . acts with an intent to overawe the Govern[Tlent as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co conspirators, and also tc ·aid, abet and knowingly facilitate G the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the H E F 0 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D E aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 98 (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance." In addition to the above-said principal charge of F conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following counts: At head Secondly: The appellant, in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and during the period January, G 1993 to March, 1993, abetted and knowingly and intentionally facilitated commission of terrorists' acts and acts preparatory to terrorists' act by committing the following acts: (a) He attended meeting at Hotel Persian Darbar, Panvel on 06.01.1993 along with co-accused R.K. Singh (A-102), M.S. Sayyed (A-90), Mohd. Dossa (AA) and Mohd. Kasam H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 793 Lajpuria@ Mechanic Chacha (A-136) and Y.B. Lotle (PW- A 154) and agreed to carry on smuggling activities by making payment of illegal gratification for landing of arms, ammunitions at Dighi; (b) He participated along with landing agent Uttam Poddar (A-30) and other co-accused in landing of arms, ammunitions and handgrenades at Dighi on 09.01.1993 and participated in the transportation of the said arms, ammunitions and handgrenades to the residence of Shabir Kadri (AA) at Agarwada for its concealment; (c) He participated in the transportation of the said contraband from Dighi when it was intercepted at Gondghar Phata by PSI V.K. Patil (A-116) and due to mediation by Uttam Potdar (A-30), J.K. Gurav (A-82) (Custom Inspector) the said trucks containing contraband were allowed to proceed for some consideration against illegal gratification; 8 c · D At head Thirdly: The appellant, with an intent to aid the terrorists, contravened the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, E the Arms Rules, 1962, the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and participated in the landing of arms and ammunitions, their transportation and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of TADA.

#175. The charges mentioned above were proved against tne appella.nt (A-134). The Designated Court found the appellant guilty on all the aforesaid charges after considering the evidence brought on record by the prosecution which are enumerated herein below: Conviction and Sentence: F G (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 120-8 of I PC read with the offen.ces described at head firstly and sentenced to RI for life H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B C D E F along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year.. (charge firstly) (ii) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 3(3) of TADA and has been sentenced to RI for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge secondly) (iii) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 6 of TADA and has been sentenced to RI for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge thirdly) Evidence

#176. The evidence against the appellant (A-134) is in the form of:- (i) his own confession; (ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co accused); (iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and (iv) documentary evidence. Confesssional Statement of Mohd. Salim Mira Moiddin Shaikh @ Salim Kutta (A-134)

#177. The involvement of A-134 in the conspiracy is evident from his own confession under Section 15 of TADA recorded G on 18.08.1995 and 19.08.1995 (16:00 hrs.) by Shri S.K. Saikia (PW-481), the then DIG, CID, Crime & Railways, Gujarat. We have gone through his entire confession. His confession reveals as under:- H (i) The appellant was born on 07.09.1966 and was 29 ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 795 years old on the date of recording of his confession. A (ii) At the relevant time, he was a resident of Room No. 9/10, FF, B.M.C. Chaw!, Sabu Siddiq Road, Crawford Market, Bombay-1. (fii) The appellant was previously involved in a number B of criminal cases registered at Pydhonie, Byculla, Pallan Rd., and Colaba police stations pertaining to rioting, assault and robberies. (iv) He had beaten up some associates of Dawood c Ibrahim in Crawford Market. (v) The appellant knew several other members of the Mohd. Dossa Gang and Arjun Gang. (vi) The appellant joined Mohd. Dossa gang after a D meeting with Mustafa Majnu (A-138), younger brother of Mohd. Dossa (AA). The appellant became Mohd. Dossa's body guard. (vii) The appellant was involved in the delivery of gold E to various persons in Bombay including Raju Kodi (A-26). (viii) Tiger Memon used to work with Mohd. Dossa and separated in 1989. In 1992, the appellant became a partner of 5% share in smuggling activities along with Mechanic Chacha (A-136) and Feroz Abdul Rafiq. F (ix) (x) In the year 1992, the appellant participated in about 8 landings of silver in Ratnagiri (at Mhasla and G Dighi) and more landings near Mangalore. In 1992, the appellant took part in the murder of Mussa, a smuggler in Bangalore. (xi) In the first week of January, 1993, the appellant H 796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H accompanied Mohd. Dossa for a meeting with Customs officers, including Mr. Singh (A-102), Mr. Sayed (A-90) and one more officer at Hotel Persian Darbar, Panvel. In the meeting which went on for 31 4 hours, Mohd. Dossa discussed about landing operations and it was agreed that Customs officers will be paid Rs.7-8 lacs per landing. (xii) Few days after the above meeting, A-138 called Mohd. Dossa from Dubai and asked him to make arrangements for landing. Mohd. Dossa then told the appellant that large quantity of arms and ammunitions had left Dubai for landing and asked him to go to Dighi at Mhasla and inform the Customs officers. (xiii) The appellant, thereafter, informed the Customs officials, viz., Mr. Singh (A-102) and Mr. Sayed (A- 90) who gave permission for the said landing. The appellant was present when the landing took place at Dighi Jetty. Mechanic Chacha (A-136) and Uttam Poddar (A-30) were also present there. (xiv) About 250-300 silver ingots, 25-30 wooden boxes and 15-20 canvas bags were landed at Dighi. These items were loaded in trucks which were subsequently intercepted by the Police. The appellant tried to convince the police officer who was annoyed because he had not received money for the landing. Thereafter, Uttam Poddar (A-30) and Customs officer Gurav (A-82) negotiated with the police, which let the trucks pass for a bribe of Rs. 1 O lacs. The Police officers kept 6/7 silver ingots in lieu of cash of Rs. 10 lakhs. (xv) The appellant noticed that one wooden box was containing 4 AK-56 rifles and 12 empty magazines and also that some other boxes were containing ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J] 797 hand grenades and their pins. The military coloured A canvas bags were found to be containing four tin boxes in each bag which were filled with ammunition for AK-56 rifles. {xvi) The aforesaid bags were fitted in the cavities made in the truck and the leftover goods were shifted to the house of Shabbir Kadri (AA) where the appellant and others also stayed after landing. 8 {xvii) During the stay at Shabbir's house, Arif Lamboo and Afzal Gadbad collected the silver ingots and C few wooden boxes and canvas bags and delivered them to Ahmed Okliya of Surat, Gujarat on the instructions of Mustafa Majnu {A-138). The appellant was also told by Afsal Gadbad that some arms and ammunitions were delivered by him at D Panvel to a man of Tiger Memon. 3-4 wooden boxes and a few canvas bags still remained at Shabbir's house . . {xviii) On the day of landing which took place in the E beginning of second week of January, 1993, Mohd. Dossa was present at his office in Bombay. {xix) The appellant along with several other co-accused persons left for Dubai in the beginning of February, 1993 where they stayed for 15 days. In Dubai, the F appellant met Dawood Ibrahim where he told him to be ready for revenge and riots and that for this purpose they would be given training in use of weapons at Pakistan. (xx) 2-3 days after the meeting with Dawood Ibrahim, Abu Bakar {AA) and others left for Pakistan for receiving training. The appellant had gone to see them off at Dubai Airport. These persons were told that someone would come at the Airport in Pakistan to receive them. G H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. (xxi) On return, those co-accused persons told the appellant that they had received weapons training at Pakistan and that they were met by Pakistani officers at the Airport who took them out without any immigration formalities. (xxii) The appellant was in Bombay on the day of the blasts but he denied the participation in the blasts. He, however, fled to Bombay and stayed in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and a 'neighbouring country' and continued to work for Mohd. Dossa in smuggling of gold. (xxiii) In July, 1993, the appellant on the instructions of Mohd. Dossa, removed AK-56 rifles, hand grenades, small bombs and 2,000 cartridges lying with Ahmed Okliya of Surat, Gujarat. These arms were the same which had landed at Dighi Jetty. (xxiv) The appellant kept 1 AK-56 rifle, 2 magazines and 88 cartridges with himself which were recovered by the police at the time of his arrest.

#178. Upon perusal of the above confession of the appellant, the following facts emerge - (i) The appellant played an active role in the entire conspiracy viz., his meeting with Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai; (ii) He participated in the landing at Dighi and transportation of arms and subsequent ammunitions; (iii) He participated in the meeting and negotiations with Customs and Police officers in January, 1993 to seek permission and to fix the bribe amount for each landing. A B c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 799 (iv) He was a key aide of Mohd. Dossa, who was one A of the main co-conspirators of the Bombay Bomb Blast case.

#179. Though counsel for the appellant argued that his confession cannot be relied upon due to the fact that it was not B voluntary, on going through the same and the procedure followed by the recording officer, we are satisfied that the appellant has made the above confession voluntarily, without any pressure or coercion and the same has been recorded after following all the safeguards enumerated under Section 15 C of TADA and the rules framed thereunder. The said facts have been duly established by the testimony of the recording officer PW-481. Confessional Statements of co-accused:

#180. The prosecution pointed out that the involvement of the appellant in committing overt acts, as stated above, is further strengthened in the confessional statements of the other co-accused persons which are summarized as under: D Confessional Statement of Jamir Sayyed Ismail Kadri (A- E 133) Confessional statement of A-133 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 06.08.1995 (12:20 hrs.) and 07.08.1995 (13:15 hrs.) by Shri H.C. Singh, the then Supdt. of F Police, CBl/SPE/STF, New Delhi. A brief summary of the confession of A-133 with respect to the appellant is summarized herein under: (i) In the night of 08/09.01.1993, the appellant and one G other friend of Shabbir, brother of A-133, came on a silver coloured motorcycle to their house and slept there. (ii) On the morning of 09.01.1993, Shabbir told A-133 H A B 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. • that silver and weapons would arrive at Dighi Jetty that day. (iii) The appellant along with Feroz (AA) and Uttam Potdar (A-30) was talking about unloading of material. Hearing their talks, A-133 gauged that goods had been sent by Mohd. Dossa. (iv) On 09.01.1993, in the evening, around 7 pm, the appellant and others left for Dighi Jetty. c (v) The appellant, along with Feroz and Shabbir, brought 3 wooden boxes to the house of Jamir's grandmother in the morning of 10.01.1993. D (vi) The appellant along with Feroz, Shabbir and A-133 brought 19 silver ingots and 15-20 green coloured bags containing tin boxes and kept them in the house of Jamir's grandmother. We are satisfied that the confession of A-133 fully corroborates in material aspect with the confession of the E appellant. Confessional Statement of Uttam Shantaram Poddar (A- 30) Confessional statement of A-30 under Section 15 of F TADA has been recorded on 12.07.1993 (17:20 hrs.) and 15.07.1993 (17:00 hrs.) by Meera Borvankar, the then Supdt. of Police, CID, Pune. The confession of A-30 corroborates that the appellant participated in the landing, transportation and safe keeping of weapons that landed at Dighi in January, 1993 and G which were ultimately used in the Bombay Bomb Blasts. A summary of the confession of A-30 implicating the appellant is as under:- (i) The appellant is an associate of Mohd. Dossa. H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 801 (ii) On 09.01.1993, the appellant participated in the A landing at Dighi. (iii) After the landing at Dighi, police intercepted the trucks. (iv) Uttam Poddar went to. Shabbir Kadri's (AA) house B where the appellant was also present. Confessional Statement of Janardhan Pandurang Gambas (A·B1) c Confessional statement of A-81 under Section 15. of TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (17:30 hrs.) and 21.05.1993 (17:15 hrs.) by Shri T.S. Bhai, the then Supdt. of Police, Raigad-Alibaug, Maharashtra. The prosecution submitted that the confession of A-81, a fisherman, who participated in the landing at Dighi, wh.ile not specifically D naming the appellant, corroborates with the confession of the appellant insofar as the landing and transportation of arms and ammunition that landed at Dighi is concerned. Confessional Statement of Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ E Mechanic Chacha @ Mohd. Kalia (A-136) Confessional statement of A-136 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 09.11.1999 (15:15 hrs.) and 10.09.1999 (09:00 hrs.) by Shri O.P. Chhatwal, the then Supdt. F of Police, CBI, New Delhi. A summary of the confession of A- 136 is as under: (i) The appellant is an important member of Mohd. Dossa gang. (ii) On 06.01.1993, the appellant attended the meeting with Customs officials, viz., R.K. Singh and Sayyed, arranged by one Padwal (PW·146) at Hotel Persian Darbar wherein it was decided to pay Rs. 9-10 lakhs for smooth landing of the consignment. G H ' • 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D (iii) On 08.01.1993, as per the instructions of Mohd. Dossa, he alongwith Feroz went to Alibaugh- Mhasala on a Yamaha Motorbike to inform R.K. Singh and Syed about the proposed landing of arms and ammunitions. He along with Feroz also went to inform Uttam Poddar and Shabbir Kadri for making arrangements for the landing. (iv) On 09.01.1993, on the day of landing, he alongwith Feroz, Qayum, Shafi Charsi and other labourers was present at Dighi Jetty. (v) The appellant, on the instructions of A-138, told A- 136 to load the goods into the trucks. (vi) The appellant was traveling in a tempo and the vehicles carrying smuggled arms and ammunitions were intercepted by the police. (vii) After the bomb blasts, A-136 met A-134 in Nepal while he was absconding. E

#181. From the perusal of the aforesaid confession of A- 136, it is clear that the appellant was actively involved in landing of arms and ammunitions at Dighi and their subsequent transportation and was an important member of the Mohd. Dossa gang, who were the main conspirators of the bomb F blasts. The confession of A-136, therefore, corroborates with the confession of A-134 in material aspects. Deposition of Prosecutiorr Witnesses:

#182. The prosecution has relied upon the depositions of G several prosecution witnesses to establish the involvement of the appellant in the criminal conspiracy. Relevant facts from the deposition of witnesses that incriminate the appellant have been enumerated below: H ES$A@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 803 Deposition of Yeshwant Balu Lotle (PW-154) A At the relevant time, he was posted as an officer in the Central Excise Department. He attended the meeting between customs officers, viz., R.K.Singh (A-102) and M.S .. Sayyed (A- 90) and Mohd. Do~sa on 06.01.1993 at Hotel Pesian Durbar, 8 Panvel. His deposition, therefore, corroborates with the confession of A-134 that a meeting between Customs officers and Mohd. Dossa was held on 06.01.1993 at Hotel Persian Durbar, Panvel. l>ep<l$!tion of Dinesh Gopal Nakti (PW-95) C His deposition reveals that he worked as a labourerwitti. Uttam Poddar (A-30). He deposed further that around 12 persons gathered on 09.01.1993 on the instructions of Uttam Poddar to load several bags at Dighi in tempo. Deposition of o PW-95, therefore, corroborates with the confession of A-134, that Uttam Poddar arranged labour for loading and unloading. of goods at Dighi on 09.01.1993 and that landing took place on the same day. Deposition of Krishnakant Nathuram Birade (PW-96) . PW-96 was anothe.r labourer present at Digtii ·Jetty during the landing. His deposition also corroborates with the confession of A-134 and PW-95 iri that Uttam Poddar (A-30) · arranged for labour for loading and unloading of goods at Dig hi Jetty on 09.01.1993. Deposition of Dilip Bhiku Pansare (PW-97) PW-97 reveals as under:- E F G (i) He was working as a Mechanic in the State Transport Corporation. (ii) He drove one of the two trucks bearing No. 5533. in which silver, as told to him by Shabbir Kadri, was H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. loaded on 09.01.1993 at Dighi Jetty. (iii) He stated that at Gongdhar Phata, he was stopped by a police jeep. (iv) He stated that the police men boarded the said truck and started shouting that there was silver in the truck. (v) He stated that, in the meanwhile, another truck also came following his truck and the police men also boarded the said truck and the persons who were traveling in the said truck said 'Saab Andar Math Jao, Andar Kaanch ka Saman Hai'. (vi) He stated that, thereafter, Shabbir Kadri came and started asking Patil Sahib (A-116) "what had happened''. (vii) He stated that he took A-116 nearby a white car which was stationed behind the said truck. (viii) He stated that meanwhile A-30 and A-82 also came there and they talked for about half an hour. (ix) He stated that, thereafter, 5 silver bricks were taken out of the truck bearing No. 5533 and were kept in the police jeep. (x) He stated that when he left the said spot; the other truck alongwith the police jeep was still there. (xi) He stated that the person who shouted to take out the keys of my truck was at the rear side portion of the truck. (xii) He stated that the police checked his truck for 15 minutes and took 1 O minutes for checking the other truck. A B c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.) 805 The above deposition of PW-97 corroborates the A confession of A-134 that goods which had landed at Dighi were loaded in a truck and the same were intercepted by the police officers and after negotiations, they were let off. Deposition of Vyankatesh Hirba Rane (PW-588) B He was a police officer who deposed about the recovery of wooden boxes from Shabbir's village. His deposition corroborates with the confession of the appellant that about 3-. 4 wooden boxes and a few canvas bags containing arms and ammunitions that had landed at Dighi Jetty on 09.01.1993 had C remained at the house of Shabbir Kadri (AA). PW-588, at the instance of PW-378, recovered the said three wooden boxes and six military coloured bags from a creek vide seizure panchnama dated 08.04.1993 (Exh. 503). 3 wooden boxes containing 44 magazines of AK-56 rifles and 6 canvas bags -o each containing 2 tin boxes, each box containing 750 rounds ··were recovered. Thus, there were total 12 tin boxes containing 9000 rounds of AK-56. rifles. Deposition of Janu Kamlaya Vetkholi (PW-378) · PW-378 was a fisherman and catches fishes in Murud creek. He corroborates with the deposition of PW-588 in material aspect. Deposition of Ashok K. Chandgude (PW-670) • · · PW-670 sent the items recovered above to the FSL for opinion ·vide Panchnama Exhibit 2471 dated 23.05.1993. Exhibit.2442 is ttie opinion received from FSL. E F Deposition of Satyakant Rohinikant Saikia (PW-481) G PW-481 recorded the confession, of the appellant which cleary establishes that the same was recorded in compliance with Section 15 of TADA and the rules framed thereunder and H 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. A as such is admissible as evidence against him. His deposition shows that PW-481 asked the appellant whether he had been beaten up or induced into making the confession to which the appellant replied in the negative. Only when PW-481 was convinced that the appellant wanted to make a voluntary B confession, the confession was actually recorded. A further time of 24 hrs. was also given to the appellant to rethink his decision of making a confession. Deposition of Saujlbhai Ghemarbhai Chaudhari (PW-678) C ·- ··. Deposition of PW-678 dated 10.07.2000 establishes that the appellant was arrested by him from his village in District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh in connection with the Bombay Bomb Blast case and that the appellant volunteered to make a confession on 18.08.1995 while being interrogated. Thereafter, D PW-678 sent a requisition letter to PW-481 for recording of the confession of the appellant.

#183. From the materials, it is clear that: (i) He was a key member of the Mohd. Dossa gang. (ii) He participated in the landing of silver ingots and arms and ammunitions at Dighi Jetty on 09.01.1993. (iii) He participated in the transportation and safe keeping of the arms and ammunitions that landed at Dighi and carried these weapons to Shabbir's village. (iv) Even when he was absconding after the bomb blasts, he continued to smuggle goods and was involved in the illegal activities on the instructions of Mohd. Doss. (v} He even committed offence while he was declared proclaimed offender. E F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.) 807 (vi) On his arrest, one AK-56 rifle, two magazines and A 88 cartridges were recovered. The said arms and ammunitionswere out of the goods that landed at Dighi Jetty on 09.01.1993.

#184. The confession of A-134 along with the confessions B of A-133, A-30, A-81 and A-136 coupled with .the deposition of prosecution witnesses establish the appellant's participation in the criminal conspiracy and, more particularly, his participation in the landing of arms and ammunitions at Dighi. It is to be noted that the appellant was fully aware that the boxes c which landed at Dighi Jetty on 09.01.1993 contained arms and ammunitions and he helped in the transportation of the same after landing of such weapons. Some of these weapons were subsequently recovered by PW-588. Sentence:

#185. The prosecution has brought to our notice that the appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself on the question of quantum of sentence. His statement was recorded on 20.10.2006 (Exh. 2995) in which he prayed that the following factors, amongst others, may be considered while determining · his sentence: D E (i) He has been in custody since his arrest in April, 1995; F (ii) His children and wife are dependent on him; (iii) He lost his parents while in custody and wishes to join his wife and daughters; and (iv) He has assured to lead the life of a new law abiding citizen.

#186. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Designated Court duly considered all these factors. G H 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. · A

#187. In the light of the above discussion, we confirm the conviction and sentence awarded by the Designated Court to the appellant and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2008 B Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ Mechanic Chacha (A-136) ... Appellant(s) c D E F The State of Maharashtra, through Superintendent of Police, CBl-STF, Mumbai ... Respondent(s) VS. WITH Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2012 The State of Maharashtra, through CBI .... Appellant(s) Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ Mechanic Chacha (A-136) vs. .... Respondent(s)

#188. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel appeared for the appellant (A-136) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent (CBI). Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2008 ~ .·: 189. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated t7 .10.2006 and 23.05.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant (A-136) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater G Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993. Charges:

#190. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 809 all the co-conspirators including the appellant. The relevant A portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and B Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate C sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, hand grenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols D and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed E to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, hand grenades and high explosives like ROX into lnpia and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, F· ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan G and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory. to the H 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A B c D E F commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay. And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3)(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1 B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 98 (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance." In addition to the above-said principal charge of conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following G counts: At head Secondly: The appellant, in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and during the period January, 1993 to March, 1993, abetted and knowingly and intentionally facilitated acts preparatory to terrorist acts H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 811 {a) By attending the meeting at Hotel Persian A Darbar, Panvel on 06.01.1993 along with co accused in which co-accused customs officers allowed Mohd. Dossa (AA) and his associates to carry on smuggling activities in their jurisdiction; B (b) He participated along with landing agent Uttam Poddar (A-30) participated in landing of arms, ammunitions and handgrenades at Dighi on 09.01.1993 and also participated transportation of the said arms, ammunitions and C handgrenades to the residence of Shabir Kadri (AA) at Agarwada for its concealment; and (c) He participated in transportation of the said contraband from Dighi when it was intercepted at Gondghar Phata by police officers of Shrivardhan D Police Station and on medication the said truck was allowed to proceed for illegal gratification, thereby, he committed an offence under Section 3(3j of TADA. At head Thirdly: The appellant with intent to aid the terrorists, contravened the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, the Arms Rules, 1962, the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and participated in the landing of arms and ammunition, their transportation F and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of TADA. E

#191. The charges mentioned above were proved against the appellant (A-136) except the charge mentioned at head firstly. The Designated Judge found the appellant guilty on the G aforesaid charges which are enumerated herein below: Conviction and Sentence: (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA and H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. A B c sentenced to RI for 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,0001-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge secondly) (ii) The appellant has also been convicted under Section 6 of TADA and has been sentenced to RI for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge thirdly) · Evidence

#192. The evidence against t)'le· appellant (A-136) is in the form of:- (i) his own confession; . D (ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co accused); E F (iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and (iv) documentary evidence. Confesssional Statement of Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ Mohd. Kalia @ Mechanic Chacha (A-136)

#193. The involvement of A-136 in the conspiracy is evident from his own confession under Section 15 of TADA recorded on 09.11.1999 (15:40 hrs.) and 10.11.1999 (09:00 hrs.) by Shri O.P. Chhatwal (PW-684), the then SP, CBl-STF, New Delhi. We have gone through his entire confession. His confession reveals as under:- G (i) The appellant was a Motor mechanic and was previously jailed under COFEPOSA for 1 year. He met Mohd. Dossa (AA) in jail and he started working with him after release. H (ii) He was called as Mechanic Chacha. ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J .] 813 (iii) Uttam Poddar (A-30) was a landing agent of Mohd. A Dossa in Raigad area. (iv) 3 trucks, one numbered as 1051, (which was identified by A-134 as the truck used for carrying weapons unloaded at Dighi Jetty), 2 tempos, one Maruti car, one Maruti van and one Maruti gypsy were used for smuggling. False cavities were also made in trucks and tempos to hide the smuggled goods. These vehicles were brought in false names. B c (v) 6-8 months prior to 1993 bomb blasts, a meeting was held between Mohd. Dossa (AA) and Custom Collector Mr. Thapa (A-112) at President Hotel. In the said meeting, the appellant was also present along with other co-accused persons. A-112 told D Mohd. Dossa that he can carry out smuggling activities but he must also give some cases of seized goods of smuggling. (vi) Mohd. Dossa told the appellant and others that his brother Mustafa Dossa will send some arms from Dubai which should be collected at the port. E (vii) On 06.01.1993, a meeting took place between Mohd. Dossa and custom officials at Hotel Persian Durbar, Panvel. The appellant also traveled to F Panvel to attend the said meeting. In the meeting, it was decided to pay Rs. 9-10 lacs to Customs officials for single landing. (viii) A landing took place on 09.01.1993. G (ix) The appellant along with Afsal Gadbad left for Mhasala at 3 p.m. on 09.01.1993. (x) Thereafter, they met A-30 and all of them then reached Dighi Jetty at 9 O'clock . H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. (xi) The appellant and others received signal from the ship/launch which came from Dubai on a walkie- talkie. The appellant asked the launch to reach Dighi Jetty. (xii) About 265 silver bars were loaded in the trucks from the ship. When silver was being uploaded, the captain of ship asked to unload other things too, viz., (i) 15-20 wooden boxes, and (ii) 15-20 tin boxes. (xiii) A-134 spoke to Mustafa Dossa over telephone about the contents of the boxes and, thereafter, told A-136 to unload the 'samaan' in the truck. 'Samaan' is the lingo for arms in gangster's language. (xiv) He was travelling in the car and the truck and the tempo loaded with arms were following the car. After taking note of the fact that the truck and the tempo were not following their car, they came back and saw that truck and the tempo had been intercepted by a police party. (xv) An officer, by name 'Patil' (A-116), stopped the two vehicles .and said that he was not paid anything in spite of landings. Meanwhile, A-30 along with A-82 came there and spoke to Patil (A-116) and it was decided that Rs. 8 lakhs would be given to the police. (xvi) Patil (A-116) kept 5 silver bars as security for a bribe of Rs. 8 lacs to let the trucks pass through. (xvii) The truck with arms moved towards village Agarwada where Shabbir Qadri (AA) resided. It is further seen that from Agarwada village, arms were loaded into cavities of another truck and sent to Gujarat. Some arms which could not be fitted into A B c D E F G H ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 815 the cavities of trucks left with Shabbir Qadri at his residence. (xix) He got scared that the arms deposited by Ahmed Aulia in his village might be caught leading perhaps to his arrest also. (xx) He moved to Nepal after 2-3 months of the blasts to evade arrest. In Nepal, he met Mohd. Dossa (AA), Salim Kutta (A-134), and Feroz (AA), amongst others. He was aware that police was in search of him and that the court has also issued a warrant for his arrest. (xxi) Some of the rifles unloaded at Dighi Jetty on 09.01.1993 were with Ahmed Aulia who was not returning them. He told his wife about this and she passed this information to Crime Branch. (xxii) The arms which landed at Dighi were brought from Pakistan near Karachi. One boat went to Porbandar and some arms landed there also. A B c D E

#194. As against this, counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant came to be arrested on 04.11.1999, i.e., after the evidence of most of the witnesses was over. Shri O.P. Chhatwal (PW-684), the then SP, CBl-STF, New Delhi - the officer who recorded his confession, was present at the time of his arrest. He further pointed out that in spite of his advocate's information that A-136 does not intend to give confession, a confession was obtained from him on 09.11.1999. In the light of the above objections, we have carefully verified his entire statement, procedure followed, G voluntariness etc., of the confession and we are satisfied that there is no substance in the above objections. In view of the objection that the Supervising Officer (PW-684 herein) cannot be permitted to record confession of an.accused, this Court has rejected this objection vide S.N. Dub'e vs. N.B. Bhoir & Ors. F H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R. A