CASE BRIEF: SANJAY v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), (2001) 3 SCC 190

CASE NAME	Sanjay v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 3 SCC 190
CITATION	2001 SCC (Cri) 449, 2001 SCC OnLine SC 366
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice R.P. Sethi
APPELLANT	Sanjay @ Kaka and Others
RESPONDENT	State (NCT of Delhi)
DECIDED ON	7th February 2001

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India heard the appeals of several people convicted of a number of crimes, including murder, robbery, and violations of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), in the case of Sanjay @ Kaka, Etc. Etc. vs. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi). The appellants argued that the evidence used against them was inadequate and untrustworthy, and they contested their convictions and penalties.

According to notification No. F 25(3) 67-HP dated 20.10.1987, the prosecution had proven that appellant Vinod was in possession of a gun and ammunition in a notified area of Delhi. In addition to the murder charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), this evidence was judged adequate to condemn him under Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act.

Appellant Vinod was found guilty by the trial court in accordance with Sections 392/34, 397, and 302 of the IPC as well as Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act. For the murder charge, he received a life sentence and a fine; for the other counts, he received harsh jail terms. The other appellants received terms ranging from five years to life in prison after being found guilty of a number of crimes, including robbery and unlawful gun possession.

After considering the arguments and supporting evidence, the Supreme Court maintained the appellants’ convictions and penalties. The Court determined that the prosecution had proven that the unlawful gathering had a single goal, which was to kill the informant and his companions.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Four young, desperate individuals, including the appellants and one Mohabat Ali, broke into the building at No.F-8/5, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi, in broad daylight and committed robbery. As a result, Smt. Sheela was fatally stabbed. In terms of law and order, as well as the lives and liberties of the citizens of the capital city and other regions of the nation, the incident that occurred on June 20, 1990, is not an isolated incident. Amarjeet Sharma’s resistance to the planned crime was rendered immobile by the death of the deceased and the threat of death posed by pointing a gun at him. In addition to Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruption Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 1993 (henceforth referred to as the “TADA (P) Act”), a charge sheet was filed against the accused individuals under Sections 302, 394, 397, 398, 342, 120B, and 411 IPC following the registration of the First Information Report and the conclusion of the investigation.

In addition to Section 5 of the TADA(P) Act, the trial court found appellant Vinod guilty of offenses under Sections 392/34, 397, and 302 of the IPC. He was given a life sentence and a Rs. 2,000 fine for violating Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, seven years of rigorous imprisonment for violating Sections 397 and 392/34, and five years of rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 2,000 fine for violating Section 5 of the TADA (P). Accused Mohabat Ali was found guilty of violating Sections 392/34 IPC and Section 5 of the TADA(P) Act. He was given a five-year severe prison sentence and a Rs. 2,000 fine for each count. For violating Sections 392/34 IPC, appellants Nawabuddin and Sanjay Moley were each given a five-year severe prison sentence and a Rs. 2,000 fine. In the event that the fine was not paid, different penalties were also applied. Every sentence was intended to run simultaneously.

The appellants, who are upset with the decision of the Designated Trial Court, have filed the current appeals, arguing that no one is being prosecuted and that the trial court erred in law by relying on evidence that was not only shaky and untrustworthy but also prohibited from being used as evidence under the applicable laws.

ISSUES RAISED

Considering the appellants’ claims that the disclosure statements and recoveries resulting from them were inadmissible under the applicable laws, was the trial court incorrect in admitting them?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The appellants’ experienced counsel has adamantly maintained that the trial court lacked the authority to record the conviction against the appellants and sentence them to a variety of jail terms because there was no direct evidence in the form of eyewitnesses.
They claimed that the prosecution’s use of circumstantial evidence was unreliable and inadmissible. In any other case, the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to link the appellants to the commission of the offense for which they were charged, found guilty, and given a sentence.
The witness’s statement is false, ill-considered, and untrustworthy. He claimed that there was no need or occasion for Sanjay to approach the witness in order to obtain the aforementioned extrajudicial confession because they did not have any kind of relationship that would have encouraged the accused to confide in the witness.
He further argued that the story of the accused giving the extrajudicial confession was false because Sanjay was in the police station when PW5’s testimony was recorded, and he was allowed to leave, notwithstanding the statement.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The prosecution argued that the law permitted the accused’s disclosure statements and the ensuing recovery of firearms, stolen items, and clothing smeared with blood. They maintained that these pieces of evidence were essential to proving the accused’s guilt. These circumstances were deemed important by the trial court in linking the accused to the crime.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) application: The prosecution argued that because of the seriousness and character of the crimes committed, the TADA requirements applied in this instance. They claimed that the appellants’ activities were covered by TADA, which supported the use of the law in their prosecution.

JUDGMENT

The investigating officer’s and Satish Khanna’s (PW22) testimony support the accused individuals’ disclosure claims. Therefore, the trial court had good reason to rely on the circumstances surrounding the accused’s disclosure statements and the subsequent recovery of Vinod appellant’s stolen belongings, including his blood-stained shirt, in addition to the weapon of offense.

Given that they were not carrying a deadly weapon and were unaware that Vinod appellant was carrying a dagger, it is safe to assume, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, that the two accused individuals in question were at least guilty of robbery, a crime punishable under Section 392 IPC. Therefore, the trial court had good reason to conclude that “the above-mentioned circumstances together complete the chain of circumstances to prove the accused person’s guilt in so far as the offense of robbery is concerned.” Indeed, the very next day after the occurrence, the accused’s disclosure statements and the large sums of money recovered from them at their request alone provide ample evidence that the accused had conspired to commit the heist.

By presenting convincing evidence, the prosecution proved that appellant Vinod was guilty of both the murder charge under Section 302 IPC and the offense of possession of a firearm and ammunition in a Notified Area of Delhi as a result of notification No. F 25(3) 67-HP dated 20.10.1987.

CONCLUSION

Sanjay @ Kaka Etc. Etc. vs. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) was a case in which the Supreme Court of India examined the convictions of the appellants for their involvement in a series of criminal activities. These activities included murder, robbery, and offenses associated with the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). In their appeal, the appellants contested their convictions and penalties, arguing that the evidence that was provided against them was insufficient and unreliable.

The credibility of the prosecution’s case was mainly dependent on the disclosure statements that were made by the accused, as well as the later recovery of stolen property, firearms, and clothing that was stained with blood. It was argued that these comments should not be allowed to be admitted into evidence because they were obtained from law enforcement agents, and there was no independent evidence to back them up. The court, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that the disclosure statements were made willingly and that they were supported by the recovery of stolen objects, which the victims recognized. The court also mentioned that the fact that there were no independent witnesses present during the recovery process did not render the evidence inadmissible. This is because the testimony of the victims and the police officers was considered to be trustworthy.

The Court supported the applicability of TADA, saying that the gravity and nature of the offenses committed required its provisions. This was in reference to the application of TADA. The court highlighted that the conduct of the appellants was within the scope of TADA, which justified the use of the statute in the manner in which they were prosecuted.

After a thorough investigation, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the appellants were guilty. The convictions and punishments that the lower courts handed down were affirmed by the Supreme Court, which also confirmed that the TADA was applied in this particular case. When it comes to the prosecution of significant criminal charges, this case highlights how important it is to have trustworthy evidence and to use the relevant legal rules.