Holding

The evidence on record, including confessional statements, approver testimony, and recoveries, sufficiently establishes the guilt of the appellants, and the provisions of TADA prevail over the Juvenile Justice Act in cases of terrorist activities.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India disposed of multiple appeals arising from the 1993 Bombay serial bomb blasts, which killed 257 people and injured 713. The Designated Court under TADA had convicted numerous accused, sentencing most to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, including confessional statements of accused and co-accused, testimony of approvers and other witnesses, and recoveries of arms and explosives. The Court confirmed the life sentences for most appellants, finding the evidence sufficient to establish their guilt in the conspiracy and execution of the terrorist acts. However, the Court reduced the sentence of appellant A-71 (Ashrafur Rehman) to 10 years rigorous imprisonment due to his advanced age and ailments, and reduced the sentence of appellant A-15 (Imtiyaz) to the period already undergone because he was suffering from AIDS/HIV+. The Court also held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 does not override the provisions of TADA, rejecting the juvenility plea of appellant A-43. The state's appeals against acquittals of certain accused were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence on record, including confessional statements, witness testimony, and recoveries, established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 overrides the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 in cases involving juvenile offenders?
Whether the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Designated Court was appropriate for all appellants, or whether any reduction was warranted?
Whether the acquittal of certain accused on the charge of conspiracy was correct?

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 25(1-A), s. 25(1-B)(a), s. 3, s. 7
Explosives Act, 1884s. 9B
Explosive Substances Act, 1908s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 212, s. 302, s. 307, s. 324, s. 326, s. 427, s. 435, s. 436
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000s. 12, s. 1(4), s. 15, s. 16, s. 18, s. 20, s. 28, s. 2(k), s. 2(l), s. 6
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984s. 4
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 25, s. 3, s. 5, s. 6

Subjects

TADABombay bomb blastsconspiracyterrorist actconfessional statementapproverjuvenile justiceoverriding effectlife imprisonmentsentence reductionidentification paradehostile witnesspurposive constructionharmonious construction

Judgment

[2013) 15 S.C.R. 621

ESSA@ ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON A
vs.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH STF, CBI
MUMBAI
PART-II
(Appeals relating to life sentence) B
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 1178 of 2007 etc.
MARCH 21, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
c
TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1987:
SS. 3(3) of TADA ands. 120-B /PC rlw SS. 3(2)(i), 3(3),3(4),
· 5 and 6 of TADA - Serial bomb blasts in Bombay in March,
1993 - Conviction and sentence .of life imprisonment by D
Designated Court - Held: The confessional statements of
accused and co-accused as also the evidence of approver
and other prosecution witnesses, the recoveries made and
other evidences, establish the guilt of all accused-appellants
- Their conviction as recorded by Designated Court, is E
confirmed - Except appellants-accused A- 15, A-136 and A-
71 sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to all other
accused-appellants is confirmed - Appellant-accused A-15
is suffering froin AIDS/HIV+, though sentence of life
· imprisonment is appropriate, however, since he has remained F
· in jail for 14 years, sentence o; period already undergone
would be sufficient.- Appellant-accused A-136 wasrightly not
found guilty of the common charge of conspiracy under head
firstly by.Designated Court - However, his sentence of 10
years RI for conviction. of charges at heads secondly and G
thirdly is confirmed~ Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120"8, 302,
307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212-Arms Act,1959
- ss. 3, 7 rlw 25 (1-A), (1-B) (a) - Explosive Substances Act,
1908 ss. 3, 4(a), 4(b), 5 and 6 - Explosives Act, 1884 - ss.

621 H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A 98 (1) (a), (b) and (c) - Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 - s. 4.
ss. 5 and 6 - Unlawful possession of huge quantity of
contraband arms and explosives in Notified area -
Presumption - Held: Since the presumption as to accused-
B appellant (A-71) himself being in possession of arms and
explosives for commission of terrorist activity, has not been
rebutted, Designated Court rightly found him guilty u/s 5 -
Further being in possession of such contraband arms and
explosives, provisions of Arms Act and Explosives Act have
C been contravened, making the appellant-accused liable u/s
6 of TADA and ss. 3 and 7 r/w s. 25(1-A) and (1-B) of Arms
Act - However, there is no material to show that the recovered
contraband arms and explosives were used in the crime by
accused-appellant - Further, as prosecution failed to connect
D the recovered contraband arms and explosives with the
conspiracy for which charge was framed under head 'Firstly',
accused-appellant was rightly not held liable for commission
of the said offence - In the circumstances, taking into
consideration the age and ailment of accused-appellant, while
E confirming the conviction, sentence of life imprisonment is
reduced to 10 years RI .
EVIDENCE:
Discrepancies in narrations of witnesses - Held: Unless
the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same
F should not be used to disbelieve the evidence in its entirety
- In the instant case, the contradictions pointed out on behalf
of the appellant are minor contradictions and do not render
the evidence unbelievable.
Evidence of hostile witness - Held: Can be retied upon.
G
IDENTIFICATION:
Test identification parade - Held: The evidence with
regard to TIP can only be used as a corroborative piece of
evidence and is a test to strengthen trustworthiness of the
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 623
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

substantive evidence of the witness before court - In the A
instant case, all the witnesses have identified the appellant
before court, SEM on this aspect withstood his cross
examination and TIP was validly conducted and all necessary
precautions were ensured by SEM.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES: B
Provisions in statutes to provide overriding effect -
Provisions of JJ Act and TADA - Held: 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 C
provision does not derogate from a special one - Where the
literal meaning 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 - Maxims: D
(i) leges posteriores priores conterarias abrogant (later laws
abrogate earlier contrary laws) and (ii) generalia specialibus
non derogant (a general provision does not .derogate from a
special one.).
Non-obstante clauses in two statutes - Provisions of JJ E
Act and TADA - Giving overriding effect to respective
enactments - Held: While passing a special Act, 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 F
modified the -former special Act unless an inference may be
drawn from the language of the special Act itself - 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 beneficial legislation - On perusal of G
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 -
H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A Besides, 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 object of TADA - Thus, it cannot be said that
the JJ Act would have an over-riding effect on TADA which
s was not in existence on the date of commencement of the
provisions of JJ Act - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 - Juvenile Justice (Care and·
Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Exception and non-obstante clause - Held: When JJ Act
C itself provides for an exception under whici1 even bail may not
be granted, it cannot be said 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
D cannot .be held that it would prevail over TADA under all
possible circumstances.
Purposive construction/harmonious construction - Held
- Where there is inconsistency between the provisions of two
statutes and both can be regarded as special in nature, the
E conflict has to be resolved by reference to the purpose and
policy underlying the two enactments and intendment of
legislature conveyed by the language of relevant provisions
therein - It would not be permissible for the court to construe
the provisions in such a manner which would destroy the very
F purpose for which the same was enacted - It is the duty of
the court to adopt a harmonious construction by which both
the provisions remain operative.
JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND
PROTECTIONOFCHILDREN) ACT, 2000:
G
Bombay bomb blasts case - Accused convicted under
TADA - Sentenced to imprisonment for life by Designated
Court - Plea of juvenility - Held: Facts of the case make it
clear that appellant from his conduct cannot by any stretch
of imagination qualify as a child in need of care and
H protection, as the acts committed by him are so grave and
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 625
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
heinous warranting the maximum penalty but Designated A
Court after considering all factors awarded him lesser
punishment when the co-accused who accompanied him to
· targeted place and committed similar acts were awarded with
the "!aximum punishment for heinous acts committed by
them - Further, despite being fully aware of conspiracy, s
appellant proceeded to act by receiving training in handling
arms and explosives, preparation of vehicle bombs and even
throwing hand grenades in a populated place, thereby,
furthering the object of such a heinous conspiracy -
Therefore, conviction and sentence of life imprisonment c
awarded by Designated Court is confirmed - Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
'
WORDS AND PHRASES:
Expression, 'ends of justice' - Connotation of - Held:
While ·dealing with an issue, court must not lose sight ·of the D
fact that meaning of "ends of justice" essentially refers to
justice to all parties· - This phrase refers to the best interest
of public within the four corners of the statute - It means
preservation of proper balance between Constitutional!
statutory rights of an individual and rights of people at large E
to have the law enforced -Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.
139A (2) and 142 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.
482 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 151.
Expression, 'the Jaw for the time being in force' -
Connotation of - Held: The phrase has been interpreted to F
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 G
the date of commencement of the provisions of s. 1(4) of JJ
Act - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 - ·Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2000.
All the appellants in the instant appeals were accused H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A of the serial bomb blasts which took place at 12 different
places in Bombay on 12.3.1993. A common charge of
conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators,
including the appellants, for offences punishable ulss 3(3)
of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
B 1987 (TADA), s. 120-B IPC rlw SS. 3(2)(i), 3(3),3(4), 5 and 6
of TADA, SS. 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and
212 IPC, ss. 3 and 7 rlw ss. 25(1-A), (1-B) (a) of Arms Act,
ss. 9B (1) (a),(b) and (c) of Explosives Act, ss. 3, 4(a), (b),
5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act and s. 4 of
C Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (under
the head 'Firstly'). Besides, each of the appellants was
further charged with the various covert and overt acts
committed by them in furtherance of the said conspiracy.
The evidence against the appellants was in the form of
(i) their own confessions (except a few who did not make
0
any confession); (ii) confessions made by other co-
conspirators (co-accused); (iii) testimony of prosecution
witnesses;· and (iv) evidence of memorandumldiscovery.
The Designated Court convicted the appellants of the
charges found proved against them and sentenced them
E to rigorous imprisonment for life and other terms of
imprisonment except A-136, who was not found guilty of
the common charge of conspiracy under head firstly.
However, he was found guilty of charges at heads
secondly and thirdly and was awarded 10 years RI each
F for two counts, by the Designated Court. The convicts
filed the appeals. The State Government also filed
appeals against some of the accused against whom
charges were partly not found proved by the Designated
Court.
G Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:
Crl. A. Nos. 1178, 1179 and 1181 of 2007 (A· 3, A-8 and A-
11.;.
H 1.1. The involvement of the appellants-accused A-3,
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 627
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
A-8 and A-4 and their role in the conspiracy has been A
disclosed in the confessional statements of the co-
accused A-11, A~46 and A-64, by the deposition of various
prosecution witnesses including the approver (PW2), PW
312, PW 87, PW 245, PW 229, PW 415, PW 46, PW 317,
PW 444, PW 370, PW 662, the recovery of a Maruti van B
belonging to A-8, recoveries made, including of ROX
traces from Flat Nos. 22, 25 and 26 at Al-Hussaini
Building, and from the garages and compound of Al-
Hussaini building. Althouth PW 87 was declared a hostile
witness, his evidence can be relied on. [para 5 -18) [660- c
C, D, G, H; 661-B, F; 662-B, 663-C; 664-C-D; 665-E; 666-
B, D, H; 667-D, F; 668-C; 671-C]
Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration 1976 (2) SCR 11 =AIR
1976 SC 294 - relied upon.
1.2. The recoveries made established that the D
members of the family of AA2, including A-3, A-4 and A-
8, used to reside together in Flat Nos. 22, 25 and 26 at
Al-Hussaini building and were present when several
conspiratorial meetings took place in the said flats to
cause multiple explosions in Bombay. It is, therefore, clear E
that A-3, A-4 and A-8 knew about the conspiracy and
facilitated the commission of acts pursuant to the said
conspiracy. [para 19 and 33) [673-D, E-F; 680-H]
-1.3. Tbe evidence on record establishes that A-8 was
aware that the Maruti van owned by her and driven by A- F
3, was being used for terrorist acts by AA-2 and his
associates. It is further established that Flat Nos. 22, 25
and 26 at Al-Hussaini building, where members of the
family of AA2 resided jointly, was the nucleus of the
criminal conspiracy as they were the locations where AA- G
2 and A-1 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 was filled in the vehicles in and outside the garages H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A allocated to the members of the family of AA-2 at Al-
Hussaini building which were usedfplanted as bombs at
various places on 12.03.1993 by all the conspirators.
[para 31] [680-A-C]
1.4. The defence of A-8 that she was at Dubai since
B August, 1992 and as such she could not be held liable
for user of her van in the commission of the crime was
rightly rejected by the Designated Court. Such a user
could not have been made without her permission or her
connivance. Since A-8 has failed to give any explanation,
C she cannot escape the liability accruing due to van
standing in her name being used for such a nefarious
activity. [para 15] [669-B, C, D-E]
1.5. At the time of arrest of the appellants at the
International Airport, New Delhi, Pakistani passports and
D Pakistani identity cards with their photographs but with
fake names were recovered from them. It is, therefore,
clearly proved that the appellants had relocated to Dubai
from Bombay just prior to the blasts on 12.03.1993 and,
thereafter to Pakistan where they acquired properties,
E started business, acquired fictitious qualification
certificates, driving licences, etc, all of which established
that they had chosen a comfortable life in Pakistan and
were determined not to return to India in their original
identity. These facts clearly establish that the appellants
F were connected with the Bombay Bomb Blasts. [para 20-
21, 24 and 36] [674-E, F, G; 675-F-G; 681-F-G]
1.6. The conduct of the appellants after the blasts
further establishes that they did not intend to co-operate
with the investigation authorities in India. The appellants
G and all other family members of AA-2 were declared
Proclaimed Offenders by the Designated Court. Despite
that, they did not surrender. This conduct also
establishes their culpability. [para 25 and 37] [675-G-H;
681-H; 682-A, D]
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 629
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

1.7. The evidence on record establishes that the A
appellants.facilitated theicommission of terrorist acts as
defined in s.3(1) of TADA by conniving with AA-2 and his
associates_ and permitting them to use their flats and
vehicles for the purposes of criminal conspiracy. The
actions of. the appellants -squarely fall within s.3(3) of B
TADA -insofar as the appellants have facilitated and
abetted the conduct of terrorist acts by AA-2 and his
associates. Their conduct of living together after fleeing
from Bombay and not informing about these blasts to any
of the. authorities concerned at Indian Embassy c
establishes thaMhey were also involved .in the conspiracy
to commit the bomb blasts. [para 34-35] [681-8-E]
1.8. In view of the materials placed on record by the
prosecution and the ultimate analysis of the Designated
Court, this Court affirms the conviction and sentence of o
RI for life imposed upon the appellants. [para 38] [682-F-
G] -
Crl. A. No._ 419-of 2011 (by State):
1.9. The appeal against acquittal of A-2, A-6 and A-7
has not been pressed. As regards acquittal of appellant- E
accused A-8 of a part of the charge stated against her in
clause (a) and the charge stated in clause (b) at head
secondly;after careful examination of alt the materials
placed, this Court is of the view that in the absen-ce of any
positive evidence, A-8 1canncit be convicted for the acts F
done and mentioned as part of charge at head secondly
and the Designated Court has rightly acquitted her of the
same. [para 29] [678-C~E]
Crl. A. Nos. 1127-1128 of 2007(A-54):
G
2. From the materials and evidence relied on by the
prosecution, Le., confessional statements of co-accused
A-13, A-23, A-29, A-32, A-44, A-49, A-98 and A-100,
depositions of PW2 (approver),_ PW 105, PW 106
(recoveries ma·d~) (PW587 and PW 103) and other H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A materials, it is established that the appellant participated
in various stages of the conspiracy from planning till
execution. He was also present during the filling of ROX
in the vehicles which were planted at various locations
resulting in the death of hundreds of people and injuries
B to many. The crimes committed by the accused persons
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
C which appellant (A-54) has played an active role.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction
and sentence of RI for life imposed by the Designated
Court to the appellant (A-54) is sustainable and justified.
[para 45, 46 51-52] [690-E; 692-A; 693-C; 694-C; 695-A-E;
D 697-C-F]
Crl. A. Nos. 1252-1253 of 2007(A-71l: and Crl. A. No. 413
of 2011 (by State):
3.1. While considering the common charge, namely,
conspiracy, the Designated Court has recorded a finding
E that there is no evidence on record to establish that the
recovered contraband arms and ammunition and
explosives was smuggled by AA-2 and his associates. It
also recorded that the evidence brought in has failed to
establish precisely the period for which A-71 was in
F possession of the said contraband material and further,
there is nothing on record to suggest for what purpose
the appellant was in possession of such a huge quantity
of contraband. [para 65] [709-H; 710-A-B]
3.2. However, as rightly concluded by the Designated
G Court, the evidence, in clear terms, reveals that A-71 was
in possession of huge quantity of contraband material
within the notified area of Greater Bombay attracting the
provisions of s. 5 of TADA and failed to rebut the
presumption arising out of such unlawful possession.
H The said presumption has been explained by a
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 631
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay A
Dutt as the presumption of having himself possessed the
same for commission of terrorist activity. In view of the
same, the Designated Court has rightly held A-71 guilty
of commission of offence u/s 5 of TADA. [para 68] [710-
H; 711-A-C] B
Sanjay Dutt vs. State thr. CBI, Bombay 1994 (3) Suppl.
=
SCR 263 (1994) 5 sec 410 - relied on
3.3. Considering the large quantity of contraband
materials in the possession of A-71, the period in which C
he was found to be in possession of the same and all the
other relevant circumstances, it leads to the conclusion
that A-71 himself being in possession of 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 D
offences u/s 6 of TADA and also u/ss 3 and 7 read with
s. 25 (1-A) and (1-8) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959. [para 69]
[711-C-E]
3.4. Upon a conjoint reading of the entire evidence,
E
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. [para 70] [711-E-F]
F
3.5. The prosecution has failed to establish that the
relevant materials, viz., contraband was part of the
material smuggled into India by AA-2 and AA-1for
commission of terrorist acts or the same was given to A-
71 by AA-2 or any other co-conspirator; and in the G
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. [para 71] [712-
A-B]
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 3.6. It is relevant to note that even according to the
prosecution, the recovery was from a place open and
accessible to all the persons visiting the Musafirkhana for
any purpose including prayer or the persons staying
therein. It is also relevant to point out that the Designated
B Court has recorded a finding that the prosecution failed
to lead acceptable evidence to show that such recovered
contrabands were used in any crime by the appellant and
this Court agrees with the finding recorded by the
Designated Court. [Para 75] [715-C-E]
C 3.7. As per the proved charges u/ss 5 and 6 of TADA,
the minimum punishment prescribed is 5 years and
maximum is life sentence. Takitig note of the age,
ailments and conduct of the appellant as recorded by the
Designated Court, this Court feels that the appellant did
D not deserve the maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
The appellant is JTIOre than 70 years of age and is
suffering from a number of ailments. 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
E appellant has already undergone a period of 8% years
without remission. Taking note of all these aspects, this
Court feels that while confirming fhe conviction, ends of
justice would be met by reducing the sentence of the
appellant to RI for 10 years. [para 75] [715-E-H; 716-A]
F Crl. A. No. 1365 of 2007CA-15)
4.1. From a perusal of the confession of the
appellant-accused A-15, it emerges that he worked in
close association with the other co-accused persons
towards attainment of the objects behind the conspiracy
G and he also actively participated"in the landings and
transportation of arms and ammunitions and explosives.
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. The role of
H appellant accused A-15 is furthe~ established from the
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 633
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
confessional statements of co-accused A-9, A-12, A-14, A
A-28, A-29, A-44, A-46, A-57, A-61, A-64, A-73 and A-96. The
involvement and the role of the appellant in the
conspiracy is also disclosed by the deposition of vari_ous
pros~cution witnesses. [para 83-86) [723-G-H; 724-A; 730-
H; 731-G] B
4.2. The appellant's involvement in landing of arms
and explosives, his association with AA-2, participation
in planting scooter bomb have been fully established by
the prosecution. The conclusion arrived at by the
Designated Court is concurred with. [para 88) [735-G] c
4.3. The fact that the appellant is suffering from AIDS/
HIV+ has not been disputed. 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 D
is the appropriate sentence for the proved charges, it is
ordered that there is no need•to send him back to prison.
In the peculiar circumstance, it is made clear that the
period already undergone would be sufficient. .[para 89)
[736-C-D] E
Crl. A. No. 1224 of 2007 (A-112):
5.1. At the relevant time, A-112 was posted. as
Additional Collector of Customs, Preventive, Mumbai. He
died during the pendency of appeal. He facilitated the F
landing of arms and ammunition and explosives at the
instance of AA·2. The evidence on record established that
A-112 was fully aware of the. information that the weapons
of mass destruction may be smuggled to India along with
silver and gold; he kept vigil at a place which leaves room
G
for the smugglers to escape from another route to
Bombay, under the guise of specific information; he failed
to produce any such specific information ever; he misled
the Department that he had specific information that AA-
' 2 was to come through a particular route in a particular
• H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A manner, while actually, there was no specific information
in this regard; the onus was on the accused to prove his
specific information for a particular course of conduct
undertaken by him; he also spread rumour of specific
information to mislead and misguide the Department so
B as to help the smugglers; he mis-directed the Department
by distorting a specific message of landing to be
something happening at a different place about 45 km
away, particularly, when the said information came from
a senior officer of the Department; he did not do anything
c on specific information about landing; any timely action
on his part could have traced the smuggled goods, and
the said action could have prevented second landing that
took place subsequently. [para 93 and 121] [737-8; 754-
G-H; 755-A-H; 755-A-H; 756-A]
o 5.2. All the circumstances cumulatively establish the
charges framed against A-112 at the trial. The said
circumstances leave no room for any alternative
hypothesis. This Court is also satisfied that pursuant to
the conspiracy with AA-2 and his other co-conspirators,
E A-112 misused his official position in order to knowingly
facilitate the terrorist act. [para 122] [756-8-C]
5.3. The prosecution has established the guilt against
the appellant and the Designated Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced him. Since he died during the
F pendency of the appeal, there cannot be any direction
except confirming the decision of the Designated Court
and clarifying tlie position. [para 123] [756-D]
Crl. A. No. 1440 of 2007 (A-25) and Crl. A. No. 1028 of 2012
(by State):
G
6.1. Taking note of the materials on record, the
Designated Court, after analyzing the same, came to the
conclusion that the confession of A-25 clearly reveals his
involvement in landing of arms and explosives at the
stated place and its transportation. The corroborative
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 635
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI

material contained in the confession of A-25 i.e. his A
involvement in landing arms and explosives at the stated
place and its transportation and his being in possession
of contraband material, for which he was charged with,
has also been proved in the confessions of A-14, A-42 and
A-61. Besides, the involvement and the role of the B
appellant in the conspiracy, is disclosed by the
deposition of various prosecution witnesses, including
PW-45 and PW-596. Considering the role played by him
i.e., he was possessing such a large number of arms and
ammunitions and was holding the same for a c
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 0
is guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit terrorist
acts punishable u/s 3(3) of TADA. [para 138, 140, 145]
[768-B; 771-D, E, F, G]
6.2. In view of the evidence on record, this Court
holds that the appellant was actively involved in the E
conspiracy to cause blasts in Bombay and in
consequence of the said involvement, he has committed
the offences. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of the
offences charged from head firstly to fourthly. [para 146-
147] [771-H; 772-A, CJ F
6.3. From the materials, it is clear that the appellant
neither dissociated himself nor resisted from
participating in the landings or transportation of
contraband material nor did he inform the same to the
police authorities or took any steps for the same. This is G
sufficient to show that he was responsible for the blasts
in Bombay and he was very well aware of its
consequences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
the sentence of RI for life awarded by the Designated
H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Court to the appellant is justified and the same is
confirmed. [para 150-151] [773-8, CJ
Crl. A. No. 1441 of 2007 IA-1161
7.1. At the time of commission of offence, the
8 appellant-accusedA-116 was posted as Sub-Inspector of
Police. The evidence on record establishes that A-116
arranged for the keys of Dighi Jetty to be given to 'S' (AA)
for the purposes of landing; a police party led by the
appellant intercepted two trucks, checked them, and after
C negotiating, let them off; the appellant was well
acquainted with the smugglers; he had secret
negotiations with the smugglers as well as consultation
with the Customs official (A-82) for fixing the special bribe
amount; he took silver bars as security in lieu of cash
and kept the same in the house of PW-94 who duly
D corroborated with the fact that he kept the bars in his
house; and the appellant paid to PW-156 for handing over
the keys of the Dighi Jetty to 'S' (AA) on 09.01.1993, the
day when arms and ammunitions landed at Dighi. It is
significant to note that sufficient evidence has been
E placed on record by the prosecution to show that part of
the consignment which landed at Dighi was also
delivered to AA-2. [para 156 and 166] [776-G; 788-8-G]
7.2. The crime of the appellant may be considered in
the light of the fact that he was the protector of law and
F he has breached the trust of the people of the country.
Had he honestly done his duty, perhaps the whole
disaster could have been obviated. The evidence
substantiates and establishes the charge of conspiracy
framed against the appellant (A-116). This Court agrees
G with the reasoning and ultimate conclusion of the
Designated Court both on the conviction and sentence.
This Court is of the view that the sentence of RI for life
awarded by the Designated Court to the appellant is
justified. [para 170-171] [170-G; 171-A-8]
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 637
MAHARASHTRA. THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
Crl. A. No. 401 of 2008 (A-134 and A-136): A
Appellant-accused A-134:
8.1. The'confession of appellant-accused A-134
al~ng with the confessions of A-133, A-30, A-81 and A-136
coupled with the~ deposition of prosecution witnesses B
establish the appellant's participation in the criminal
conspiracy and; more particu!arly, his participation in the
lan,ding of arms.and ammunitions at the stated places
and .helping in the transportation of the same. On his
arrest, one AK-56 rifle, two magazines and 88 cartridges C
were recover~d. [para 183-184] (807-A-C]
8.2. The Designated Court, while awarding the
sentence, duly considered all ~he factors. The conviction
and sentence of RI for life awarded to the appellant by
the Designated Court is confirmed. [para 186] [807-H; 808- D
A] . .
Appellant-accused A-136:
8.3. The objection raised on behalf of the appellant-
accused A-136 to his confession pointing out that the
officer who recorded the confession, was present at the E
time of arrest of the appellants and that the same was
recorded in spite of his advocate's information that the
appe}larit did not intend to confess, has no substance.
This Court has rejected the objection that the
Supervising Officer cannot be permitted to record F
confession of an accused. [para 194] [815-F-H]
p

, S.N. Dub~ vs. NB. Bhoir & Ors. 2000 (1) SCR 200 =
(2000) 2 SCC. 254, Lal Singh vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. 2001
=
(1) SCR 111 (2001) 3 SCC 221 and Mohd. Amin vs. CBI
2008 (16 ) SCR 155 = (2008) 15 SCC 49 - relied on G
8.4. From the confession of A-136 himself, the
confessions of co-accused A-34, A-30, A-82, A-81,
depositions of other witnesses and other evidence on
record, it has been established that appellant-accused A- H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 136 was given the important task of safe landing of arms
and explosives and its transportation to respective
destinations. He also negotiated with police officers for
release of the goods. [Para 200) [823-A, C-E]
8.5. This Court holds that the appellant has rightly
B been convicted and sentenced by the Designated Court.
The Designated Court also heard the appellant on the
quantum of sentence. Taking note of all the materials and
proved charges mentioned at head secondly and thirdly,
the sentence of 10 years RI under each of the two counts
C awarded to A-136 by the Designated Court cannot be
said to be excessive, but is justifiable and acceptable.
[para 200 and 203) [823-E-F; 825-G-H; 826-A-B]
Crl. A. NO. 1023 of 2012 (by State):
8.6. After a careful examination of all the materials
D
placed, this Court is of the view that in the absence of any
positive evidence, A-136 cannot be convicted under the
charge mentioned at head firstly, i.e., conspiracy, and the
Designated Court has rightly acquitted him of the said
E charge. [Para 201) [823-H; 824-A-B]
Crl. A. Nos. 976-977 of 2008 IA-64)
9.1. The confession of the appellant-accused A-64
has been corroborated by the confessional statements
of the co-accused A-12, A-13, A-15, A-16, A-29, A-32, A-36,
F A-39, A-46, A-49, A-57, A-58, A-77, A-94, A-98 and A-100.
The involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is
established in as much he actively participated in the
landing of arms and explosives smuggled for the
purpose of committing terrorist acts; he went to Pakistan
G and received training in arms and ammunitions and
explosives; he participated in the conspiratorial
meetings; at the behest of AA-2, he formed a group with
A-100; they were assigned the task of conducting survey
of Sahar airport and throwing hand grenades on aircrafts
H there; he actively participated in the filling of ROX in
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v.. STATEOF 639
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

vehicles at Al-Hussaini Building compound on the A
intervening night of 11/12.03.1993; and after the blasts, he
fled from Bombay fearing his arrest. [para 213] [842-H;
843-A-H]
9.2. In view of the entire evidence on record, this
Court holds that the appellant was actively involved in the 8
conspiracy to cause blasts in Bombay and in
consequence of the said involvement, he has committed
the said offences for which he has been rightly charged;
and the sentence of RI for file awarded to the appellant
by the Designated Court is justified. [para 221] [851-E-F] C
Crl A. No. 6.16 of 2008(A-52l
10.1. The confession of the appellant-accused A-52
has been corroborated by the confessional statements of
co-accused A-13, A-16, A-23, A-29, A-32, A-36, A-39, A-49, D
A-57, A-64, A-94, A-98 and A-100. After consideration of all
the confessional statements of the co-accused, the
involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is
established in as much as he attended the conspiratorial
meeting at the residence of AA-2; he was present at Al- E
Hussaini building in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993
and witnessed the filling of ROX in vehicles; on
12.03.1993, PW-2 distributed a bag full of hand grenades
amongst the co-accused persons in his presence; he
attended training in arms and ammunitions in Pakistan F
with a fictitious name; he drove the co-accused persons
in a Maruti Van to Mahim Causeway where they lobbed
hand grenades at Fishermen's colony causing
explosions; and he was the Commander of his group.
[para 231] [870-A-F, G-H; 871-A]
G
10.2. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the appellant has
actively participated in various conspiratorial acts of
planning, training, preparation and execution. The

H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A evidence on record clearly proved the charges against
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. [para 246] [879-
H; 880-A]
10.3. Regarding sentence, this Court fully agree with
the conclusion arrived at by the Designated Court and
B there is no valid reason for interference. His conviction
and sentence of RI for life is confirmed. [para 247] [880-
8, C]
Crl. A. Nos. 979-980 of 2008(A-49l
C 11.1. The confession of the appellant-accused A-49
has been corroborated by the confessional statements
of the co-accused A-13, A-16, A-23, A-29, A-32, A-36, A-39,
A-52, A-64, A-94, A-98 and A-100. After consideration of
all the confessional statements of the co-accused and
other depositions, the involvement of the appellant in the
0 conspiracy is clearly established inasmuch as he went
to Pakistan and took training in arms and ammunitions
and explosives; he participated in the conspiratorial
meeting where plans for executing the blasts were
discussed; he actively participated in filling of explosives
E in vehicles in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993; he went
along with A-23 from Al-Hussaini Building on a
motorcycle driven by A-23 to the Sahar Airport Flyover
Bridge and threw hand grenade towards the aircraft
thereby causing explosion and consequent damage.
F [para 257 and 261] [894-D-E, F-H; 895-A; 905-E]
11.2. In the considered view of this Court, the
appellant was a coveted member of the conspiracy and
was indulged in the acts furthering the object of the
conspiracy. It is proved beyond doubt that the appellant
G was in the conspiracy until the final date of achievement
of the object of conspiracy. There is no valid ground for
interference with the conviction and the sentence of RI
for life awarded to the appellant by the Designated Court.
[para 263] [906-8-C]
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 641
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

Crl. A. No. 633 of 2008 (A-131 A
12.1. The involvement of appellant-accused A-13 in
the conspiracy is evident from his own confession.
Further, a perusal of the confessional statements of A-11,
A-12, A-23, A-32, A;36, A-39, A-64, A-52, A-57 and A-100,
and depositions of prosecution witnesses, namely, PW2 B
(approver), PW5, PW 6 and PW 13, clearly establish that
A-13 attended conspiratorial meetings; he received
training in handling arms and ammunitions and
explosives; he was present at Al-Hussaini building in the
night intervening 11/12.03.1993 and participated in filling C
of ROX in vehicles; he along with other co-accused
travelled in a Maruti Van to Fishermen's Colony atMahim
where they lobbed hand grenades; and that he was a
coveted member of the conspiracy and indulged in the
· acts furthering the object of the conspiracy. [para 269, D
273, 275 294] [912-A; 919-0, G; 920-E; 921-C; 922-A-B;
935-F-G] .
12.2. There are bound to be some discrepancies in
the narrations of different witnesses and unless the
contradictions are of a material dimension, the same E
should not be used to disbelieve the evidence in its
entirety. This Court is of the view that the contradictions
pointed out on behalf of the appellant are minor
contradictions and do not render the evidence
unbelievable. [para 279] [927-B-C] F
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Master, 2010 (9)
SCR 563 = (2010) 12 SCC 324; State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj
=
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 286 (2000) 1 SCC 247; and Waman
vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (6 ) SCR 1072 = (2011) 7
SCC 295- relied on. G
12.3. The materials on record show that in the instant
case, the TIP was validly conducted and all necessary
precautions were ensured by the SEM. Further, the
evidence with regard to the TIP can only be used as a
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. .

A corroborative piece of evidence and is a test to
strengthen trustworthiness of the substantive evidence
of the witness before the court. In the instant case, all the
witnesses have identified the appellant before the court
and the SEM also on this aspect withstood his cross
s examination. [para 291] [935-8, F, G-H]
Mui/a vs. State of U.P. 2010 (2) SCR 633 =(2010) 3
sec 508 - relied on.
12.4. The evidence substantiates and establishes the
charges framed against the appellant. This Court is
C satisfied that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy
from planning to execution, and, therefore, confirms the
conviction and sentence of RI for life awarded to him by
the Designated Court. [para 292, 294 and 295] [951-F-G,
A-8, C-D, E-H]
D
Crl. A. Nos. 651-652 of 2008 (A-14)
13.1. The confession of the appellant-accused A-14
has been corroborated by the confessional statements
of the co-accused A-11, A-12, A-15, A-17, A-18, A-24, A-25,
E A-28, A-42, A-46, A-61, A-62, A-64, A-82, A-90, A-100 and
A-128. After consideration of the confession of the
appellant and the confessional statements of other co-
accused and other evidence, the involvement of the
appellant in the conspiracy has been established
F inasmuch as he actively participated and organised the
said landings of arms and ammunitions and explosives
at the stated place and also rendered assistance for its
safe transportation; he attended conspiratorial meeting
at Dubai; he was in the core group of primary
G conspirators and worked in close association with AA-
2; he held a commanding position and also had people
who worked for him; and that he was also managing
government servants by giving them bribe on behalf of
AA-2 for the landings of arms and ammunition and
explosives. [para 307] [958-8-C]
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v.STATEOF 643
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
13.2. This Court holds that the appellant was actively A
involved in the conspiracy to cause blasts in Bombay
and in consequence of the said involvement he has
committed the offences and there is no reason to interfere
with the conviction and sentence of RI for life awarded
to him by the Designated Court. [para 315] B

Crl. A. Nos. 653 AND 656 of 2008 (A-43):

TADA vs JJ ACT:

14.1. As regards the plea of juvenility on behalf of C
appellant-accused A-43, (accused of common charge at
head firstly, and also of various other offences committed
in furtherance of the conspiracy), it is significant to note
that where two statutes provide for overriding effect on
the other law for the time being in force and the court has o
to examine which one of them must prevail, the court has
to examine the issue considering the following two basic
principles of statutory interpretation:

1. leges posteriores priores conterarias abrogant
(later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws). E

2. 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
8
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]

C 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
D the former special Act unless an inference may be drawn
from the language of the special Act itself. [para 345) [986-
F]

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 645
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

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.

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
8
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
C 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]

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
by ss. 5 and 6 of TADA are to be imposed
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 64 7
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
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
F
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]

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.

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
B 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 649
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
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
B
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]

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.
D [Para 384] [1000-A-E]

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 651
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

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]
E
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]
F
Crl. A. Nos. 933-936 of 2008 (A-98):

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 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 in
consequence of the said involvement, he has committed
the offences for which he has been charged. [para 430]
D [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 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
G 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
H in various conspiratorial meetings held in Dubai as well
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 653
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI

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]
E
Case Law Reference:
1976 (2) SCR 11 relied on para 10
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 relied on para 68
2000 (1) SCR 200 relied on para 194 F
2001 (1) SCR 111 relied on para 194
2008 (16) SCR 155 relied on para 194
2010 (9) SCR 563 relied on para 276
G
1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 286 relied on para 277
2011 (6) SCR 1072 relied on para 278
2010 (2) SCR 633 relied on para 291
2009 (7) SCR 623 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 referred to para 341
2007 (5) SCR 997 referred to para 341
2008 (5) SCR 640 referred to para 341
8
1954 SCR 603 referred to para 347
AIR 1960 SC 1170 referred to para 347
1966 SCR 121 referred to para 347
c (1977) 1 sec 150 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
D
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
E 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

F 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
G
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
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 655
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI
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.
c
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 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
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:
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
F 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
G
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
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF . 657
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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
0
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
65'8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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),
B (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."
c 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
D 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
E 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)
F
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,
G 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-
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 659
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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.
B
Rubina Suleman Memon (A-8)

(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 IPC 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 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)
B
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 661
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J;]
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 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
B
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
D 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:-
E
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
F Maruti Car, a red coloured Maruti 1000 and a red
coloured Maruti van.

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 663
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

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
F
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
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)
c . '
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.
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 665
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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) 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.
G
(ii) 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.

H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (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)
8 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
c 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 (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

F (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 667
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Station on 12.03.1993. He deposed as under:- A

(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 B
from the Van containing rifles, hand grenades and
magazines. PW-371, thereafter, lodged an FIR at
Worli Police Station; and

(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)
D
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. E

(ii) He opened the door of the Maruti Van using a rope
and a hook and found 2 black bags; and

(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..

A (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
8
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
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 669
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 (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. .
D (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.
E
(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 671
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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
F
panchnama marked as Exhibit No. 243 and corroborates with
the evidence of panch witness PW-56.

Recoveries made from the garage and compound of Al-
Hussaini building
G
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
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)

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
C 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
E the steel safe and recovery of valuables therein is concerned.

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 673
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
21.03.1993. He deposed as under:- A

(i) 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. B
(ii) He further deposed that the recoveries were
recorded in a panchnama marked as Exhibit No ..
214.

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 0
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. 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 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:-
B
Deposition of lqbalsingh Jaisingh Saroha (PW-674)

PW-674, in his deposition dated 29.06.2000, reveals as
under:

c (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
D 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
F
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
G
(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
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 675
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 E

(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.
F
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.
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 677
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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)
D
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.
E
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 F
of several co-accused persons.

Deposition of Lakharaju Narsinhasai Rao (PW-672)

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 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
D 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 679
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(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
B
(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
c
of sentence which is Exhibit 2944, A-4, inter alia, stated that:

(i) He is suffering from chronic schizophrenia;

(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) 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,
E 1993;

(b) loaded with RDX on the night of 11.03.1993 at Al-
Hussaini Building; and

(c) parked on 12.03.1993 at the Lucky Petrol Pump by
F A-16 and PW-2 near Shiv Sena Bhawan which
exploded killing 4 persons and injuring 38 others.

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 681
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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 F
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.

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
E 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.

F 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.
G Criminal Appeal Nos. 1127-1128 of 2007
Sardar Shahwali Khan (A-54) ..... Appellant(s)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra .. .. .. Respondents
H (s)through STF, CBI Mumbai
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 683
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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 B
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.

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.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 685
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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:-
D
(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;

(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.

A 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:
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
(i) confessions made by co-accused;

(ii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iii) documentary evidence on record.
F
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:

(i) The appellant (A-54) was present in the house of
H· Mobina (A-96) along with Tiger Memon, Javed
·. ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 687
·. MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
A
Chikna and other co-conspirators.

(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) The appellant (A-54), along with co-accused
persons, was present on the 7th floor of a building
behind Bhabha Hospital. D
(ii) 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.
E
(iii) The appellant (A-54) attended training in handling
of arms and ammunitions imparted by Tiger
Memon.

(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.

(ii) The appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused
persons, was administered oath by Tiger Memon
8
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
c 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 689
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
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)
E
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: F

(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. G

(iii) The appellant (A-54), along with other co-accused
persons, was present at Al-Hussaini Building on
11.03.1993.
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)

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
D 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
F involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is established
inasmuch as:-

(i) The appellant participated in the training in handling
of arms and ammunitions and explosives at
Borghat and Sandheri along with Tiger Memon and
G
other co-conspirators;

(ii) The appellant attended conspiratorial meetings
wherein plans were chalked out to commit terrorist
acts;
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 691
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(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 D
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 E
fact that he was waging 'Jehad' and taking and
administering of oath by him shows his intent and
determination to cause damage and destruction;
and
F
(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:
G
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:
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:

(i) He knows the appellant as 'Sardar';
B
(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,
c 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.
D
(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
E offered to go to Pakistan for training;

(vii) PW-2, along with other co-accused, went to the
house of the appellant;

F (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
G 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
H to BMC building on 09.03.1993 where entry and
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 693
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J]

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
B
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: c
Deposition of Harish Chandra Keshav Pawar (PW-105)

PW-105 is an eye-witness to the incident of firing. He
deposed as under:
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 (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
8
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:

(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;
E
(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
F 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 695
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
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) He inspected the site of the incident and collected B
3 empties, 6 lead pieces, cardboard target, stones
bearing the marks of hitting of bullets and a broken
branch of tree.

(ii) 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.
D
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
E
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, F
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.
G
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
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: ·
8
(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-
c conspirators;

(ii) The appellant participated in various conspiratorial
meetings at the residence of Babloo @ Nazir
Ahmed Anwar Shaikh and Mobina @ Bayamoosa
D 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
E 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
F the crucial time, when the activities like filling of
ROX explosives in various vehicles were going on.

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 697
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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 B

(iii) He has to look after his 90 years old father who is
blind.

Conclusion: 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.
F
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1252-1253 of 2007
Ashrafur Rehman Azimulla .... Appellant(s)
Shaikh @ Lallu (A-71)
vs.
G
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent(s)
WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2011
H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A The State of Maharashtra, through CBI .... Appellant(s)
vs.
Ashrafur Rehman Azimulla .... Respondent(s)
Shaikh @ Lallu (A-71)
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
"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
G 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
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL ~K MEMON v. STATE OF 699
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and A
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 B
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 D
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
E
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 F
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
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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 (1 A),
c (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."
D 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-
E 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
F 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
G 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.

H At head Fourthly: The appellant, during the above
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 701
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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) The appellant has been convicted under Section 5
of TADA for commission of offence at head thirdly E
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)

(ii) The appellant has been convicted under Section 6 F
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)

(iii) 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:-

(i) his own confession;
B
(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and
c (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 703
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(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 B
bags of Encore Company were kept on the floor.

(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.
c
(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. D

(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. E
(x) He deposed that he lodged the complaint on
27 :03.1993 and the same was marked as Exh.
1210.

(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:

(i) On 27.03.1993, he went to Musafirkhana and
reached the lavatory on the second floor.
c (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.
D
(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
E 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
F 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 705
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(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. B
(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. 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 F
is no substance in the said objection.

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 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
B 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
c Siddique MusafirKhana.

(vi) At the said place, the accused had taken out three
suitcases.

(vii) The suitcases were found to be containing 85 hand
D 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.
E (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
F 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
G 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 707
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Deposition of Faquih Abdul Sattar (PW-331) A

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) He deposed that he knew a person ~y name B
Lalubhai (A-71).

(ii) 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. c
(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. 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 F
ammunitions from Musafirkhana at the instance of
A-71 clearly establishes that he was in conscious
possession of the arms and ammunitions and
explosives.
G
(ii) He was a smuggler and had association with Tiger
Memon, Dawood Ibrahim, Haji Mastan who were all
smugglers;

(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 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
F memorandum or discovery panchnama, 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 709
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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.

63. The document Exh. 439 and 439A makes it clear that
the accused appellant led the police party on foot up to the
B
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 D
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 E
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 F
cartridges and 1 cartridge having different types of marking
from the said bag.

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.

67. Regarding the discovery of arms and ammunitions in
E 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 711
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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
c
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 D
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.
E
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. F

Appeal by the State of Maharashtra through CBI:

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2011

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:

"(1) I am 65 yrs. of age.
E
(2) I had suffered from schizophrenia about three years
back

(3) Due to the same, I was required to take medicines and
F 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 713
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(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 B
card and papers showing my age and I.am suffering from
ailment of kidney. ( marked as Exhibit : 3000-A colly. )

(12) Considering circumstances peculiar to me i.e. I was
not involved in commission of terrorist act, my age and I c
am sick person, I may be given the lesser punishment."

73. The Designated Court considered all these factors
while determining the sentence for the appellant. After
considering the acts committed and the statement regarding
D
the quantum of sentence, it was held:

"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 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAzAK MEMON v. STATE OF 715
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 1O years.

76. Consequently, we dispose of the appeals filed by the
appellant (A-71) while confirming the conviction and reduce the
8
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) ... Appellant(s)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through ... Respondent(s)
CBl-STF, Bombay
D 77. Ms. Farhana 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
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:-
G
"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
H were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 717
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you A
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 B
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
D
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
E
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 F
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
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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).
D
(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."
E
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
F
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
G India at Shekhadi on 03.02.1993 and 07.02.1993;
and

(b) He participated in the preparation of vehicle bombs
at Al-Hussaini Building on the night of 11/
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 719
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

12.03.1993. A

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. B
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.
c
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. D
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 E
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.
F
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.

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 (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of
conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA and under Section
120-B IPC 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)
B
(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)

c (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)

D (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 1O years along with a fine of
Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge
fourthly)
E (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)
F
(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 721
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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
~- c
(i) his own confession;

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);
D
(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iv) documentary evidence.

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 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
B
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
c 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
D 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-
E 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
F 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) 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.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 723
· MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

(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.
B
(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.

(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:

Confessional Statement of Mohammed Shoaib
Mohammed Kasam Ghansar (A-9)
D 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):
E
(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
F
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
G 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 725
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]

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):
B
(i) 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.

(ii) 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 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
B 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)
D 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:
E
(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
F
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
G 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
H
' ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 727
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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:

(i) The appellant came along with Tiger Memon.

c (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,
F
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
G 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.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 729
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(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
B
Musa Biyariwala (A-46)

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) 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. D
(ii) 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. E

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
F
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.

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
E 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
F 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)
G
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.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 731
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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
c
at Shekhadi. on both the occasions.

(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.
E
(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 F
time device detonator and parked the same at
Diamond House.

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;

(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,
c 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.
D
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.

F (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.
G
(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.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 733
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
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.
B
Equally, her claim that PW-21 is not trustworthy and his
evidence should be discarded, is liable to be rejected.

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
8 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.

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:

(i) He reached the spot along with Panch witnesses
D
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
E material.

(iii) He took sample of the blackish material and the
remaining material was taken out and sealed in
bags.
F (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 735
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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
0
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.
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,
D 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.
E Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2007
Smt. Vim al Thapa vyto Late ... Appellant(s)
Somnath Kakaram Thapa (A-112)
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
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
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 737
· MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

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
8
·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).

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 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435,
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF · 739
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
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
F
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
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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:
8
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 741
. MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

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) 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 ..

(iv) 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 743
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

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: B
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:
c
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:
D
(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. E

(iii) On 30.01.1993, A-112 gave instructions to other
officers to assemble in the Thane office.

(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.

A 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.
B (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.
c
(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
D Memon). After waiting for six hours, A-112 called
off the ambush as no convoy arrived carrying
contraband.
'
(x) Thereafter, no instructions were received from A-
112 after 31.01.1993.
E
(xi) 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.
F
(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 · .. •'

'G 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
H was the perfect p[ace for interception.
..
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK. MEMON v. STATE OF 7 45
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(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. ·
F
(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. 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.

A 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 .
B
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
c 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
D 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'.
E
(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
F 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.
G
(x) At about midnight, A-112 called off the watch/
operation

(xi) Again, they went to Dehan Phata where A-112 told
H
• ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 747
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF,CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]

them that the previous day information was also for A
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- B
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 c
PW-98.

(xiv) He identified A-112 before the court.

(xv) In the second week of February 1993, A-112 had
D
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. E

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
F
better location (i.e., at the intersection of two roads going to
Bombay) with benefit of hindsight cannot be held against A-112.

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 749
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM. J.]
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
D 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.

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 751
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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
0
was for landing at Mhasla only.

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".

It shows that A-112 had asked to keep a strict vigil at F
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.
B
(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,
c 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
D see what can be done).

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
H issue directions, if further ambush is required. We are also
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 753
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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) 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.

(i) 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.
E
(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 F
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: G

(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
H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
(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)
c 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
D 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;
E . (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
F 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:
G
(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 755
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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;
B
(iv) A-112 told that he has specific information that Tiger
Memon is going to come through that route in a
particular manner;

(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;
G
(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
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A 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
8
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.
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)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra through ... Respondent(s)
CBl-STF, Mumbai
AND
F
Criminal Appeal No. 1028 of 2012
The State of Maharashtra through ... Appellant(s)
CBl-STF, Mumbai
vs.
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 757
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated A
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 B
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:
c
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:

"During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 D
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
E
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 F
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
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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-
c 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
D
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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 759
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 E
under Se9tion 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1-
A) and 25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Conviction & Sentence
F
127. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for
the above said charges as under:

(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
8
RI for 1 year. (charge thirdly)

(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 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
G life.

Evidence

130. The evidence against the appellant (A-25) is in the
form of:-
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 761
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(i) his own confession; A

(ii) · confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused};

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and
B
(iv) documentary evidence.

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
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 E
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
F
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. 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:-

(i) At the relevant time, he was an auto-rickshaw driver.
B (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.

c (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
D 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.
E
(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
F
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 763
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(viii) On 03.02.1993, he escorted the truck carrying the A
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 B
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- c
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.
D
(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.

(xii) Thereafter, Sajjad Alam was told to go to the Tower
in the rickshaw and the appellant was asked to get E
down at Mehendadi.

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 F
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.

F 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.

G 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.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 765
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
A
Confessional Statements of co-accused

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) His son, Sarfaraj informed him that Shafi had kept
the weapons at the appellant's house.
E
(ii) The appellant was present at the time of the first
landing at Shekhadi.

(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 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
B
the appellant and others.

(vii) A-14 paid Rs. 4,000/- to the appellant for the work
done during the landing operation.

c 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.

Confessional Statement of Khalil Ahmed Sved Ali Nazir
0 (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),
G 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
H 20.01.1993. Shafi was also present there and they
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 767
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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.
c
(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.

(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:-
F
(i) The appellant kept 16 rifles and 32 cassettes at his
residence at the instance of Shafi.

(ii) The appellant participated and assisted in both the
landings of arms and ammunitions at Shekhadi.
G
(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
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)
c 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
D 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
E 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.
F
(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
G 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
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 769
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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
B
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.

(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: D

(i) As instructed by DCP Shri Rakesh Maria, he went
alongwith other police officers and staff to Mhasala
on 26.03.1993.
E
(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 F
appellant and A-42 from the chowk of the said
village.

(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" -.
-
Iii
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R. .
111

A an Urdu School of the said village. The said house
11 ..
q1 I was shown to them by the appellant himself.
. '
·;1, (vi) The search .of the said house was taken in the
presence of the panch witnesses. 3 gunny bags
!I )
'I ~
.I · were found to _be concealed about 3 feet deep
B
under the tiles of a bathroom.·
I 11· I • ~ •'

(vii) The said 3 gunny bags were opened and were
'·i·Iii found to be containing 13 AK-56 rifles and 26
;) '
empty magazines of AK-56 rifles. Thereafter, each
:ij c
•1r; of the AK-56 rifles was wrapped in a t:rown paper
:-,i
!I ....
and the said packet was tied by means of a string ·
and labels of signatures of panch witnesses and his
. :1
. • I '
signature was affixed on each of the packet and the
t'!! : same were also sealed by using the lac seal and
'l D in the same manner.the 26 empty magazines and
the said 3 gunny bags were also wrapped in a
11·
'ii'
. brown paper and labellea and sealed. He recorded
' . the description of the rifles and magazines in. a ·
. .'.
I
panchanama by dictating the matter to PSI
Nerlekar. He also took charge of the rifles, ·
.I E
!I . 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
i :' F same. ": '· · 1·'· ·· • •

I i 141. The above depositions of PW-45 and PW-596,
corroborate with the confession of the appellant and those of
I 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 771
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.].
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 c
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
D
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.
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
F
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.

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 :

(i) He is the sole bread winner of his family comprising
H of his wife and three small children; and
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 773
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]
(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
"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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 775
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 B
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), F
(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

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 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
B 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)
c 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
E
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
F with a firie of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to further
undergo RI for 3 years. (charge secondly)

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:-

(i) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
H accused);
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 777
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(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) 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.

(ii) At Dighi Jetty, about 265 silver ingots each
weighing 35-40 kgs, 15-20 wooden boxes and 15- F
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.
G
(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
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
c 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
D 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.
G
(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,
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 779
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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. 1O 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) He stated that he gave Rs. 2-5,000/- to Mali E
Hawaldar (A-101) for Vijay Patil (A-116), sub-
Inspector of Shrivardhan in December, 1992 in lieu
of another landing of silver.

(ii) On 9th in the night, A-30 came to Dighi, thereafter, F
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. 1O lacs to the police. G
(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.

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
D 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
E 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
F 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.
G
(v) A-30 went to Police Sub-Inspector Patil. At that
place, Shabbir and 4-5 persons of Mohammed
Dosa were also standing.

H (vi) A-116 went to A-82 and asked as to what was to
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 781
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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)
8
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. 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
(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
D 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.
E
Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

160. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy, as stated above,
F 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) 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.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 783
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.J

(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. B
(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' 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
D
car which was stationed behind the said truck.

(vii) He stated that meanwhile A-30 and A-82 also came
there and discussion took place for about half an
hour.
E
(viii) He stated that, thereafter, 5 silver bars were taken
out of the truck bearing No. 5533 and were kept in
the police jeep.

(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.
G
(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)
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
B
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
c 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.
D (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.
E
(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
F 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
G
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.

H
I'

ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 785
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 0
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 E
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
F
as nobody could have seen it as he was not at his
house.

(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 (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
B 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.
c
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.
D (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
E 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.
F
(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 787
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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
F
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
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 (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
c considerable period of time and after negotiating
for half an hour, let fhem off;

(iii) The appellant was well acquainted with the
smugglers;

D (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;

(vi) The appellant paid Rs. 2,000/- to PW-156 for
F 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 789
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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 ... Respondent(s)
CBl-STF, Mumbai
D
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).
E
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
F for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C.
No.1/1993.

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 791
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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 B
. 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 c
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
0
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
E
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 F
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
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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),
H M.S. Sayyed (A-90), Mohd. Dossa (AA) and Mohd. Kasam
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 793
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
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
8
(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
(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 · D
were allowed to proceed for some consideration against
illegal gratification;

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 F
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:
G
Conviction and Sentence:

(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 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
B
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
C for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge
thirdly)

Evidence
D 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-
E
accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iv) documentary evidence.
F
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 795
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 F
with Mechanic Chacha (A-136) and Feroz Abdul
Rafiq.

(ix) 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.

(x) 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 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
B 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
c 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.

D (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
E 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
F 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
G Rs. 1O 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
H and also that some other boxes were containing
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 797
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]
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
8
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.

{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.
G
(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
H
to receive them.
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (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.
B
(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
c 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
D 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.
E
178. Upon perusal of the above confession of the
appellant, the following facts emerge -

(i) The appellant played an active role in the entire
F conspiracy viz., his meeting with Dawood Ibrahim
in Dubai;

(ii) He participated in the landing at Dighi and
subsequent transportation of arms and
ammunitions;
G
(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.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 799
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(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:
D
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:

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
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.
•
A 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
B
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.

(vi) The appellant along with Feroz, Shabbir and A-133
brought 19 silver ingots and 15-20 green coloured
D
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 801
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(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)

Confessional statement of A-81 under Section 15. of
c
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.
G
(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. H

•'
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (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
B 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.
c
(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
D 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 803
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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) . E

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 F
Jetty on 09.01.1993.

Deposition of Dilip Bhiku Pansare (PW-97)

PW-97 reveals as under:-
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.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
happened''.

(vii) He stated that he took A-116 nearby a white car
which was stationed behind the said truck.

E (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.
F
(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
G
the truck.

(xii) He stated that the police checked his truck for 15
minutes and took 1O minutes for checking the other
truck.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 805
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
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)
E
·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) F
•
· · 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.

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.
E
(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
F
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
G 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.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 807
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.)

(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.
D
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 E
factors, amongst others, may be considered while determining
· his sentence:

(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
G
(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. 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 @ ... Appellant(s)
Mechanic Chacha (A-136)
VS.
The State of Maharashtra, through ... Respondent(s)
Superintendent of Police, CBl-STF, Mumbai
c WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2012
The State of Maharashtra, through CBI .... Appellant(s)
vs.
D
Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @ .... Respondent(s)
Mechanic Chacha (A-136)
188. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel
appeared for the appellant (A-136) and Mr. Mukul Gupta,
E 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
F 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 809
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

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 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
B 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
c
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
D
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,
E 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
F 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 811
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
{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 in the
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.
E
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.

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 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
B
for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 3 years. (charge
thirdly) ·

Evidence
c
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);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iv) documentary evidence.
E
Confesssional Statement of Mohd. Kasam Lajpuria @
Mohd. Kalia @ Mechanic Chacha (A-136)

193. The involvement of A-136 in the conspiracy is evident
F 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 813
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(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
B
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.
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
E
brother Mustafa Dossa will send some arms from
Dubai which should be collected at the port.

(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.

A (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
B
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.

c (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.

D (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.
E
(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
F 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.
G (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
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 815
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

the cavities of trucks left with Shabbir Qadri at his A
residence.

(xix) He got scared that the arms deposited by Ahmed
Aulia in his village might be caught leading perhaps
to his arrest also. B
(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 c
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 D
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.
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 F
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.
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (2000) 2 SCC 254, Lal Singh vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
(2001) 3 SCC 221 and Mohd. Amin vs. CBI (2008) 15 SCC
49.

195. Upon perusal of the above confession of the
B appellant, the following facts emerge -

(i) The appellant was a close confidant of Mohd. Dosa
gang;

(ii) He participated in the landing at Dighi and
c subsequent transportation of arms and
ammunitions;

(iii) He participated in the meetings and negotiations
with Customs and Police officers in January, 1993
D to seek permission and to fix the bribe amount for
each landing.

(iv) He was a key aide of Mohd. Dossa, who was one
of the main co-conspirators of the Bombay Bomb
Blast case.
E
196. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant (A-
136) that his confession should not be relied upon as he has
retracted his confession and his signatures were obtained under
coercion. It is relevant to point out that the appellant (A-136)
F was produced before the CMM, Bombay on 10.11.1999 (one
day after recording his confession) he did not make any such
complaint to the CMM and the said fact is clear from the order
dated 10.11.1999 which records that the contents of the
confession of the appellant (A-136) were read out to him and
G he admitted all the facts. Further, the confession of the appellant
(A-136) is corroborated in material respects with the
confessions of A-134, A-30 and A-82 insofar as Dighi landing
and interception of trucks by police is concerned and was, thus,
truthful and voluntary when made.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 817
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]

Confessional Statements of co-accused: A

197. 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 other co-
accused persons which are summarized as under:
B
Confessional Statement of Mohd. Salim Mira Moiddin
Shaikh @ Salim Kutta (A-134)

Confessional statement of A-134 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 18.08.1995 (16:00 hrs.) and c
19.08.1995 (16:00 hrs.) by Shri Satyakant Rohinikant Saikia
(PW-481 ), the then DIG-CID Crim'r and Railways, Gujarat State,
Ahmedabad. A brief summary oMhe confession of A-134 with
respect to the appellant is sum.marized herein under:

(i) A-134 was also the member of Mustafa Majnu D
Gang and later became body guard of Mohd.
Dossa.

(ii) A-136, A-134 and Feroz Abdul Rashid were joint
partners of 5% share in smuggling activities. A-136 E
was an active member of Mohd. Dossa gang and
was involved in smuggling activities.

(iii) Tiger Memon used to work with Mohd. Dossa.

(iv) A-134 along with A-136 and other co-accused F
attended a meeting with custom officers at Hotel
Persian Darbar in the first week of January, 1993,
.. wherein rate for each landing was fixed at Rs 7 to
8 lakhs per landing. The meeting went oh for 3/4
hrs. · · G.

(v) 111 the presence of Ac136, Mohd. Dossa informed
after talking with Mustafa Majnu over phone that.a
large quantity of arms and ammunitions had left
Dubai. He directed A-134 and Feroz (AA) to go to H

'• ·-
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A Dighi in Mhasala and inform the Custom Officers
about the said landing and that the appellant would
be making other arrangements in this regard.

(vi) In the night of 09.01.1993, A-136 along with other
accused persons had gathered at Dighi Jetty for
B
the landing.

(vii) In the night, at about 11 p.m., A-136 was busy on
wireless and was trying to establish contact with the
launch coming from Dubai. He left in a small boat
c and after some time returned with the launch.

(viii) After loading all the boxes, bags and silver ingots
they all left Dighi Jetty and on their way, the vehicles
were intercepted by the police. The appellant, A-
D 134, A-30, A-82 negotiated with the police and it
was decided to release the trucks after keeping
silver ingots as security in lieu of a bribe of Rs. 10
lacs.

(ix) He saw the boxes contained AK-56 rifles, empty
E magazines, hand grenades with pins in separate
boxes, and ammunition for AK-56 rifles in tin boxes.

(x) A-136 asked Abdul Qayyum to proceed to Gujarat
and to contact Mustafa Dossa @ Mustafa Majnu
F (brother of Mohd. Dosa).

We are satisfied that the confession of A-134 fully
corroborates in material aspects with the confession of the
appellant. It is also clear that the appellant was a close confidant
of Dossa brothers and he was given the important task to
G ensure safe landing and its transportation to their respective
destinations and the appellant was also present at the time
when Mohd. Dossa told A-134 and other co-accused that a
large quantity of arms and ammunitions had left Dubai and
directed A-134 and Feroz (AA) to go to Dighi in Mhasala and
H inform the customs officers about the landing and that the
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 819
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

appellant would be making other arrangements in this regard. A

Confessional Statement of Uttam Shantaram Poddar (A-
30)

Confessional statement of A-30 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 12.07.1993 (17:20 hrs.) and 8
15.07.1993 (17:00 hrs.) by Meera Borvankar, the then Supdt.
of Police, CID, Pune. A summary of the confession of A-30
implicating the appellant is as under:-

(i) He was a landing agent and worked for Mohd. C
Dossa. He described A-136 as the 'main person'
in the gang and that A-136 had asked A-30 to work
for Mohd. Dosa.

(ii) A-136 came in his white Maruti car to Dighi on
0
09.01.1993.

(iii) A-136 was interacting with the ship carrying arms
through a walkie talkie.

(iv) After landing at Dighi on 09.01.1993, the vehicles E
were stopped at Gondghar Phata by the police
where V.K. Patil (A-116) was present. A-136 made
an offer of Rs. 10 lacs to A-116. 175 silver bricks
were there in local truck and 100 bricks in another
truck. The police asked what was in the boxes to
F
which A-136 replied that the boxes contained
watches. Since there was no cash, A-136 gave
silver bricks in lieu of cash to police and left with
the trucks.

Upon perusal of the confession of A-30 it is clear that the G
appellant was a close confidant of Mohd. Dossa gang and he
negotiated the release of trucks with the police and further
misled them about the contents of the same.

H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C R

A Confessional Statement of Jaywant Keshav Gurav (A-82)

Confession statement of Jaywant Keshav Gurav (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.
8
A-82 does not specifically name the appellant but it
corroborates the fact that police officers of Shrivardhan PS had
intercepted the truck of Mohd. Dossa Gang and his 4/5 men
negotiated with the police.

C Confessional Statement of Janardhan Pandurang
Gambas (A-81)

Confessional statement of A-81 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (17:30 hrs.) and
D 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, corroborates with the fact
that the appellant was talking on wireless after which a trawler
E came within 10 minutes towards the Jetty. They unloaded silver
bricks and 30 bundles wrapped in gunny clothes around the box
and 30 military coloured bags.

198. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that
the confession statements of A-30, A-81 and A-82 cannot be
F read in evidence against A-136 as they were recorded prior
to amendment of TADA i.e. before 22.05.1995. Since we have
already dealt with the similar objection in the earlier part of our
order, there is no need. to traverse the same once again.

G Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

199. The prosecution has relied upon the depositions of
several prosecution witnesses to establish the involvement of
the appellant in the criminal conspiracy. The relevant facts from
the deposition of witnesses that incriminate the appellant have
H been enumerated below:
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 821
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.J.
Deposition of Dinesh Gopal Nakti (PW·95) A
His deposition reveals that he worked as a .labourer with
Uttam Poddar (A-30). He depose~ further that around .12
persons gathered on 09.01.1993 on the instructions of Uttam
Poddar to load several bags at Dighi in a tempo. Deposition
B
of PW-95, therefore, corroborates with the confession of A-136,
that Uttam Poddar arranged for labourers for loading and
unloading of goods at Dighi on 09.01.1993 and that landing
took place on the same day. .

Deposition of Kfishnakant Nathuram Birade (PW•96) c
PW-96,was another labourer present at Dighi Jetty during
the landing. His deposition .also corroborates With the
confession of A-134 and PW-95 in that Uttam Poddar (A-30)
arranged for labourers for loading and unloading of goods at 0
Dig hi Jetty on 09.0'1 .1993. ·

Deposition of DiUp Bhiku Pam~are (PW-97)

PW-97 reveals as under:-
E
.·. (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.
loaded on 9.1.Hl93 at Dighi Jetty.
. . . ' ·.
F
.. · (iii) Ht;! stated thatat Gondghar Phata he was stopped
by a police jeep · ·

· (iv) He stated that police men boarde.dthe truck .no.
5533 .and started shouting that there was silver in G
the truck.

(v) He stated that, in the meanwhile, another truck also
caine following his truck and the police men also
boarded the truck a.nd the· persons who.were H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A travelling in the said truck said 'Saab Andar Math
Jae, Andhar Kaanch ka Saman Hai' The person
from the other truck started shouting chacha, M C
Chacha.

(vi) He stated that thereafter Shabbir Kadri came and
B
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.
c
(viii) He stated that meanwhile A-30 and A-82 also came
there and the discussion took place for about half
an hour.

(ix) He stated that, thereafter, 5 silver bricks were taken
D out of truck no. 5533 and kept in the police jeep.

(x) He stated that when he left the said spot, the other
truck alongwith police jeep was still there

E (xi) He stated that the person who shouted to take out
the keys of his truck was at the rear side portion of
the truck.

(xii) He stated that the police checked his truck for 15
minutes and took 10 minutes for checking the other
F truck.

(xiii) He stated that the appellant thereafter came to
village hanghar along with other co-accused and
un-loaded truck bearing no. 5533.
G
The above deposition of PW-97 corroborates with the
confession of the appellant (A-136) that goods which had
landed at Dighi were loaded in a truck and the same were
intercepted by the police officers and after negotiations, it were
let off.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 823
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
200. Upon perusal of the entire evidence as placed by the A
prosecution the following facts emerge:-

(i) The appellant was a close confidant of Mohd.
Dossa gang and was close to Dossa brother and
did everything to win over their confidence; B

(ii) The appellant was aware of the contents even prior
to the landing of the goods at Dig hi Jetty which fact
is clearly discernible from his own confession and
confession of A-134;
c
(iii) The appellant was given the important task of safe
landing and its transportation to respective
destinations;

(iv) The appellant was coordinating with the launch
0
which fact is duly corroborated even by the
depositions;

(v) The appellant negotiated with police officer for
release of the goods.
E
Thus, in view of the above, we reach inescapable
conclusion that the appellant has rightly been convicted ·and
sentenced by the Designated Court. The appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

Appeal by the State of Maharashtra through CBI: F

Criminal Appeal No. 1023 of 2012

201. As regards the appeal filed by the State for conviction
under charge mentioned at head firstly, it is to be noted that G
the Designated Court has held that A-136 acquired knowledge
of arms and ammunitions at Dighi Jetty when the goods were
being unloaded and has not played any further role except the
transportation of the same from Dig hi Jetty to Gondghar Phata
where they were intercepted by the police party. After careful
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A examination of all the materials placed, we are of the view that
in the absence of any positive evidence, A-136 cannot be
convicted under the charge mentioned at head firstly, i.e.,
conspiracy and the Designated Court has rightly acquitted him
from the said charge. In the light of the above discussion, the
s appeal of the State is liable to be dismissed.
202. Considering the evidence brought on record, the
Designated Court held (Part 11 ):

"43-A) The aforesaid material in confession of A-136 not
c only reveals his own involvement in Dighi landing
episode and himself had become aware at Dighi Jetty
thatthe material brought by sea were also containing
arms and ammunitions but afso discloses involvement
of other co-accused in commission of an act as depicted
D by the same.

43-8) The corroborative material to the matters found in
confession of A-136 regarding his such a deep
involvement in Dighi randing episode is also found in
confession of co-accused A-30, 81 & 134.
E
43-C) Thus carefuffy considering material contained in
· confession of A-136 and that of the aforesaid co-accused
definitely fe?ds to the conclusion of A-136 who was
close· associate of Mohammed Doss a and Mustafa
F Dossa the main person responsible for Diqhi landing,
having committed the offences for which he was charged
with at head 2nd fy to 3rd fy.

133) Now considering the acts committed by A-136 and
G more particufarfy his continuing with the convoy
containing arms, his participation in settlement with the .
police for aflowing the convoy to proceedfurther inspite
of his rater on knowledge that the same was containing
weapons in fight of the aforesaid observation reads to no
other conclusion but himself having continued to commit
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 825
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the landing operation and further overt acts now for A
achieving the object of conspiracy. Similarly taking into
account that the contraband goods were to contain arms
and ammunition i.e. the smuggled goods which could not
have been put for any lawful use fortifies the conclusion
of A-136 having abetted the acts which were committed B
by the conspirators and/or rendered the assistance to
them by contravening the provisions of law. Such a
conclusion legitimately flows from the said material even
accepting that A-136 had earlier no knowledge that the
goods which had arrived at Dighi Jetty were containing c
the arms.

271) Now considering the liability of A-136 as revealed
from the earlier discussion but without once again
repeating the dilation made earlier it can be said that the
same having revealed that A-136 had become aware D
about the nature of goods after he was told regarding the
same and the direction of accused Mustafa Dossa by A-
134. As dilated earlier, it is clear that though A-136 had
continued with the said operation i.e. the operation of
smuggling for which he had agreed earlier and in the E
process having committed the offence u/s.3 (3) of TADA
still he cannot be said to be guilty for the offence of
conspiracy to which A-134 was said to be party. Needless
to add that considering the acts committed by A-136, his
liability remained confined to having committed the F
offence uls.3(3) and Sec. 6 of TADA".

Sentence:
203. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that
A-136 was arrested on 04.11.1999 and has already undergone G
the sentence of about more than 8 Y, (eight and a half) years
of actual imprisonment. The Designated Court also heard the
appellant on the quantum of sentence. Taking note of all the
materials and proved charges mentioned at head secondly and
H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A thirdly, we are satisfied that the sentence awarded by the
Designated Court cannot be said to be excessive. On the other
hand, we are of the view that the sentence awarded by the
Designated Court to the appellant is justifiable and acceptable,
bence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
B
Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2008
Nasir Abdul Kader Kewal @ ..... Appellant(s)
Nasir Dakhla (A-64)
vs.
c The State of Maharashtra, ... Respondent(s)
through STF, CBI, Mumbai
*********

204. Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, learned counsel appeared
D for the appellant (A-64) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior
counsel duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the
respondent.

205. The present appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
E 05.10.2006 and 31.05.2007 respectively, whereby the
appellant (A-64) 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
Charges:
206. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-64). The
relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder:
G
"During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993
at various places in Bombay, District Raigad an.d District
Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) and
Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were
H members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 827
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed A
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 B
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 c
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
0
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
E
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- F
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 ahy G
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 H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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."

E In addition to the above-said principal charge of
conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following
counts:

At head Secondly; He intentionally facilitated
F commission of terrorist acts and acts preparatory to
terrorist acts by:

(a) Going to Pakistan alongwith his co-conspirators via
Dubai and acquiring weapons training in handling
of arms and ammunitions and explosives with the
G object of committing terrorist acts;

(b) Participating in the landing and transportation of
arms, ammunitions and explosives smuggled into
India by Tiger Memon and his associates at
H Shekhadi;
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 829
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
(c) Attending conspiratorial meetings at the residence A
of Nazir Ahmed Anwar Shaikh @ Babloo and Ms.
Mobina @ Baya Moosa Bhiwandiwala;

(d) Participating in filling RDX in vehicles on the
intervening night of 11th/12th March 1993, at Al- B
Hussaini Building, with the object of causing
explosions in Bombay.

207. The charges mentioned above were proved against
the appellant (A-64). The appellant has been convicted and
sentenced for the above said charges as under: C
Conviction and Sentence:

(i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of
conspiracy read with the offences described at head firstly and
0
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 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 fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in E
default, to further undergo RI for 6 month's:-tcharge secondly)

Evidence

208. The evidence against the appellant (A-64) is in the
form of:- F

(i) his own confession;

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);
G
(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iv) documentary evidence.

Confessional statement of Nasir Abdul Kader Kewal @
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Nasir Dakhla (A-64)

209. The involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is
evident from his own confession recorded under Section 15 of
TADA on 22.01.1995 (9:15 hrs.) and 24.01.1995 (9:45 hrs.) by
Shri H. C. Singh (PW-474), the then Superintendent of Police,
8
CBl/SPE/STF, New Delhi. The said confessional statement is
summarized hereinbelow:-

(i) His father-in-law used to run the business of 'matka'
in Sandra. He joined his business in 1984, after his
c marriage. After one year, he started his own
business of 'matka' at Mahim alongwith his father-
in-law during which period he got introduced and
acquainted with Javed Chikna (AA), Yeda Yakub,
Anwar Theba and others. He also described Javed
D Chikna as the 'dada' of that area - Mahim.

(ii) The 'matka' business of his father-in-law closed
down. Thereafter, A-64 worked as a driver with one
Alamgir Muttonwala of Mahim.
E (iii) During December, 1992. riots, Muttonwala's car
was burnt. down and the appellant was rendered
jobless. So, he asked Javed Chikna for a job.

(iv) He again met Javed Chikna for the purpose of job
F in the last week of January, 1993, at which time,
Javed Chikna was waiting for Tiger Memon near
Mahim Dargah alongwith Anwar Theba (AA), Abdul
Gani Ismail Turk (A-11 ). Shafi Zariwala (AA) and
Rafique Madi (A-46).
G (v) At that time, he got introduced to Tiger Memon. He
told Tiger that he was unemployed on which Tiger
asked the appellant for his passport which he
handed over to Javed Chikna.

H (vi) He knew that Tiger Memon and his family members
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 831
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.)
were residing at Al-Hussaini Building in Mahim A
since 1990-91.

(vii) Javed Chikna, Anwar Theba, Abdul Gani Ismail
Turk, Shafi Z;;iriwala and Rafique Madi used to visit
Tiger's place and accompanied him somewhere.
B
(viii) The appellant knew that Tiger Memon was a
smuggler and a 'big don'.

(ix) Javed Chikna told him to come to Soda Factory at
Mahim at 8.30 p.m. as he had to go alongwith others c
for collection of Tiger Memon's consignment.

(x) Accordingly, the appellant went to Soda factory and
from there he went to Hotel Persian Darbar, Panvel
alongwith Shafi Jariwala and Farooq Pawale (A-16)
D
in a blue coloured Commander jeep.

(xi) Tiger Memon had also arrived there after sometime
alongwith Abdul Gani.

(xii) Thereafter, they all went to Hotel Big Splash, E
Alibaug where Javed Chikna and others were
already present. They all spent the night at Hotel Big
Splash. Next day, Dawood Taklya (A-14) and
Dadabhai (A-17) had come to meet Tiger Memon
and after talking to them, Tiger told everyone that a
F
consignment would reach the seashore at night.

(xiii) Tiger Memon also instructed them to surround
Police or Customs officers in case they arrived. On
this, he informed " .... We were all ready to follow
the instructions of Tiger Memon ... " G

(xiv) The appellant went to Shekhadi alongwith others
where Tiger gave him and others a revolver and told
them to remain close to the shore.
H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (xv) The goods/consignment (60-70 large packets)
arrived by sea were brought to the coast by Tiger
and others.

(xvi) The above packets were unloaded by some
villagers deployed by Dawood Taklya and then
B
loaded into a truck and transported to Waghani
Tower.

(xvii) On reaching Waghani Tower, the aforesaid
packets were opened. It contained arms,
c explosives and cartridges. All the arms were kept
in the secret cavities made in the jeeps.

(xviii) Thereafter, Tiger Memon directed the appellant and
A-12 to drive one of the above jeeps containing
D arms filled in cavities therein to Bombay and to park
the same outside Shanti Nursing Home leaving the
keys inside the vehicle.

(xix) Accordingly, the appellant and A-12 drove to
Bombay and took a stopover at Khandala. The
E appellant got scared after seeing the arms and
therefore he sneaked out of 1he hotel room at
Khandala when A-12 was asleep and went to
Bombay by a State transport bus.

F (xx) The appellant was paid Rs: 2,000/- by Javed
Chikna for the above work at Shekhadi.

(xxi) After few days, he went alongwith Veda Yakub,
Riyaz Khatri, Karimulla (all absconding), deceased
Akbar. Ehtesham (A-58) and Munna (A-24) to
G Shekhadi again and participated in the landing of
arms and ammunitions and explosives.

(xxii) It had come to his knowledge that the aforesaid
arms were going to be used to take revenge
H against Hindus for the demolition of Babri Masjid
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 833
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

and that the wires brought by Shafi in his jeep were A
going to be used to cause blasts in Bombay.

(xxiii) On 17 .02.1993, he went to Dubai via Emirates
flight. From there, he alongwith other co-accused
went to Pakistan. At Islamabad, their passports B
and tickets were not checked.

(xxiv) He was given a fake name - 'Abdullah' in Pakistan.
A-12 told him that they were to be given training in
use of arms for taking revenge against Hindus.
c
(xxv) Thereafter, he underwent weapons training. The
training was given by the officers of Pakistan Army.

(xxvQ After completion of the training, he alongwith
others went back to Dubai. There were
arrangements to board the flight for Dubai without D
any checking at Islamabad Airport. After reaching
Dubai, their passports were checked but no body
asked them as to where they had gone; Tiger gave
150 dirhams to each one of them and administered
oath of maintaining secrecy regarding the E
aforesaid training and for,~aki~9;.~e.'!e!lge ag~inst
Hindus for the demolition. of;,~aqriJylasjid by
swearing on the Quran. ...

(xxviO Before leaving from Dubai to Bo.mbay, they were F
told by Tiger Memon that their 'passports did not
bear any stamp regarding their visit to Pakistan and
for the same reason directed them to go through
Counter No. 3 during their arrival at Bombay Airport
in order to avoid any problem. G
(xxviii) Then he returned to Bombay and after 2-3 days, he
attended/participated in a meeting at the residence
of A-96 on 06.03.1993 where everyone who
received trai'ning in Pakistan was present.
H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (xxix) At the aforesaid meeting, at the behest of Tiger
Memon, the appellant formed a group with A-100
and they were assigned the task of reconnaissance
of Sahar Airport for throwing of hand grenades on
aircrafts.
B
(xxx) Accordingly, on the next day, i.e., on 07.03.1993,
he alongwith PW-2 and A-100 conducted the
survey of Sahar Airport and realized the difficulty in
execution of the same.

c (xxxi) In the meeting at Babloo's place on 08.03.1993, A-
64 and A-100 expressed the above difficulty to
Tiger Memon, but Tiger did not agree to it and told
them that the task has to be executed by any
means.
0
(xxxii) He also participated in the second meeting at the
residence of A-96 on 10.03.1993 where Tiger
Memon directed everyone present therein to be
ready for their respective works. All the people
present there replied that they all were ready.
E
(xxxiii) He was present at Al-Hussaini building on the night
of 11.03.1993 and he saw ROX being loaded in
vehicles. At the instance of Javed Chikna, he also
brought 15-16 sacks of iron scrapings kept outside
F the building compound and kept ii between the
ROX loaded in the vehicles.

(xxxiv) The appellant stated that the material (ROX) used
at Al-Hussaini was similar to the material he saw
G at Shekhadi and Waghani Tower and it appeared
to him that this material was being loaded in the
vehicles for the purpose of causing bomb blasts.

(xxxv) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini'building

H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 835
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
till 3 a.m. and Tiger Memon was also present there. A

(xxxvi) The appellant and Parvez decided that in future
they would not participate in any such activities.

(xxxvii) After the blast, he went to several places, viz.,
Ahmedabad, Ajmer, Karnataka and then to B
Hyderabad fearing arrest by the police.

210. On perusal of the aforesaid confessional statement
of the appellant (A-64), the following facts emerge:

The above confession of the appellant brings out
c
(i)
and establishes his role/involvement in the
conspiracy by way of his close association with
Javed Chikna (AA), one of the key conspirators;

(ii) The appellant participated in both the landings of D
arms and ammunitions and explosives at Shekhadi
with complete knowledge of the articles smuggled
and their purpose;

(iii) The appellant participated in the transportation of E
arms to Bombay;

(iv) The appellant participated in the weapon training
at Pakistan;

(v) The appellant participated in the conspiratorial F
m~etings at Mobina's as well as Bal?loo's
residence where plans were chalked out for
committing terrorist acts.

(vi) The appellant was present at the residence of Tiger
G
Memon at Al-Hussaini Building on the intervening
night of 11/12.03.1993 and participated in the filling
of ROX for the purpose of causing explosions in
various parts of Bombay.

H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (vii) The appellant took oath that he alongwith others will
do 'Jehad' and will take revenge against Hindus
and he, on being asked by the Tiger to be ready,
replied that he was ready.

211. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that
8
his confession was recorded at midnight. The said contention
is not supported by any record, in fact, the confession was
recorded at 9.45 a.m. onwards. The scrutiny of his confession
and the procedure followed shows that the appellant has made
C the above confession voluntarily, without any pressure or
coercion and the same has been recorded after following all
the safeguards prescribed under Section 15 of TADA and the
rules framed thereunder. The said fact has also been proved
by Shri H. C. Singh (PW-474).

D Confessional Statements of co-accused:

212. 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
E 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-64)
are summarized hereinbelow:

Confessional Statement of Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh
F (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),
G ihe then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. The said confession reveals
as under:

(i) A-12 participated in the landing of arms at
Shekhadi and one jeep filled with arms was
entrusted to him and the appellant.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 837
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]

(ii) The appellant left for Bombay without informing him. A

(iii) After the second landing at Shekhadi, the appellant
came to stay over at Hotel Persian Durbar, Panvel
where A-12 was also staying.

Confessional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani B
Khairulla (A-13)

Confessional statement of A-13 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 16.05.1993. (10:30 hrs.) and
18.05.1993 (17:15 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), c
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals
that the appellant attended the conspiratorial meeting on
10.03.1993 at Mobina's residence in Sandra.

Confessional Statement of lmtiaz Yunus Miya Ghavate (A-
15) D

Confessional statement of A-15 under Section 15 of
TADA was 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 said confession reveals E
that the appellant participated in the landing at Shekhadi.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Farooq Mohd. Yusuf
Pawale (A-16)

Confessional statement of A-16 under Section 15 of F
TADA was recorded on 20.05.1993 (16:30 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (16:45 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The said confession reveals that:

(i) The appellant. Usman and Parvez Qureshi were G
friends of Javed Chikna and were 'brutal' persons;

(ii) At the instance of Javed Chikna, A-16
accompanied him to Shekhadi in a blue coloured
jeep alongwith the appellant and others.
H
838 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 was 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. The said confession reveals
as under:

(i) The appellant accompanied Javed Chikna, A-29
and others in a blue coloured Commander jeep at
C the time of the first landing of arms at Shekhadi.

(ii) The appellant alongwith A-29 and others went in a
jeep to Waghani Tower.

(iii) A-29 met the appellant in Dubai.
D
(iv) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini building
(house of Tiger) on 11.03.1993.

Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd.
E Shaikh (A-32)

Confessional statement of A-32 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 16.05.1993 (11 :25 hrs.) and
19.05.1993 (17:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals
F that the appellant underwent training at Pakistan where he was
given a fake name 'Abdullah'.

Confessional Statement of Abdul Akhtar Khan (A-36)

G Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and
21.05.1993 (18:20 hrs.) byShri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession
corroborates the fact that the appellant travelled to Pakistan via
Dubai where he underwent weapons training.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 839
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Confessional Statement of Feroz @ Akram Amani Malik A
(A-39)

Confessional statement of A-39 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 19.04.1993 (22:30 hrs.) and
23.04.1993 (20:50 hrs.) by Mr. P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then
B
DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The said confession reveals as under:

(i) On 07.03.1993, the appellant took A-39 to Babloo's
house where Tiger Memon and others also arrived
after sometime and a meeting was held.
c
(ii) On 10.03.1993, the appellant had come alongwith
Javed Chikna and others to Sandra. Tiger Memon
also came there and informed them that they were
required to do the work and for that they will be paid
Rs. 5,000/- each.
D
Confessional Statement of Mohd. Rafiqu Musa Miariwala
@ Rafiq Madi (A-46)
Confessional statement of A-46 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 21.04.1993 (19:00 hrs.) and E
23.04.1993 (21:25 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals
that the appellant participated in the landing at Shekhadi.

Confessional Statement of Nasim Ashraf Sherali Barmare
(A-49) F

Confessional statement of A-49 under Section 15 of TADA
was recorded on 16.05.1993 (9:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993 by
Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
Bombay. The said confession reveals that the appellant G
participated in the weapons training at Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57)

Confessional statement of A-57 under Section 15 of
H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A TADA was recorded on 19.04.1993 (12:00 hrs.) by Shri
Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay.
The said confession reveals as under:

(i) The appellant was a friend of Javed Chikna.

B (ii) On 08/09.02.1993, A-57 went to meet Javed
Chikna at Soda Factory where he told him that they
all have to go somewhere. At that time, the appellant
was also present there.

c (iii) Thereafter, all of them went to a place via Goa
Highway using a car.

(iv) On 10.02.1993, Shafi took A-57, the appellant and
others to Hotel Persian Darbar by a jeep where they
all had lunch.
D
(v) A-57 attended a meeting at a flat in Sandra on
10.03.1993 where the appellant and many others
were also present. In the said meeting, Tiger
Memon gave a provoking lecture on taking revenge
E owing to Muslims being killed in the riots; at the
instance of Tiger Memon, groups were formed to
execute the plans to cause blasts.

(vi) On the intervening night of 11112.03.1993, Javed
Chikna asked the appellant to load Black Soap in
F the garage. The appellant and A-57 filled iron
pieces in the Commander jeep.

Confessional Statement of Shaikh Mohd. Ehtesham (A-
58)
G
Confessional statement of A-58 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 15.05.1993 (9:30 hrs.) and 12.06.1993
by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the then DCP, Zone-VIII,
Bombay. The said confession reveals the fact that the appellant
H was present at the time of landing at Shekhadi.
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 841
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Confessional Statement of Gui Mohd. Noor Mohd. Shaikh A
(A-77)

Confessional statement of A-77 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 17.04.1993 (14:10 hrs.) and
19.04.1993 (18:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), B
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals
as under:

(i) The appellant went to Dubai from Bombay on
17.02.1993 alongwith others.
c
(ii) From Dubai, the appellant went to Pakistan via PIA
flight alongwith others.

(iii) All of the above participated in the training of arms
and ammunitions at Pakistan.
D
(iv) After completion of the training, they returned to
Dubai and were administered oath of secrecy and
committing Jehad by Tiger Memon.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Rafiq Usman Shaikh E
(A-94)

Confessional statement of A-94 under Section 15 of TADA
was recorded on 14.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and 16.05.1993 by
Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
Bombay. The said confession reveals as under: F

(i) He met the appellant and other co-accused
persons in Dubai.

(ii) All of them went to Islamabad from Dubai.
G
(iii) All of them participated in the training of arms and
ammunition at Pakistan.

(iv) After completion of the training and returning to
Dubai, they all were administered oath of secrecy H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A by Tiger Memon.

Confessional Statement of Niyaz Mohd. @ Aslam Iqbal
Ahmed Shaikh (A-98)

Confessional statement of A-98 under Section 15 of
· B TADA was recorded on 17 .05.1993 (14:30 hrs.) and
20.05.1993 (11 :30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals
as under:

c (i) The appellant participated in the weapons training
at Pakistan alongwith A-98 and others.

(ii) The appellant along with others was administered
oath in order to combat 'Jehad'.

D (iii) The appellant returned from Dubai to Bombay on
03.03.1993 alongwith Gullu and A-98.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Parvez Zulfikar Qureshi
(A-100)
E Confessional statement of A-100 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 15.04.1993 (23:30 hrs.) and
17.04.1993 (17:00 hrs.) by Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the then
DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The said confession reveals as under:

F (i) The appellant was a friend of Javed Chikna and he
accompanied Javed Chikna, A-100 and others
while going to seashore in a jeep.

(ii) The appellant participated in the weapons training
at Pakistan alongwith A-100 and others.
G
(iii) After completion of the training, they returned to
Dubai and were administered oath of secrecy and
of committing 'Jehad' by Tiger Memon.

H 213. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 843
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
above accused, viz., A-12, A-13, A-15, A-16, A-29, A-32, A- A
36, A-39, A-46, A-49, A-57, A-58, A-77, A-94, A-98 and A-100
clearly establish the fact that it corroborate with the confessional
statement of the appellant (A-64). After consideration of all the
abovesaid confessional statements of the co-accused, the
involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is established in 8
as much as:-

(i) He was closely associated with Javed Chikna (AA)
who was one of the main conspirator in the blasts;

(ii) He actively participated in the landing of arms and c
explosives at Shekhadi smuggled for the purpose
of committing terrorist acts;

(iii) He went to Pakistan and underwent training in arms
and ammunitions and explosives;
D
(iv) After completion of the aforesaid training, he took
oath of maintaining secrecy and committing Jehad
alongwith other co-accused in Dubai at the instance
of Tiger Memon;
E
(v) He participated in the conspiratorial meetings held
at the residence of Babloo and Mobina where plans
for executing the blasts were discussed;

(vi) At the behest of Tiger Memon, he formed a group
with A-100; they were assigned the task of throwing F
hand grenades on aircrafts at Sahar airport and
conducting survey of the same;

(vii) He conducted survey of Sahar Airport alongwith
PW-2 and A-100; G
(viii) He actively participated in the filling operation
carried out at Al-Hussaini Builiding compound on
the intervening night of 11/12.03.1993.
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C R.

A (ix) On being asked by Tiger Memon to be ready, he
replied that he was ready to perform his job.

(x) He admitted his guilt by telling A-12 that he will not
participate in any such activities in future; and

B (xi) After the blasts, he fled from Bombay fearing the
arrest.

214. Mr. Manish, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that the confession was subsequently retracted on
C 15.02.1995. It is also contended that the confessional
statements of the co-accused above as relied upon by the
prosecution against him were subsequently retracted, and
therefore, it is not safe to base the conviction on any of the
aforesaid confessions. It has been further contended on behalf
of the appellant that he was, in fact, arrested on 29.12.1994
0
though his arrest has been shown on 03.01.1995 and on
04.01.1995, he was produced before the Magistrate and that
he was tortured, coerced and induced to make a confession.
The prosecution pointed out that upon perusal of the order
dated 04.01.1995, it is clear that no complaint of any ill-
E treatment at the hands of police was made by the appellant or
his counsel and further even during the remand till 25.01.1995
he was permitted to meet his relatives and was allowed to
consult his lawyer. The prosecution further pointed out that the
confession of the appellant was recorded on 22.01.1995 and
F 24.01.1995 and on 04.02.1995, 20.02.1995 and 13.03.1995
he was produced before the Designated Court and on which
dates ~Isa no complaint of any torture, coercion or ill-treatment
at the hands of police was made by the appellant. In fact, after
recording of the confession, on 25.01.1995, he was produced
G before the Magistrate alongwith his confessional statement. In
view of the same, there is no substance in the contention raised
by the counsel for the appellant. :J"he legality and acceptability
of the confessions of the co-accused has already been
considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 845
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses: A
215. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
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: B
Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

The relevant material in his evidence is as follows:-

(i) PW-2 knows the appellant. He identified the
appellant in the court.
c
(ii) He met the appellant and other co-accused on
02.02.1993 at Hindustan Soda Factory and they all
left for Panvel and, thereafter, to Alibaug in a blue
coloured Commander jeep and stayed in the same D
room alongwith the appellant at Hotel Big Splash,
Alibaug.

(iii) On the same day, at Hotel Big Splash, Tiger
Memon convened a meeting in which he addressed E
that Muslims have suffered a lot in the communal
riots in Bombay and Surat and they all have to help
him in taking revenge against Hindus for this. He
also told them that arms and ammunitions were
about to arrive from Pakistan on that day.
F
(iv) The appellant was present in the aforesaid meeting.
Thereafter, all of them left for Shekhadi Coast in two
Commander jeeps.

(v) The appellant was present at Waghani Tower where G
arms and ammunitions were transported and
eventually opened, unloaded and then stored in the
Tower.

(vi) The appellant also participated in the second
H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A landing at Shekhadi.

(vii) The appellant underwent training at Pakistan.

(viii) On completion of the aforesaid training and after
returning to Dubai, PW-2 alongwith the appellant
B and others took oath of maintaining secrecy by
swearing on the Quran.

(ix) The appellant attended the meeting at Shakil's
house on 07.03.1993 where groups for surveying
c targets were formed. PW-2 and the appellant were
in the same group.

(x) The appellant and PW-2 conducted survey of the
Sahar Airport as a prospective target.

D (xi) The appellant attended meeting at Babloo's
residence on 08.03.1993.

(xii) The appellant attended meeting at Shakil's
residence on 10.03.1993.
E The above deposition of PW-2 duly corroborates with the
confession of the appellant as well as the confessions of the
co-accused in as much as the appellant was present at
Hindustan Soda Factory alongwith other co-accused,
participated in both the landings of arms and explosives at
F Shekhadi, was well aware of the fact that the aforesaid arms
and ammunitions were smuggled and landed for committing
terrorist acts in order to avenge the demolition of Babri Masjid
and atrocities committed on Muslims in the communal riots,
participated in the weapons training at Pakistan, took oath of
G maintaining secrecy and committing Jehad alongwith other co-
accused in Dubai at the instance of Tiger Memon, participated
in the conspiratorial meetings and lastly he conducted survey
of the Sahar airport as a prospective target.

H Deposition of Anthony S. Mathew (PW-221)
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 847
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

At the relevant time, PW 221 was working as an A
Immigration Officer and proved the departure of the appellant
to Dubai on 17.02.1993 from Bombay. The relevant entries on
the Embarkation Card (X-340) dated 17.02.1993 concerning
the departure which was duly stamped by him have been marked
as Exh Nos. 979 and 979-A. B

Deposition of Ramchandra Barkade (PW-231)

PW-231 is an Immigration Officer and has proved the
arrival of the appellant to Bombay on 03.03.1993 from Dubai.
The relevant endorsements on the Disembarkation Card (X- C
373) dated 03.03.1993 concerning the arrival have been
marked as Exh. Nos. 1019 and 1019-A.

Deposition of Abdul Siddiqui (PW-367)

Further, the deposition of PW-367 also proved that the D
appellant went to Dubai on 17.02.1993 from Sahar Airport,
Bombay. PW-367 was also travelling to Dubai on 17.02.1993
by the same flight. His deposition reveals the following:

(i) · He knew the appellant for the last 10 years as he E
resided in Mahim, where the appellant also
resided.

(ii) He travelled to Dubai on 17.02.1993 by an
Emirates Airlines flight.
F
(iii) When PW-367 was standing in the queue for
boarding pass, he saw the appellant and Veda
Yakub who were also standing in the same queue.

(iv) He identified the appellant in the court. G
(v) In Dubai, he stayed in Hotel Delhi Darbar where he
again met the appellant.

· The aforesaid deposition of PW-367 corroborates with the
confession of the appellant as well as the evidence of PW-2. H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Deposition of Harishchandra Singh (PW-474)

The confession of the appellant was recorded by PW-474,
the then Superintendent of Police, CBl/SPE/STF, New Delhi.
His deposition reveals the following:
B (i) He had not taken any part in the investigation of the
Bombay Blasts case.
(ii) He received a telephonic request from Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Rishi Prakash of CBI/
c STF, Bombay, for recording the confession of the
appellant; accordingly, he reached the Bombay
office on 22.01.1995.
(iii) Thereafter, a written request was made to him for
recording the said confession and after making
D endorsement upon the request letter, he asked for
the appellant to be produced before him.
(iv) He ensured that the appellant was making a
voluntary confession and that he was not
pressurized, coerced or threatened by anybody to
E
give the confession. He also gave him time till
24.01.1995 for re-consideration of his desire to
make a confession.
(v) On 24.01.1995, the appellant was again produced
F before him. They were the only persons in the
Chamber.
(vi) He ascertained whether sufficient time was given
to the appellant for re-consideration or not and
warned the appellant that any confession made by
G him would be used against him.
(vii) He recorded the confession of the appellant and
also read it over to him.

(viii) The appellant told him that the confession was
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 849
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
correctly recorded and the same was also signed A
by him as well as by PW-474.

216. We are satisfied with the deposition of PW-474 that
the confession of the appellant was recorded in accordance
with the prescribed rules and after following the due process B
of law. No discrepancy whatsoever has been established on
behalf of the appellant pertaining to the aforesaid deposition.

Sentence:
217. The prosecution pointed out that the appellant was. C
given full opportunity to defend himself on the question of
quantum of sentence. His statement was recorded on
06.10.2006 in which he prayed that the following factors,
amongst others, may be considered while determining his
sentence: o
(i) He has been in custody since 03.01.1995;

(ii) His wife is suffering from TB and low blood pressure
since last 8 years and his son had suffered head
injury; E
(iii) He had been to Shekhadi under the impression that
it was landing of silver goods and after realizing that
it was not silver, he disassociated himself from the
landing;
F
(iv) He was forced to participate in the second landing
since Tiger Memon, Javed Chikna and others had
threatened to kill his family members;

(v) In the said conspiratorial meetings, he protested to G
carry out any operation as it was the month of
Ramzan but he was threatened by Tiger and Javed
that he would be shot on the spot if he backs out;

H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (vi) If he gets a chance, he would be able to look after
his family and would be able to lead the life as a
law abiding citizen; and

(vii) Ultimately, he was not involved in the commission
of any terrorist act and for the acts committed by
B
him, he had undergone sufficient sentence since he
has been in custody for about 12 years (as on date
approx. 18 years), so a lenient view be taken while
awarding sentence to him.

C 218. It is pointed out by the prosecution that all the above
factors have been duly considered by the Designated Court
and the aforesaid contentions are devoid of any merit having
regard to the fact that the appellant had sufficient potential for
commission of terrorist acts owing to have acquired training in
D handling sophisticated arms and ammunitions at Pakistan.
Further, it is stated that his contention that he was forced to
participate in the second landing since Tiger Memon, Javed
Chikna and others had threatened to kill his family members
is not tenable as despite being threatened at the time of first
E landing and after getting knowledge that the said landing was
of arms and ammunitions and explosives, he chose to remain
silent instead of approaching the police or taking recourse to
law. Despite all this, he participated in the second landing at
Shekhadi, and moreover, he went to Pakistan at the instance
F of the same persons who had threatened him. Further, when
Tiger Memon asked him to be ready, he told him that he was
ready on the night of 11.03.1993.

219. It is clear that the contention on behalf of the appellant
that he dissociated himself at the time of the first landing at
G Shekhadi is not made out in the light of other evidence on
record. Further, the appellant participated in the acts mentioned
above willingly and with complete knowledge. He knew that the
arms and ammunitions, ROX and hand grenades which were
smuggled into India at Shekhadi would be used for committing
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 851
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM J]

terrorist acts. It is clearly established from his confession that A
Tiger Memon had told his associates that the smuggled arms
were to be used to take revenge for the demolition of Babri
Masjid and for causing blasts in Bombay. As submitted, the
above fact had come to his knowledge after the landing at
Shekhadi and much before his going to Pakistan. Despite that, B
he went to Pakistan via Dubai and received training in handling
of arms and ammunitions and explosives. Even in Dubai, he
attended the conspiratorial meeting convened by Tiger Memon
in which oath was administered to maintain secrecy regarding
the aforesaid training and to take revenge.
c
220. It is also relevant to note that after realizing that
explosions took place at various places in Bombay on
12.03.1993, the appellant absconded and remained away from
the clutches of law until he was arrested by the police. He stayed
at various places in assumed names in order to conceal his D
identity to avoid his arrest. Thus, his fleeing away after the
explosions took place only goes to show his association and
involvement in the conspiracy to cause blasts and, undoubtedly,
he was a part of it. It also points out his guilt in the commission
of the said acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. E
221. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence enumerated
above, we hold that the appellant was actively involved in the
conspiracy to cause blasts ·in Bombay and in consequence of
the said involvement, he has committed the said offences for
F
which he has been charged and the sentence awarded by the
Designated Court to the appellant is justified. Consequently, the
appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2008
Salim Rahim Shaikh @ .... Appellant(s)
G
Salim Babu Wrane (A-52)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through .... Respondent(s)
CBl-STF, Mumbai
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 222. Mr. Mustaq Ahmed, learned counsel appeared for the
appellant (A-52) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel
duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for respondent
(CBI)

B 223. The instant appeal is directed against the final order
and judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2006 and
14.06.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant (A-52) 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.
c
Charges:

224. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-52). The
relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder:
0
"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
E members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object
was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed
to c~mmit 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
F 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
G 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
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 853
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

grenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to A
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 B
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 c
terrorist acts. To harbouc 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
0
conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any
other illegal acts as were necessary for ach,ieving 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
E
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 F
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 G
TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of !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 (1A), H "
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

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."
B
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
c punishable under section 3(3) of TADA by doing the
following overt acts:

(a) He participated in the training in handling of arms,
ammunitions and explosives in Pakistan for which
D he travelled in a ficticious name as 'Salim Babu
Wrane';

(b) He assisted in the preparation of vehicle bombs by
filling explosives therein, at Al-Hussaini Building for
planting the same at various places in Bombay and
E its suburbs.

At head Thirdly; The appellant drove to Mahim
Causeway on 12.03.1993 alongwith other co-accused in
a Maruti Van bearing No. MP-13-D-385 and lobbed hand
F grenades on the hutments causing explosions resulting into
death of 3 persons, injuries to 6 others and damage to
property worth Rs. 50,000/- and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 3(3) of TADA read with
Section 149 IPC.
G At head Fourthly; The appellant, alongwith other co-
accused persons, was a part of an unlawful assembly as
mentioned above, while throwing the hand grenades at the
said hutments at Mahim Causeway, which resulted in
death, injuries and damage to properties and thereby
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 855
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

committed an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC. A

At head Fifthly; The appellant, by causing the death of 3
persons as mentioned above, committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

At head Sixthly; The appellant, by causing the abovesaid B
explosions, which caused death and injuries to various
persons committed an offence punishable under Section
307 read with Section 149 IPC.

At head Seventhly; The appellant, by causing the c
abovesaid explosions, which resulted in injuries to various
persons also committed an offence punishable under
Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC.

At head Eighthly; The appellant, by causing the
aforesaid explosions, which resulted into damage to the D
properties worth Rs. 50,000/-, committed an offence
punishable under section 436 read with section 149 IPC.

At head Ninthly; During the period from January, 1993,
to 26th April 1993, the appellant possessed one 9mm E
mouser pistol and 48 cartridges, which he concealed at
Benganwadi hutments, Gowandi, unauthorisedly, in a
notified area of Greater Bombay and thereby committed
an offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA.
F
At head Tenthly; The appellant, possessed arms and
ammunition and concealed the same with intent to commit
terrorist acts and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 6 of TADA.

At head Eleventhly; The appellant, by possessing the G
above mentioned arms and ammunitions, unauthorisedly,
committed an offence punishable under Section 3 and
Section 7 read with Section 25(1-A) and 25(1-B)(a) of the
Arms Act, 1959.
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A 225. The charges mentioned above were proved against
the appellant (A-52). The appellant has been convicted and
sentenced for the above said charges as under:

Conviction and Sentence:
B (i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence
of conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA and
under Section 120-B of IPC 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)
c
(ii) The appellant has also been convicted for the
commission of offence punishable under Section
3(3) of TADA and sentenced t6 RI for 1O years
alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further
D undergo RI for 6 months. (charge secondly)

(iii) The appellant has also been convicted for the
commission of offence punishable under Section
3(3) of TADA and sentenced to RI for 14 years
alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further
E undergo RI for 6 months. (charge thirdly)

(iv) The appellant has also been convicted for the
commission of such acts as found proved under
Section 148 of IPC ·and sentenced to undergo RI
F for 1 year. (charge fourthly)

(v) The appellant has also been convicted for the
commission of such acts as found proved under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and
sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs.
G 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 6
months. (charge fifthly)

(vi) The appellant has been convicted for the
commission of such acts as found proved under
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 857
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

Section 307 read with Section 149. of IPC and A
sentenced to RI for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.
10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 3
months. (charge sixthly)

(vii) The appellant has been convicted for the B
commission of such acts as found proved under
Section 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and
sentenced to RI for 2 years. (charge seventhly)

(viii) The appellant has been convicted for the
commission of such acts as found proved under c·
Section 436 read with Section 149 of IPC and
sentenced to RI for 10 years along with a fine of Rs.
5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 month.
(charge eighthly)
D
(ix) The appellant has been convicted for the
commission of such acts as found proved under
Section 5 of TADA and sentenced to RI for 6 years
along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to
further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge ninthly)
E
(x) The appellant has also been convicted for the
offence committed under Section 3 and Section 7
read with Section 25(1A) and 25(1 B)(a) of the Arms
Act, 1959, but no separate sentence was awarded
on the said count. (charge eleventhly) F
'
Evidence

226. The evidence against the appellant (A-52) is in the
form of:-
G
(i) his own confession;

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);
H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iv) documentary evidence.

Confessional statement of Salim Rahim Shaikh @ Salim
B Babu Wrane (A-52)

227. The involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is
evident from his own confession recorded under section 15 of
TADA on 15.04.1993 (20:45 hrs.) and 18.04.1993 (10:30 hrs.)
by Mr. P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then DCP, Zone V, Bombay.
C We were taken through his entire confessional statement. His
confession reveals as under:-

(i) He was residing at Mahim during 1992-93 when
riots took place.
D (ii) His maternal aunt was killed during riots in January,
1993 and he took oath to take revenge for her
death.

(iii) On 11.02.1993, at the instance of Javed Chikna
E (AA), he was taken by Mohammed Usman Jan
Khan (PW-2) and Mohammed Farooq Mohammed
Yusuf Pawale (A-16) to the Airport from where he
left for Dubai alongwith others for training.

(iv) He knew Tiger Memon and was aware of his illegal
F activities.

(v) In Dubai, on 13.02.1993, he attended a meeting in
which Tiger Memon and Javed Chikna discussed
about the communal riots.
G
(vi) On 14.02.1993, he alongwith Javed Chikna and
other co-accused, went to Dubai from Islamabad at
the instance of Tiger.

(vii) In Islamabad, on 17.02.1993, he alongwith others
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 859
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
was taken to the training camp in a jungle where A
they all were trained in firing arms, opening and
assembling of LMG, throwing handgrenades, RDX,
detonators, timer pencils etc.

(viii) On 28.02.1993, he alongwith other co-accused B
persons left Islamabad and reached Dubai where
Tiger Memon administered oath to them on Quran
that they will not fight with each other and will not
disclose anything about the said training and will
cause loss to those persons who had caused loss C
to their community.

(ix) On 03.03.1993, he alongwith others, returned to
Bombay.

(x) Thereafter, he attended a meeting held by Tiger at.· 0
the residence of Babloo at Khar in which they
decided to blast bombs in Bombay after Ramzan.

(xi) Next day, he attended another meeting at Tiger's
residence in which Tiger gave Rs. 5,000/- to each
one of them and he was attached with the group of E
Usman.

(xii) Next day, he also attended another meeting at the
flat of Tiger Memon.
F
(xiii) On 10.03.1993, he, alongwith PW-2 and Firoz
@Akram Amani Malik (A-39) went to Bharat
Petroleum Refinery, Chembur for survey.
Thereafter, they met Tiger Memon and informed
him about the unfeasibility of causing blast at the
said refinery owing to the presence of security G
guards.

(xiv) Thereafter, on the instructions of Tiger Memon, he
again went to survey the said refinery along with
Bashir and Zakir Hussain Noor Mohammed Shaikh H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (A-32) and informed Tiger and Usman about the
risk.

(xv) On 11.03.1993, he and others were told by Usman,
in the presence of Tiger, to throw hand grenades
in Fishermen's colony, Mahim, at which time the
B
appellant refused but agreed to drive the vehicle for
them.

(xvi) On the same day, in the night, he went to the Tiger's
residence at Al-Hussaini building where Tiger,
c Javed Chikna and others were also present. In the
garage of the said building, he saw that ROX was
being loaded into the vehicles and scooters. He
parked some of the ROX-laden vehicles outside the
garage since he thought his hands would become
0 black due to the colour of ROX.

(xvii) On 12.03.1993, at about 2.00 p.m., he took a pistol
with magazines and drove A-32, Mohammed Mein
Faridulla Qureshi (A-43) and others in Tiger's Maruti
van containing 30 hand grenades to Mahim slope
E
Koliwada, where the hand grenades were to be
thrown as per the plan.

(xviii) After reaching Mahim Koliwada, while he was on
the driver's seat and the car engine being on, other
F persons sitting in the van came out of the vehicle
and threw hand grenades causing blasts.

(xix) After throwing hand grenades, they immediately
boarded the said Maruti van which was driven by
him and sped away towards Sandra Reclamation
G
whereafter going a little ahead and taking a right
turn, all five persons got down from the van and left.
At that time, A-39 took the bag of hand grenades
in which A-52's pistol was also kept and left with
all others.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 861
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]

(xx) Thereafter, he (A-52) parked the vehicle there and A
went to Tiger's house where he had parked his
scooter a_nd then went to Versova at his cousin's
house.

(xxi) On the next day, since the police was investigating B
the blasts, he took refuge in Madina Masjid and did
not go to his house.

228. On perusal of the above confession of the appellant,
the following facts emerge -
c
(i) He took oath to take revenge for his aunt's death in
the riots;

(ii) He participated in a meeting at Dubai where Tiger
Memon and Javed Chikna spoke about communal
D
riots;

(iii) He participated in the weapons training at Pakistan
for the purpose of committing terrorist acts;

(iv) He took oath on holy Quran that he will remain E
together, will not fight with each other and will not
tell anyone about the training including his wife,
children and relatives and further will cause loss to
the persons who had caused loss to the people of
his community;
F
(v) . He was present in the garage at Al-Hussaini
Building in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993 when
ROX was being filled in vehicles;

(vi) He parked the vehicles loaded with ROX in and out G
of the garage;

(vii) He drove co-accused persons in a Maruti Van No.
MP-13-0-385 to Mahim Causeway where hand
grenades were thrown on the hutments.
H.
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (viii) He carried a pistol along with him.

229. A perusal of his entire confession, questions put by
the recording officer and the procedure followed clearly show
that the abovesaid confession is voluntary, without any pressure
B or coercion and the same has been recorded after following
all the safeguards enumerated under Section 15 of TADA and
the rules framed thereunder.

230. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the
appellant has also been disclosed in the confessional
C 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-52)
are summarized hereinbelow:
D
Confessional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani
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
E (17:15 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-13 with reference
to the appellant is summarised below:

(i) On 11.03.1993, the appellant was present at Tiger's
F residence along with other co-accused persons.

(ii) He was present in the garage of Al-Hussaini
Building when ROX w~s being loaded in vehicles.

(iii) In the morning of 12.03.1993, the appellant was
G present at Tiger's residence, where Javed gave Rs.
5,000/- to everyone present therein including the
appellant and told A-13 to accompany the appellant
along with others in a Maruti van in order to throw
hand grenades at-Mahim Causeway slope.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 863
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(iv) The appellant drove the Van to Mahim Causeway A
in which A-13, Mehmood, Feroz, Zakir and Abdul
Akhtar were also seated.

(v) On reaching the fishermen's colony at Mahim, the
appellant informed everyone in the van to be ready B
to throw hand grenades and parked the van on the
roadside after which they threw handgrenades at
fishermen's colony and caused explosions. The
appellant was also carrying a pistol with him.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Farooq Mohd. Yusuf C
Pawale (A-16)

Confessional statement of A-16 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (16:30 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (16:45 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the D
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The confession of A-16 with
reference to the appellant is summarised below for ready
reference:

(i) On 10.02.1993, the appellant went to Dubai along
with other accused persons. E

(ii) On 13.02.1993, he alongwith other co-accused
persons travelled to Islamabad (Pakistan) for
training.
F
(iii) He along with others attended the training of
dismantling and handling of fire arms and bombs
including chemical bombs as well as hand
grenades in Islamabad (Pakistan).

(iv) On 07.03.1993, he attended a conspiratorial G
meeting held at Tiger's residence at Khar wherein
Tiger said that he was going to cause riots in
Bombay and informed everyone not to disclose it
to anyone.
H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (v) On 12.03.1993, A-16 handed over the pistol and
rounds to the appellant.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Yusuf
Shaikh (A-23)

B Confessional statement of A-23 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-23 with
reference to the appellant is summarised hereunder:
c
(i) He was present at the residence of Tiger Memon.

(ii) He drove the vehicles in and out of the garage
which were loaded with RDX.

D (iii) On 12.03.1993, he was present at the time when
Javed and Usman distributed a bag full of hand
grenades amongst the co-accused persons.

Confessional Statement of Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar
E Qureshi (A-29)

Confessional statement of A-29 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 18.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and
21.05.1993 (14:45 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-29 with
F reference to the appellant is summarised below for ready
reference:
(i) He attended training in Pakistan for handling of
arms and explosives.
G
(ii) On 12.03.1993 he along with other co-accused was
present in the flat of Tiger Memon at Al-Hussaini
Building where Javed Chikna gave Rs. 5,000/- to
everyone present there.

H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 865
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd. A
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), B
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-32 with
reference to the appellant is summarised hereunder:

(i) He travelled to Pakistan and was given a fictitious
name 'lmran' and participated in weapons training.
c
(ii) He left Dubai on 03.03.1993 and came back to
Bombay.

(iii) He was present at the flat of Tiger Memon on
10.03.1993. On the said date, Tiger Memon formed D
a group for survey of the Refinery.

(iv) He was present at Al-Hussaini in the night
intervening 11/12.03.1993.

(v) Usman gave pistol to the appellant and Nasim. E

(vi) The appellant drove co-accused persons to Mahim
Causeway where he asked them to. get down and
do their job of throwing hand grenades which they
did and caused explosions.
F
(vii) After the explosion, the appellant called them into
the car and drove it fast.

Confessional Statement of Abdul Khan @ Yakub Khan
Akhtar Khan (A,36)
G
Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and
21.05.1993 (18:20 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-36 with
H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A reference to the appellant is summarised below:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at
Pakistan.

(ii) After return from Pakistan, Tiger Memon
B administered oath to all the accused persons by
placing their hands on holy Quran that they will do
Jehad after reaching Bombay and will take revenge
for atrocities committed on Muslim community and
whatever they have learnt they will not disclose it to
C anyone.

(iii) He was present at Al-Hussaini building along with
co-accused persons.

(iv) He parked the vehicles in and out of the garages
D after they were filled with ROX.

(v) He was present at Al-Hussaini in the morning of
12.03.1993 and he along with others received Rs.
5,000/- from Javed Chikna.
E
(vi) He drove the co-accused persons and asked them
to get down and explode bombs at Mahim
Causeway.

Confessional Statement of Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik
F (A-39)

Confessional statement of A-39 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (22:30 hrs.) and
23.04.1993 (20:50 hrs.) by Mr. P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then ·
G DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The confession of A-39 with reference
to the appellant is summarised below:

(i) He participated in the training of handling of arms,
ammunitions and explosives.

H (ii) After return from Pakistan, Tiger Memon
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 867
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

administered oath to all of them on holy Quran that A
they will not disclose it to anyone.

(iii) On 07.03.1993, he attended a conspiratorial
meeting at the residence of Nasir Babloo.

(iv) On 10.03.1993, the appellant, along with other co- B
accused persons, surveyed Shiv Sena Bhawan.

(v) He was present at Al-Hussaini building where Tiger
Memon told them that they will be given Rs. 5,000/
- each. c
(vi) He alongwith other co-accused surveyed Chembur
Refinery.

(vii) He drove the co-accused in a van to Mahim
Causeway where they lobbed hand granades at D
fishermen's colony and caused explosions.

Confessional Statement of Nasim Ashraf Shaikh Ali
Barmare (A-49)

Confessional statement of A-49 under Section 15 of
E
TADA has been recorded on 16.05.1993 (9:30 hrs.) and
18.05.1993 by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-49 with reference
to the appellant is summarised below:
F
(i) He participated in the weapons training at
Pakistan.

(ii) He was asked by Javed to bring Maruti Car for the
purpose of filling ROX in the garage.
G
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 (12:00 hrs.) by Shri
Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A A-57 with reference to the appellant stated that he participated
in the filling of ROX in the vehicles.

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 with
reference to the appellant is summarised below:
c
(i) He participated in the training in handling of arms
and ammunitions at Pakistan.

(ii) He along with other co-accused persons took oath
that they will take revenge against Hindus and will
D not disclose to anybody about the training.

(iii) He was present at Al-Hussaini in the night
intervening 11/12.03.1993.

E Confessional Statement of Mohd. Rafiq Usman Shaikh
(A-94)

Confessional statement of A-94 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 14.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and 16.05.1993
by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
F Bombay. A-94, with reference to the appellant, stated that he
participated in the weapons training at Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Niyaz Mohd. @ Aslam Iqbal
Ahmed Shaikh (A-98)
G
Confessional statement of A-98 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 17.05.1993 (14:30 hrs.) and
20.05.1993 (11 :30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-98 with
reference to the appellant, is summarised below:
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 869
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(i) He received training in handling of arms and A
ammunition, hand grenades and making of bombs
by using ROX.

(ii) He along with other co-accused took oath of
maintaining secrecy and committing Jehad for the
B
sake of Islam. Further, he was also present when
Tiger spoke about the atrocities committed on
. Muslims during the communal riots in Bombay and
;
taking revenge for the same.

Confessional Statement of Parvez Mohd. Parvez Zulfikar c
Qureshi (A-100)

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 D
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The confession of A-100 with
reference to the appellant is summarised below:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at
Pakistan.
E
(ii) He was present in Dubai when at the instance of
Tiger Mernon, he and other co-accused took oath
of maintaining secrecy and committing Jehad for
the sake of Islam. Further, he was also present
when Tiger spoke about the atrocities committed F
on Muslims during the communal riots in Bombay
and· taking revenge for the same.

(iii) He was present at Al-Hussaini building when Tiger
distributed Rs. 5,000/- to all the accused persons
G
. (iv) He was present at Tiger Memon's residence at Al-
Hussaini Building on the night intervening 11/
12.03.1993.

(v) He was driving the Maruti Van.
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 231. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the
above accused, viz., A-13, A-16, A-23, A-29, A-32, A-36, A-
39, A-49, A-57, A-64, A-94, A-98 and A-100 clearly establish
the fact that it corroborate with each other and also with the
confessional statement of the appellant (A-52). After
B consideration of all the abovesaid confessional statements of
the co-accused, the involvement of the appellant in the
conspiracy is established in as much as:-

(i) The appellant attended the conspiratorial meeting
at the residence of Tiger Memon.
c
(ii) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini in the night
intervening 11/12.03.1993 and witnessed the filling
of ROX in vehicles.

D (iii) On 12.03.1993, Javed and Usman (PW-2)
distributed a bag full of hand grenades amongst the
co-accused persons in his presence.

(iv) The appellant traveled to Dubai on 11.02.1993 and
returned Bombay on 03.03.1993.
E
(v) The appellant attended training in arms and
ammunitions at Pakistan where he was given a
fictitious name.

(vi) The appellant, along with other co-accused
F
persons, took oath on Holy Quran to combat Jehad
against Hindus.

(vii) The appellant drove the co-accused persons in a
Mar1Jti Van to Mahim Causeway where they lobbed
G hand grenades at Fishermen's colony causing
explosions.

(viii) The appellant was also carrying a pistol.

(ix) The confession of A-32 shows that the appellant
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 871
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

was not merely a driver, in fact, he was the· A
Commander of his group.
232. It is contended by Mr. Mustaq Ahmed on behalf of the
aJ;Jpellant that the appellant has been addressed to by various
accused persons by different names, viz., 'Salim Bazarwala',
'Salim Dandekar', 'Salim Driver' and 'Salim Kapadwala' which
8
refer to different persons and not the appellant-accused whose
real name is Salim Babu Wrane alias Salim Rahim Shaikh and
thus, in view of this, there is doubt as to the actual presence of
the appellant-accused referred to in the above confessions.
Further, it is also contended that the prosecution has falsely C
'manufactured' a case against him by putting different names.
The appellant-accused was known by different names to
different co-accused persons and this does not, in anyway,
dispute the inyolvement of the appellant in the crime. From the
confessions of the co-accused and also from his own D
confession, it is evident that there is corroboration of his
involvement in the crime. Each confession corroborates with the
fact of presence of the appellant and connects him to the crime.
Moreover, there is no contradiction or discrepancy in the above
confessions pertaining to the involvement of the appellant. The E
appellant has been identified by the eyewitnesses which further
corroborate the confessions and establish the identity of the
appellant.

233. It is further cnntended on behalf of the appellant that
the prosecution has mislead the court and created confusion F
by referring to and addressing Mahim Causeway as Mahim
Koliwada at one place and as Fishermen's Colony at the other
and sometimes also referred to it as Macchimar Colony. From
the materials placed, it is established that Mahim Causeway,
Mahim Koliwada, Fishermen's Colony and Macchimar Colony G
are one and the same locality and is locally known and
addressed by these names by its residents. Further, this locality
is inhabited by the Marathi and Konkani speaking fishermen
community. Hence, the names 'Koliwada' and 'Macchimar'
mean fishermen's colony in Konkani and Marathi respectively. H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

234." Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy, as stated above,
is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses
B which are as under:

Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

The relevant material in his evidence is as follows:-

c (i) He deposed that he knows the appellant as Salim
Bazarwala.

(ii) He identified the appellant in the court.

(iii) He deposed that the appellant travelled to Pakistan
D via Dubai.

(iv) He deposed that the appellant was given a fictitious
name 'lmran'.

(v) He deposed about the training at Pakistan.
E
(vi) He deposed that the appellant was present in the
conspiratorial meeting.

(vii) He deposed that the appellant was present in the
meeting at the residence of Babloo.
F
(viii) He deposed about the survey of refinery along with
the appellant and other co-accused.

(ix) He deposed that the appellant was given a pistol
G and rounds.

(x) He deposed that the appellant was given the role
to move the vehicles in and out of the garage which
were filled with RDX.

H (xi) He deposed that the appellant along with other co-
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 873
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
accused was instructed by Javed Chikna to throw A
hand grenades at Fishermen's Colony, Mahim on
12.03.1993.

The above deposition of the Approver duly corroborates
with the confessions of the co-accused as well as the confession
B
made by the appellant.

Eye witnesses:

Deposition of Laxman Patil (PW-5)

PW-5 is a resident of the Fishermen's Colony. He
c
witnessed the incident while he was waiting on the road.

(i) He deposed that the driver was sitting in the van
and the engine was in start condition.
D
(ii) He identified the appellant in court.

(iii) He identified the appellant in TIP dated 15.05.1993
conducted by Special Executive Magistrate,
Moreshwar P. Thakur (PW-469) at Mahim Police
Station. E

(iv) He also identified the vehicle No. MP-13-0-385 as
the car in which the appellant came to Mahim slope
in order to throw hand grenades.
F
Deposition of Santosh Patil (PW-6)

PW-6 is a resident of Mahim Fishermen's Colony and
deposed as under:

(i) He deposed that he witnessed the incident while he G
was waiting near the Municipal School at Mahim
Slope and further saw that the driver of the van was
calling for the persons lobbing the hand grenades
to get into the car after explosion.
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (ii) He identified the appellant in the court.

(iii) He identified the appellant in TIP dated 15.05.1993
conducted by Special Executive Magistrate (PW-
469) at Mahim Police Station.
B (iv) He also identified the vehicle No. MP-13-D-385 as
the car in which the appellant came to Mahim slope
in order to throw hand grenades.

Deposition of Shashikant Shetty (PW 13)
c PW-13 is also an eye-witness and a resident of Mahim
Fishermen's Colony. He witnessed a part of the incident when
he came out after hearing .the sound of explosions. His
deposition reveals as under:-
D (i) He identified the appellant in Court being the driver
of the van.

(ii) He also identified the appellant in the identification
parade dated 15.05.1993 conducted by Special
E Executive Magistrate (PW-469) at Mahim police
station.

(iii) He also identified the Maruti Van bearing No. MP-
D-13-385 in which accused persons came to
Mahim Machhimar colony.
F
(iv) He lodged an FIR in respect of explosions at
Mahim Fishermen's colony. ·

235. All the aforesaid eye witnesses to the said incident
G have consistently deposed that the appellant was driving the
van which came to fishermen's colony and caused explosions.
They have identified the appellant in the court. They further
identified the Maruti van bearing number MP-D-13-385 as the
vehicle in which the appellant alongwith other co-accused came
to the scene of the crime and fled away after lobbing the hand
H grenades.
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 875
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBlMUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Investigation, Recoveries and Reports: A

236. The aforesaid eye-witnesses viz., PWs-5, 6 and 13
have duly identified the appellant in the TIP dated 15.05.1993
conducted by Shri Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469) for which
memorandum panchnama marked as Exh. 1515 was B
prepared.

237. On 12.03.1993, Shantaram Gangaram Hire (PW-
562), Police Officer, visited the blast site i.e., Fishermen's
colony at Mahim and prepared spot panchnama in the presence
of pan ch witnesses, viz., Dayaram Timbak Akare and c
Mahendra Sadanand Mehre. PW-562, in the presence of
Tamore (PW-330) and experts collected the articles from the
blast site vide Panchnama Exh. No. 1221 which were sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL") for opinion. The FSL
Report Exh. Nos. 1943, 1943-A(i) and 1943-A(ii) proved the D
remnants to be explosives and part of hand grenades.

238. The deposition of panch witness Sakharam Sathe
(PW-35) reveals discovery of a pistol and 48 rounds belonging
to the appellant from Zopada in Bainganwadi. The discovery E
was made at the instance of the appellant who led the police
party and the panchas to the place of recovery. Exh. 102 is the
panchanama of all the events correctly drawn by A.P.I. Shri
Kolekar (PW-526). Article Neis. 38 and 39 are the said pistol
and 46 intact cartridges and two empties out of 48 cartridges
F
seized by him on 13.04.1993 from the said hutments at
Baiganwadi at Govandi is under the panchanama Exh.102.

Evidence regarding injured victims and deceased

239. It is seen from the records that in July, 1993, Achyut G
Shamrao Pawal (PW-542), Police Inspector, collected the injury
certificates of injured persons, namely, Mr. Gurudutt Agaskar,
Ms. Rajashri Agaskar and Ms. Sheetal Keni from Bhaba
Hospital which amply prove that they sustained injuries during
the blast. Injured Shashikant Shetty (PW-13) and Sheetal Keni H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R

A (PW-412) also proved to have sustained injuries during the blast
Dr. Wadekar (PW-641) and Dr. Krishna Kumar (PW-640) were
the doctors who have proved the injury certificates issued 'to
PW-13 and PW-412 respectively.

240. Gajanan Tare (PW-413) (husband of the deceased
8
Guiab Tare) and Karande (PW-414) (nephew of the deceased
Hira Dhondu Sawant) claimants of two bodies, have proved the
death of Mrs. Guiab Tare (wife of PW-413) and Smt. Hira
Dhondu Sawant (PW 414's aunt) in the said incident. PW-482
C and PW-480 have established the cause of death to be the
injuries received on 12.03.1993. Achyut Shamrao Pawal (PW-
542) also proved the death of 3 persons at Fishermen's Colony
in the said incident.

Vehicle used for committing the act:
D
241. It is seen from the materials that the said Maruti Van
in which A-13, A-32, A-36, A-39, A-43 and Mehboob Liyaqat
Khan (AA) was driven by the appellant to cause blasts at Mahim
Fishermen's Colony was arranged by Suleman Lakdawala
E (PW-365) at the behest of Mohd. Shafi Jariwala (AA). This has
also been proved by the said witness. Further, the depositions
of Kailash Govind Rao Baheti (PW-342) and Shakeel Suleman
Hasham (PW-366) are pertinent as it complete the link relating
to purchase/arrangement of the said Maruti Van used in the
incident.
F
Deposition of Kailash Govind Rao Baheti (PW-342)

He deposed as follows:-

"On 18.01.1993 I had received a telephone call given
G by Shakil Hasham from Bombay. Shakil requested
me to book one red coloured Maruti Van in the name
of Asif Darvesh resident of M.G. Road, Indore and
another new Maruti Van of blue colour in the name of
Shri Kasam Ahmed residing at Indira Nagar, Ujjain. He
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 877
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

also requested me to register both the Maruti Van at Indore A
and send the same to Bombay. He also told me that the
payments of the same would be made at Bombay to the
driver. I quoted a price of Rs.1,69,0001- per vehicle
inclusive of registration and transport charges. I was having
red coloured Maruti Van brought by me from Mis Bhatia B
& Company, Gurgaon, Haryana and blue coloured Maruti
Van brought fromVipul Motors, Faridabad, Haryana, in my
stock. I had brought both the said vehicles by making
advance payment. After receipt of booking from Shakil
Hasham for red and blue coloured brand new Maruti Vans, c
I informed the details of the purchasers to Mis Bhatia
Company and Mis Vipul Motors. After receipt of the said
letters and bills from both the said companies in the name
of purchasers who wanted red and blue Maruti Vans I sent
papers of both the Vans for registration to RTO. The blue
D
coloured Maruti Van was registered in the name of Kasam
Ahmed at Ujjain RTO. The blue coloured Maruti Van could
not be registered at Indore due to lack of E-Form
necessary for registration. Thereafter, I sent both the said
Vans to Bombay to Shakil Hasham. Shakil Hasham
received the delivery and paid Rs.3,38,0001- to my drivers. E
My drivers gave the said amount to me. I made the
necessary entries in my office record for sending the said
Vans to Bombay to Shakil Hasham after purchasing the
same for the parties told by him. The RTO Authority at
Ujjain had given registration Number MP-13-D-0385 F
to "blue coloured Maruti Van. Today I am not
remembering the engine number and chassis number of
the said Maruti Van.""

Depostion of Shakeel Suleman Hasham (PW-366) G
In his deposition, he deposed that he had asked PW-342
to arrange for two Maruti Vans (red and blue colour) in
February, 1993. Both the vans were purchased in Madhya
Pradesh and the blue Maruti Van was registered in Ujjain with
H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A the registration number MP-13-0-0385. PW-366 further
deposed as under:

"In the same month (February 1993) I had also
arranged for one blue colour and another red colour
Maruti Vans also registered at Madhya Pradesh for
B
Suleman Lakdawala. The said vehicles were registered
at Madhya Pradesh Indore in the name of the purchasers
given to me by Suleman Lakdawala. I had given the work
of registration to one Kailash baheti of Indore. Both
the said vans were insured by Insurance Agent Rakesh
c Tiwari before giving the same to Suleman Lakdawala.
Both the said vehicles had arrived from Indore. I had·
sent the same to the Petrol pump of Suleman and asked
him to take the delivery from the said drivers who had
brought the delivery of the said vehicles. Accordingly he
0 took the delivery by making payment to the drivers."

It is relevant to note that this number and the said blue
Maruti Van has been identified by PWs-5, 6 and 13 in their
depositions as the vehicle which was involved in the said
E incident at Fishermen's Colony. Thus, PW-342, therefore,
corroborates the deposition of PW-366 in that both the Vans
were purchased in Madhya Pradesh and the blue Maruti Van
was registered in Ujjain and was given registration number
bearing M P-13-0-0385.
F
242. Further, the deposition of Mukhtar Ahmed (PW-281)
reveals that the cavity was prepared by him in the said Maruti
Van at the behest of Mohd. Shafi Jariwala (AA). This further
corroborates the fact that it is the same vehicle which was used
in the Mahim Causeway incident.
G
Evidence of travel to Dubai for training at Pakistan:

Deposition of Asmita Ashish Bhosale (PW-215)

243. PW-215, an Immigration Officer, proved the
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 879
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

Embarkation Card (X-315) (Box no. 18) that was submitted at A
Sahar Airport on 11.02.1993 concerning the departure of the
appellant who was flying to Dubai. The relevant entries have
been marked as Exh. Nos. 964, 964-A, 964-A(1) and 964-A(2).

· Deposition of Dadasaheb Godse (PW-238)
B
PW-238, an Immigration Officer proved the ·arrival of the
appellant to Bombay from Dubai on 03.03.1993. The relevant
endorsements on the Disembarkation Card (X-394) (Box no.
18) have been marked as Exh. Nos. 1042-A(1) and 1042-A(2)
colly. c
244. The above depositions further corroborate with the
confession made by the appellant that he had been to Dubai
on 11.02.1993 and had returned to Bombay on 03.03.1993.

245. In view of the above, it can safely be inferred that the D
appellant had acquired skill for commission of terrorist acts after
the training in handling sophisticated arms and ammunitions at
Pakistan. He took oath that he will take revenge for the killing
of his aunt during riots and also that he will take revenge from
Hindus and will not disclose about the conspiracy to anyone. E
He engaged himself in commission of acts furthering the object
of conspiracy which was heinous having scant disregard for
human life. The appellant parked the cars in and out of the
garages which were filled with RDX and thereby assisted in the
preparation of motor vehicle bombs which were planted by other F
co-conspirators which caused considerable damage to the
property and lives of the people. The appellant was also
responsible for taking the other co-conspirators to Mahim
Fishermen's Colony for commission of terrorist acts and,
thereafter, they fled away from that place and he was placed G
in a commanding capacity.

246. Pursuant to the conspiracy, the appellant has actively
particpated in various conspiratorial acts of planning, training,
preparation and execution. The evidence on record clearly H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20.13] 15 S.C.R.

A proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.

Sentence

247. Regarding sentence, it is seen that the appellant was
B given full opportunity to put forth his defence on the question of
sentence. He filed a statement dated 18.12.2006 on the
quantum of sentence (Ex. 3054). All his grievances were duly
considered by the Designated Court. In view of our discussion,
we fully agree with the conclusion arrived and there is no valid
C reason for interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and is
liable to be dismissed.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 979-980 of 2008
Nasim Ashraf Shaikh Ali Barrnare (A-49) ... Appellant(s)
D Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through CBl-STF, Mumbai
... Respondent(s)
248. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appeared for the
appellant (A-49) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel
E duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the
respondent.

249. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the final
impugned order and judgment of conviction and sentence dated
F 25.09.2006 and 17 .07.2007 respectively, whereby the
appellant (A-49) was found guilty and was sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the Designated Court
under TADA for the Bombay Blast Case, Greater Bombay in
B.B.C. No. 1/1993.

G Charges:

250. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-49). 'The
material part of the said charge is as under:
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 881
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.)

"During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 A
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 B
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 c
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 0
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
E
distribute the same amongst yourselves and your meri 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 F
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- G
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 H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E
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."

F In ad.dition to the above-said principal charge of
conspiracy, the appellant (A-49) was also charged on the
following counts:

At head Secondly; The appellant committed an offence
G punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA by doing the
following overt acts:-

(a) He participated in weapons training at Pakistan;

(b) He attended conspiratorial meetings at the
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZ:AKMEMON v. STATE OF 883
MAHARASHTRA. THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
residence of Babloo and Mobina where plans for A
committing terrorist acts were discussed and
chalked out;

(c} He participated in the preparation of vehicle bombs
at Al-Hussaini building during the night intervening B
11th and 12th of March 1993;

At head Thirdly; The appellant, along with Mohd. Iqbal
Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh (A-23), went to the Sahar Airport
Flyover bridge on a motorcycle (bearing No. MH-01-C-
3910} registered in the name of Ayub Abdul Razak Memon C
(AA} and lobbed hand grenades at the workers working
therein and the aircrafts parked at the Airport and thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 3(2}(ii} of
TADA read with Section 34 of IPC.
D
At head Fourthly; By throwing the hand grenades, as
mentioned above, with an intention and knowledge to kill
the workers,. the appellant committed an offence
punishable under Section 3(3} of TADA.

At head Fifthly; By throwing the hand grenades which E
could have caused death of persons working therein, the
appellant committed an offence punishable under Section
307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

At head Sixthly; By throwing the hand grenades, as. F
mentioned above, with the knowledge that it could cause
damage to properties, the appellant committed an offence
punishable under Section 435 read with Sections 511 and
34 of IPC.

At head Seventhly; By throwing the hand grenades with G
the knowledge and intention that it could cause damage
to the public property, the appellant committed an offence
punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 read with Sections 511 and 34
of IPC. H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A At head Eighthly; The appellant was an accessory in
causing explosion by explosive substances likely to
endanger life and property and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 read with
Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
B
251. The charges mentioned above were proved against
the appellant (A-49). The appellant was found guilty on all the
aforesaid charges except for charge at head fourthly. The
appelfant has been convicted and sentenced for the above said
charges as under:
c
Conviction and Sentence

(i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of
conspiracy under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 120-B of
D IPC read with the offences described at head firstly and
sentenced to RI for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge firstly)

(ii) The appellant has been convicted for the offence under
Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of offences mentioned
E at head secondly and sentenced to RI for 14 years alongwith a
fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 % (one
and a half) years. (charge secondly)

(iii) The appellant has also been convicted for the offence
F under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA and sentenced to RI for 14 years
along with a fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in default, to further undergo
RI for 1 Y:z (one and a half) years. (charge thirdly)

(iv) The appellant has also been convicted for the offence
under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced
G to RI for 7 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to
further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge fifthly)

(v) The appellant has also been convicted for the offence
under Section 435 read with Sections 511 and 34 of IPC and
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL. RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 885
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
sentenced to RI for 3 Y, (three and a half) years alongwith a A
fine of Rs .. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 6
months. (charge sixthly)

(vi) The appellant has also been convicted for the offence
under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property B
Act, 1984 read with.Sections 511 and 34 of IPC and sentenced
to RI for 5 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to
further undergo RI for 1 month. (charge seventhly)

(vii) The appellant has also been convicted for the offence
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 C
and sentenced to RI for 5 years. (charge eighthly)

252. The evidence against the appellant (A-49) is in the
form of:-

(i) his own confession; D

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and E
(iv) documentary evidence.

Confessional Statement of the appellant Nasim Ashraf
Shaikh Ali Barmare (A-49)
F
253. Confessional statement of the appellant (A-49) under
Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 16.05.1993 (09:30
hrs.) and 18.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi
(PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The following facts
emerge from the said confessional statement:
G
(i) The appellant quit his job as a welder after the riots.
Atik asked him if he wanted to work in Dubai and
introduced him to Jabir (A-93).

(ii) Jabir arranged for his tickets and visa for Dubai and H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A in the morning of 28.01.1993 dropped him at the
Airport in a blue Maruti car and handed over the
passport and tickets with the instruction that he will
get his Visa on arrival at Dubai.

(iii) He travelled to Dubai by Emirates flight and came
B
out of the Airport after taking his Visa and getting
clearance. In Dubai, he listened to a tape recorded
provoking speech of a Maulana regarding riots in
Ayodhya, Surat and Bombay which motivated him
to take revenge for the same.
c
(iv) On 08/09.02.1993, Ayub dropped the appellant,
Niyaz and Feroz at Dubai Airport and told them that
they were being sent to Pakistan for training of arms
and ammunitions and that the said training would
D be useful at the time of riots and that they will get
arms in Bombay.

(v) The appellant and others went to Pakistan by a PIA
flight and they came out of the Airport without any
clearance.
E
(vi) He was given a new name as 'Yusuf in Pakistan.
The appellant and others were given training in use
of arms and ar.imunitions.

F (vii) Tiger Memon also came to Pakistan during the
training. ':·h·3 appellant also got training in
preparation of bombs using ROX and exploding the
same using aluminium coloured pencil like
detonators and in throwing of hand grenades.
G (viii) After the training, he alongwith others went back to
Dubai on 25.02.1993. In Dubai, they took oath of
maintaining secrecy regarding the aforesaid
training by putting their hands on holy Quran.

H (ix) The appellant then returned back to Bombay
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 887
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
alongwith Rafiq, Shahnawaz, Firoz and Abdul. A

(x) He attended a meeting on 10.03.1993 in a flat at
Sandra, Hill road, where all the co-accused persons
who participated in the training were also present.

(xi) On 11.03.1993, PW-2 took him to the Airport flyover B
and told him that on 12.03.1993, he has to throw
handgrenades on the aeroplanes which were
parked there. PW-2 carefully explained to him as
to from where he has to come and where he has
to go. c
(xii) PW-2 then took him to Tiger's residence at Al-
Hussaini where he saw that about 20-25 boys had
gathered there who had also taken training in
Pakistan,.
0
(xiii) Tiger Memon then told the appellant and
Mohammed Iqbal Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh (A-23)
to go to Sahar Airport on 12.03.1993 in the
afternoon for throwing handgrenades as instructed
by PW-2. E

(xiv) The appellant, along with others, went to the garage
situated behind the Al-Hussaini building and filled
ROX mixed with steel scrap in a Maruti car. He,
alongwith others, also filled another Maruti vehicle F
and a scooter with bomb made of ROX.

(xv) On 12.03.1993, in the afternoon, PW-2 gave him 7
handgrenades, one loaded gun and a small plastic
bag containing bullets and directed him to go for
the mission. G

(xvi) The appellant and A-23 went to the Sahar Airport
by a red coloured Yamaha motorcycle. The last
number of the motorcycle was 3910. At about 15:15
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A hours, they parked the motorcycle on the flyover
bridge and after observing the situation, the
appellant pelted a hand grenade towards an Air
India aircraft. However, the hand grenade could not
reach the plane and it exploded in mid-air.
B
(xvii) Thereafter, the appellant and A-23 fled away from
there and went to Andheri Kur/a road near the
Church where they parked the motorcycle and went
back to their home.

c (xviii) On reaching home, the appellant concealed four
hand grenades and a pistol and after one/two days
of Eid, he gave the said hand grenades to his friend
Asif and the pistol and bullets to his friend Ayub in
order to keep the same with them.
D
254. A perusal of the confession of the appellant
establishes that he played an active role in the entire
conspiracy, viz., participation in the weapons training at
Pakistan; participation in the conspiratorial meeting at
Mobina's residence where plans were chalked out for
E committing terrorist acts; active participation in filling explosive
substances in vehicles for the purpose of causing explosions
in various parts of the Bombay and lobbing handgranades at
Sahar Airport.

F 255. The prosecution highlighted that the appellant (A-49)
has made the above confession voluntarily, without any pressure
or coercion and the same has been recorded after following
all the safeguards prescribed under Section 15 of TADA and
the rules framed thereunder. The said facts have been duly
G established by the recording officer PW-193.

Confessional Statements of co-accused

256. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the
appellant (A-49) is further established by the confessional
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 889
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.)
staierrients of the following co-accused. The legality and A
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-49)
are summarized hereinbelow:
B
Confessional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani
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), c
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A brief summary of the
confession of A-13 with respect to the appellant is summarised
herein under:

(i) The appellant was present in the conspiratorial
D
meeting held on 10.03.1993 in a flat on Hill Road,
Sandra.

(ii) The appellant was present in the garage when ROX
was being loaded in vehicles in the night intervening
11/12.03.1993. E

(iii) The appellant was present at Tiger's residence at
Al-Hussaini building on 12.03.1993 in the afternoon.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Farooq. Mohd. Yusuf
I
P~le~16) .
•
. · F

Confessional statement of A-16 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (16:30 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (16:45 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The confession of A-16 reveals G
that the appellant attended weapons training at Pakistan where
he was given a fake name 'Yusuf'.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Yusuf
Shaikh (A-23)
H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Confessional statement of A-23 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A brief summary of the
confession of A-23 with respect to the appellant is summarised
B hereinunder:

(i) The appellant participated in filling of ROX in
vehicles at Al-Hussaini building.

(ii) On 12.03.1993, Javed Chikna and PW-2
c distributed handgrenades to A-23 and the appellant
at Al-Hussaini Building and, thereafter, Javed
Chikna gave the key of a red coloured Yamaha
motorcycle to A-23 and told him to take the
appellant to the Airport. Javed Chikna also gave a
D pistol and bullets to the appellant.

(iii) They then went to the flyover bridge near the Airport
and on reaching there, the appellant asked A-23 to
keep the bike engine on start mode and lobbed the
hand grenade towards the aircrafts which resultea
E into a loud explosion. Thereafter, they fled away
from there and went to Andheri-Kurla road where
they left the motocycle near the Church and went
back to their homes.

F Confessional Statement of Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar
Qureshi (A-29)

Confessional sta\ement of A-29 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 18.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and
G 21.05.1993 (14:45 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone 111, Bombay. The said confession reveals
that the appellant underwent training at Pakistan and he also
took oath to commit 'Jehad'.

Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 891
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Shaikh (A-32) A

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),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay A brief summary of the
confession of A-32 with respect to the appellant is summarised B
hereinunder:

(i) The appellant attended the conspiratorial meeting
at Al-Hussaini building on 10.03.1993.

(ii) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini building
c
on the night of 11.03.1993.

(iii) On 12.03.1993, PW-2 gave handgrenades to him
and Javed Chikna asked them to leave for the
mission. D

Confessional Statement of Abdul Akhtar Khan (A-36)

Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and 21.05.1993
(18:20 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then E
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A brief summary of the confession of
A-36 with respect to the appellant is summarised hereinunder:

(i) The appellant was present in Pakistan at the time
of training and he left on 25.02.1993. F

(ii) The appellant was present at Tiger's residence at
Al-Hussaini on 11.03.1993. Javed Chikna asked
the appellant and A-36 to unload ROX in the
garage.
G
(iii) The appellant was loading ROX into vehicles.

Confessional Statement of Feroz @ Akram Amani Malik
(A-39) ·
H
Confessional statement of A-39 under Section 15 of
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (22:30 hrs.) and
23.04.1993 (20:50 hrs.) by Mr. P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then
DCP, Zone V, Bombay. A brief summary of the confession of
A-39 with respect to the appellant is summarised hereinunder:

(i) The appellant met A-39 in Dubai where he told him
B that they have to go to Pakistan to take training in
arms.

(ii) The appellant was renamed as 'Yusuf in Pakistan.

(iii) The appellant was present in the meeting at Dubai
c where all co-trainer boys took oath by swearing on
the Quran.

Confessional Statement of Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52)

o Confessional statement of A-52 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 15.04.1993 and 18.04.1993 by Mr. P.O.
Pawar (PW-185). the then DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The
confession of A-52 reveals that the appellant underwent training
at Pakistan. In his confessional statement, the appellant has
E also been referred to as 'Yusuf', the name given to him in
Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @
Nasir Dhakla (A-64)

F Confessional statement of A-64 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 22.01.1995 and 24.01.1995 by
Shri HC Singh (PW-474), the then Superintendent of Police,
CBl/SPE/STF, New Delhi. A brief summary of the confession
of A-64 with respect to the appellant is summarised
G h~reinunder:

(i) The appellant was present in Pakistan.

(ii) He attended the meeting on 10.03.1993 at the
house of Mobina.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 893
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(iii) He was present at Al-Hussaini building on the night A
of 11.03.1993.

(iv) He assisted in filling ROX in vehicles.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Rafiq Usman Shaikh
~~ B

Confessional statement of A-94 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 14.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and 16.05.1993
by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
Bombay. A brief summary of the confession of A-94 with c
respect to the appellant is summarised hereinunder:

(i) The appellant received training in Pakistan.

(ii) He was present in the· meeting at Dubai where oath
was taken by the trainees by swearing on Quran. D
Confessional Statement of Niyaz Mohd. @ Aslam Iqbal
Ahmed ~haikh (A-98) · ·

Confessional statement of A-98 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 17.05.1993 (14:30 hrs.) and E
20.05.1993 (11 :30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then OCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A brief summary of the
confession of A-98 with respect to the appellant is summarised
hereinunder:
F
(i) The appel!ant was already present in Dubai when
A-98 reached there.

(ii) The appellant, alongwith A-39 and A-98, went to
Islamabad by a PIA flight.
G
(iii) The appellant was renamed as 'Yusuf in Pakistan.

(iv) He left the training camp in Pakistan on 25.02.1993
and went to Islamabad.
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (v) He was present at a house in Sandra where the
meeting took place among conspirators on 08/
09.03.1993.

Confessional Statement of Parvez Mohd. Parvez
Zulfikar Qureshi (A-100)
B
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. The confession of A-100 reveals
C that he met the appellant in Pakistan at the time of training and
he left the training camp on 25.02.1993.

257. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the
above accused, viz., A-13, A-16, A-23, A-29, A-32, A-36, A-
D 39, A-52, A-64, A-94, A-98 and A-100 clearly establish the fact
that it corroborate with each other and also with the
confessional statement of the appellant (A-49). After
consideration of all the abovesaid confessional statements of
the co-accused, the involvement of the appellant in the
conspiracy is clearly established inasmuch as -
E
(i) He went to Pakistan and underwent training in arms
and ammunitions and explosives;

(ii) After completion of the aforesaid training, he took
F oath of maintaining secrecy and committing
'Jehad' alongwith other co-accused in Dubai;
(iii) He participated in the conspiratorial meeting held
at the residence of Mobina (A-96) where plans for
executing the blasts were discussed;
G
(iv) He actively participated in filling of explosives in
vehicles in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993 and

(v) He went alongwith A-23 from Al-Hussaini Building
on a red coloured Yamaha motorcycle oriven by A-
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 895
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
23 to the Sahar Airport Flyover Bridge and pelted A
handgrenade at the aircraft, and thereafter, fled
away and went to Andheri-Kurla road where they left
the motocycle near a Church.

Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses
B
258. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
and role of the appellant in the conspiracy, as stated above, is
also revealed by the deposition of the following prosecution
witnesses:
c
Deposition of Mohammed Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)
(Approver)

The deposition of PW-2 (Approver) reveals that:

(i) He knows the appellant and identified him in the D
Court.

(ii) The appellant was introduced to PW-2 using a fake
name - 'Yusuf at the training camp in Pakistan.

(iii) On completion of the aforesaid training and after E
returning to Dubai, PW-2, along with the appellant
and others, took oath of maintaining secrecy by
swearing on Quran.

(iv) The appellant attended the meetings at Shakil's F
residence on 07.03.1993 and 10.03.1993.

(v) The appellant was present in the garage at Al-
Hussaini building on the night of 11.03.1993 and
filied ROX in vehicles.
G
(vi) Javed Chikna told the appellant to remove AK-56
rifles and handgrenades from the gunny bag kept
in the said Maruti van to the Tiger's flat on the fifth
floor.
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v.STATEOF 897
896 MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

.(iv) He identified the appellant in the Test Identification A
A (vii) . On 12.03.1993, Javed Chikna gave 4 hand
Parade ('TIP') dated 09.04.1993 conducted by PW-·
grenades each to the appellant and A-23 and told 462. .• • . '
· them to go to Sahar Airport in order to throw the • • : • - • • ( > : • • : .' • - •

same. . · :1 (v) He also identified the appellant in the TIP dated
12.05.1993 conducted by PW-469 ... B
The above deposition of the approver duly corroborates
8 with the confessional statement of the appellant as well as with
Deposition of Subhash Triveni Harijan (PW-14)
the confessions made by co~ai:cused persons that the appellant
participated in the weapons training at Pakistan and after , PW-14, who was ..also an.eye~witness to the incident,
completion. of the said training, took oath of maintaining deposed on 08.11.1995, which reveals the following:
. . . '·- .
'
secirecy and committing Jehad alongwith other co-accused. It
(i) At the relevant time, i.e., in March 1993, he was C
C further corroborates with the fact that the appellant participated .
employed as a painter. He knew PW-7 as he
in the conspiratorial'meetings and went alongwith A~23 to
worked alongwith him. On 12.03.1993, he alongwith
Sahar Airport in order to throw hand grenades.
• PW-7 and others was working on the Eastern
Deposition' of Guruprasad Shrikrishna (PW-7) flyover bridge.
D
D
PW~7. an ~yewitness to the ~xplosiori at Sahar Airport (il) .. Around 3 p.m., he heard ~:screeching sound on the
reveals the following: · flyover bridge as if somebody had applied sudden
brakes. He saw two persons on a red motor-cycle
(i) He was ~orking as a painter in Bombay. On which stopped on the bridge. The person sitting on
12.03.1993, he was painting the parapet wall of the · the pillion seat went towards the parapet wall and E
E Sahar Airport flyover bridge. · then took out a round object.from his pocket and
, . I • ' -, ' ., .
. threw it towards the aeroplane which resulted in a
(ii) Around 3 to 3.30 p.m., he heard a screeching sound
·.'c ~ · big exp.losion. Then they went away from there on
on the fly~over bridge as if somebody had applied
'- · the motor-cycle and PW~14 noticed the number of
sudden brakes. He saw two persons on a red
'motor'cycle:as 3910:.. ~ 1-''.' '
1
• •. ·• •.• .• : F
F. motor~cycle which stopped on the .. bridge. They ' • . I

went towards. the parapet wall and came back to (iii)· · He left for his native village on the same day as he
the motor-cycle. The person sitting on the pillion got scared after seeing the explosion. He came
seat again went towards the wall, took out a round back after 15-20 days and went to Sahar police
object from his pocket and threw it towards the . station. ' .. " .
aeroplane which resulted in a big explosion. Then .': G
.. G \

they went away from there on the motor-cycle and ·•. (iv) 1 He identified the appellant in Court. He identified
- PW-7 ·saw the number of motor cycle as' 3910. A-23 also in Court. · · . '' • ·
' \ ' \ . ' '

'·(iii) He identified the red.motor cycle at MIDC police (v) · He identified the red motor cycle at MIDC police
station. • · · ' station. H
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R. ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v.STATEOF 897
896 MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

.(iv) He identified the appellant in the Test Identification A
A (vii) . On 12.03.1993, Javed Chikna gave 4 hand
Parade ('TIP') dated 09.04.1993 conducted by PW-·
grenades each to the appellant and A-23 and told 462. .• • . '
· them to go to Sahar Airport in order to throw the • • : • - • • ( > : • • : .' • - •

same. . · :1 (v) He also identified the appellant in the TIP dated
12.05.1993 conducted by PW-469 ... B
The above deposition of the approver duly corroborates
8 with the confessional statement of the appellant as well as with
Deposition of Subhash Triveni Harijan (PW-14)
the confessions made by co~ai:cused persons that the appellant
participated in the weapons training at Pakistan and after , PW-14, who was ..also an.eye~witness to the incident,
completion. of the said training, took oath of maintaining deposed on 08.11.1995, which reveals the following:
. . . '·- .
'
secirecy and committing Jehad alongwith other co-accused. It
(i) At the relevant time, i.e., in March 1993, he was C
C further corroborates with the fact that the appellant participated .
employed as a painter. He knew PW-7 as he
in the conspiratorial'meetings and went alongwith A~23 to
worked alongwith him. On 12.03.1993, he alongwith
Sahar Airport in order to throw hand grenades.
• PW-7 and others was working on the Eastern
Deposition' of Guruprasad Shrikrishna (PW-7) flyover bridge.
D
D
PW~7. an ~yewitness to the ~xplosiori at Sahar Airport (il) .. Around 3 p.m., he heard ~:screeching sound on the
reveals the following: · flyover bridge as if somebody had applied sudden
brakes. He saw two persons on a red motor-cycle
(i) He was ~orking as a painter in Bombay. On which stopped on the bridge. The person sitting on
12.03.1993, he was painting the parapet wall of the · the pillion seat went towards the parapet wall and E
E Sahar Airport flyover bridge. · then took out a round object.from his pocket and
, . I • ' -, ' ., .
. threw it towards the aeroplane which resulted in a
(ii) Around 3 to 3.30 p.m., he heard a screeching sound
·.'c ~ · big exp.losion. Then they went away from there on
on the fly~over bridge as if somebody had applied
'- · the motor-cycle and PW~14 noticed the number of
sudden brakes. He saw two persons on a red
'motor'cycle:as 3910:.. ~ 1-''.' '
1
• •. ·• •.• .• : F
F. motor~cycle which stopped on the .. bridge. They ' • . I

went towards. the parapet wall and came back to (iii)· · He left for his native village on the same day as he
the motor-cycle. The person sitting on the pillion got scared after seeing the explosion. He came
seat again went towards the wall, took out a round back after 15-20 days and went to Sahar police
object from his pocket and threw it towards the . station. ' .. " .
aeroplane which resulted in a big explosion. Then .': G
.. G \

they went away from there on the motor-cycle and ·•. (iv) 1 He identified the appellant in Court. He identified
- PW-7 ·saw the number of motor cycle as' 3910. A-23 also in Court. · · . '' • ·
' \ ' \ . ' '

'·(iii) He identified the red.motor cycle at MIDC police (v) · He identified the red motor cycle at MIDC police
station. • · · ' station. H
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (vi) He identified the appellant in the TIP conducted by
PW-469 on 12.05.1993.

Deposition of Vasant Laxman Jadhav (PW-484)

PW-484, in his deposition dated 22.06.1999 reveals as
B under:

(i) PW-484 had worked in the Ministry of Civil Aviation
and was the then in-charge of the Bomb Detection
and Disposal Squad. He is an expert in explosive
c substances.

(ii) On 12.03.1993, he had inspected the site of the
explosion at bay 54 and collected the samples of
steel balls from the site.

D (iii) He, thereafter, forwarded the said steel balls and
soil collected from the blast site to the Forensic
Science Laboratory ('FSL'). FSL report dated
19.03.1993 confirmed traces of Nitrite.

(iv) The delay in sending the samples to FSL (collected
E
on 12.03.1993 and sent to FSL on 15.03.1993)
was because his Squad was very busy with
investigating bomb explosions across the Bombay.

Deposition of Siddique Babubhai Shaikh (PW-315)
F
Deposition of PW-315, who was the API at Sahar Airport
police station in 1993 dated 20.04.1998 reveals as under:

(i) On 12.03.1993, at 16:45 hours, he received a call
from the Senior Airport Manager regarding the said
G explosion pursuant to which, he rushed to the spot
at Bay 54.

(ii) He then made a spot Panchnama in the presence

H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 899
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
of panch witnesses which is marked as Exhibit A
1196.

(iii) After returning to the Sahar Airport Police Station
from the spot of explosion, he duly made an entry
in the Station Diary about the events that took place
8
therein .

. (iv) On 29.03.1993, after receipt of the CA report in
respect of iron balls collected by PW-484 from the
blast site, he went through the same and
ascertained that the said iron balls were the part of C
the hand grenade, and thereafter, he lodged the FIR
which is marked as Exhibit 1197 and 1197(a).

Deposition of Rajaram Bhikaji Dhadave (PW-301)

At the relevant time, PW-301 was the Watchman of St. D
John's School, Maro!, Andheri. In his deposition dated
23.03.1998, he reveals as under:

(i) On 13.03.1993, he saw an abandoned red Yamaha
motor cycle by the side of church in the school premises. E

(ii) On 16.03.1993, the Principal of the School informed
the police about the said motor cycle. The Police took charge
of the said motorcycle on 16.03.1993.

Deposition of Hemant Motiram Mankar (PW-599) F

PW-599, who was the PSI attached with MIDC Police
Station in 1993, in his deposition dated 08.03.2000 reveals as
under:

(i) On 16.03.1993, he got a call from Shri Kuria, G
. Principal of St. John's School, Maro!, Andheri,
regarding an abandoned motor-cycle near the
church within the school premises. He then deputed
two Constables who brought the said red motor-
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A cycle bearing Registration No. MH-01-C-3910 to
the police station.

(ii) He, thereafter, spoke to RTO, Tardeo about the
above motor-cycle and also registered the mot<Sr
cycle in muddemal register.
B
(iii) He identified the aforesaid motor cycle in Court.

Deposition of Manohar Uttamrao Dalvi (PW-504)

Deposition of PW-504 dated 09.09.1999 reveals that:
c
(i) He was a Police Inspector at the Sahar Airport
Police Station in 1993;

(ii) On 29.03.1993, PW-315 lodged an FIR with the
D Sahar Airport police station which was recorded by
API Hasabnis and, subsequently, the investigation
of the said crime was entrusted to PW-504;

(iii) On 01.04.1993, he recorded the statements of
eyewitnesses, namely, PW-7 and PW-14 and got
E to know about the motorcycle bearing registration
no. MH-01-C-3910 which was used by the
appellant;

(iv) On 04.04.1993, PW-504 wrote a letter to the
F R.T.O., Tardeo, for further information about the
aforesaid motorcycle. The said letter is marked as
Exhibit 1750. On 05.04.1993, he also informed the
nearby Police Stations to be on the lookout for the
aforesaid motorcycle;
G (v) PW-504 received telephonic information from MIDC
Police. Station that one unclaimed motorcycle was
found near Church High School.

(vi) He then took PWs 7 and 14 to MIDC Police Station
H on 06.04.1993, where they identified the said
P.S.C. 4 XV 2013 (3)
500

Annual Subscription for 2013
(For 12 Volumes, each Volume consisting of
4 Parts and an Index)
In Indian Rupees 3900/-
ln UK£ 140
In US$ 190

Each Additional Volume:
In Indian Rupees : 325/-
ln UK£ 12
In US$ 17
(Individual Volumes or Parts not available for Sale)

To Subscribe please Contact :

Assistant Controller of Publications (Periodicals)
Department of Publication, Govt. of India,
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054
Tel.: 011-23817823, 23813761-62, 64, 65 Fax: 91-011-23817846

Regd. No. D-(D)155.

Printed by : J.R. Computers,
477/7 , Moonga Nagar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi.
w
E
E
K
L
y
Official Journal.
of Reportable Suprenze Court Decisions

2013 Vol. 15 (Part-IV)

Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra ... P-1061

i
1

j
' Ibrahim Musa Chauhan@ Baba Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra ... P-1061
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 901
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
motorcycle; A

(vii) On 16.04.1993, he was informed by the Mahim
police Station that the appellant had been arrested
in connection with another case;

(viii) On 11.05.1993, PW-504 obtained the custody of B
the appellant and arrested him;

(ix) He decided to conduct an identification parade for
the appellant and A-23 and for the said purpose,
he wrote a request letter dated 11.05.1993 to PW- c
469. Accordingly, a TIP was conducted by PW-469
on 12.05.1993;

(x) When the appellant expressed his desire to make
a voluntary confession, PW-504 wrote a letter dated
15.05.1993 to Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193) D
requesting him to record the confession of the
appellant;

(xi) On 16.05.1993, the appellant was produced before
PW-193 for recording his confession. E

It is pertinent to mention here that pursuant to recording of
the statements of eyewitnesses, viz., PW-7 and PW-14, when
PW-504 got to know about the red Yamaha motorcycle bearing
registration no. MH-01-C-3910 which was used by the
F
appellant, he had written a letter on 04.04.1993 to R.T.O.,
Tardeo, for further information about the said vehicle. In
response to the above letter, Bhargavram Bhalchandra Phalke
(PW-314), the then Deputy Transport Commissioner, R.T.O.,
Tardeo, sent a letter dated 03.05.1993 which shows the
registration of the said motor cycle in the name of Ayub Abdul G
Razak Memon (AA), brother of Tiger Memon. The above fact
is also clearly evident from para 5 of the deposition of PW-314.

Deposition of Vasant Ganpat Kamble (PW-462)
H
902 Sl.JoPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Deposition of PW-462 dated 07.12.1998 reveals that:

(i) He was the Special Executive Magistrate who had
conducted the TIP on 09.04.1993. He had received
a memo from Worli Police Station on 08.04.1993
for conducting the aforesaid TIP.
B
(ii) He got the panch witnesses on 09.04.1993 for the
aforesaid TIP.

(iii) He remembered the appellant as Barmare as one
c of the accused on 09.04.1993.

(iv) He remembered the names of identifying
witnesses; one of them was PW-7.

(v) PW-7 identified the appellant as the person who
D was sitting on the rear side of the motorcycle that
had stopped at Sahar Airport Fly-over bridge and
the one who then threw a handgrenade towards the
aircraft.

(vi) He prepared the Memorandum Panchnama Exhibit
E
1479.

Deposition of Ashok Sakharam Budhavale (PW-614)

At the relevant time, i.e., in the year 1993, PW-614 was
f the API at Worli Police Station. In his deposition dated
28.03.2000, he reveals as under:

(i) On 09.04.1993, he was told that the TIP in respect
of the appellant was to be conducted at around 2.00
pm at Sacred Hearts School by PW-462.
G
(ii) Accordingly, PW-462 conducted the TIP while PW-
614 went outside the school and after two hours
(around 04:30 pm) a memorandum of parade
drawn by PW-462 was given to PW 614.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 903
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]
(iii) He does not remember making an entry into the A
station diary for taking the appellant for TIP on
09.04.1993. PW-614 took the appellant without any
other officer for Tl P but he went alongwith three
constables whose names he does not remember.
B
Deposition of Moreshwar Gopal Thakur (PW-469)

Deposition of PW-469 dated 01.02.1999 reveals as under:

(i) He was the SEM who conducted the TIP on
12.05.1993 in respect of the appellant. A Constable c
from Sahar police station came to him on
11.05.1993 on the instructions of Dalvi (PW-504)
and gave him a request letter for conducting the
said TIP and he agreed to conduct the TIP on
12.05.1993. D
(ii) He asked Dalvi (PW-504) to bring two panch
witnesses and ten dummies.

(iii) PW-504 went out of the parade room prior to the
commencement of the TIP. Both the accused E
declined to change their clothes prior to the TIP.

(iv) 3 witnesses identified both the suspects at the TIP.

(v) PW-469, thereafter, handed over the custody of
accused to PW-504 and prepared a memorandum F
panchnama (marked as 'X-550'), which was signed
by two panchas.

(vi) PW-469 does not remember the names of accused
persons, panchas or three witnesses. G
(vii) Memorandum Panchnama (Exhibit 1506) was
prepared by PW-469.

The above depositions of PW-462 and PW-469 clearly
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A prove that the TIP dated 09.04.1993 and 12.05.1993 were duly
and properly conducted by them and also prove that the
appellant was duly identified by PW-7 and PW-14 as the
person who was sitting on the rear side of the motorcycle that
had stopped on the Sahar Airport Fly-over bridge on
B 12.03.1993 and the one who then threw a handgrenade
towards the aircraft. Further, no discrepancy has been brought
out in their cross-examinations.

Deposition of R.A. Sawant (PW-584)

C Deposition of PW-584 proves the departure of the
appellantto Dubai on 28.01.1993 from Bombay. The relevant
endorsements on the Embarkation Card (X-661) concerning
the departure which was duly stamped by him have been marked
as Exhibit Nos. 2016 and 2017 (Box 21 ).
D
Deposition of S.K. Borse (PW-217)

The arrival of the appellant to Bombay on 02.03.1993 from
Dubai has been proved by PW-217. The relevant
endorsements on the Disembarkation Card (X-319) concerning
E the arrival have been marked as Exh. Nos. 970 and 970-A colly.

259. A perusal of the aforesaid depositions establish that
on 12.03.1993, they were present at the Sahar Airport Fly-over
bridge when the said explosion took place and that they both
F came on a red motor-cycle and the appellant threw a round
object towards the aeroplane which resulted in a big explosion.
It is further proved that PW-14 duly identified both the persons
on the motor-cycle i.e. the _appellant and A-23 in court. Further,
PWc 7 and PW-14 duly identified the .appellant and A-2~ during
the Test Identification Parade. · · ··
G
260. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that para 19 of the deposition of PW-7 reveals that
two persons identified by him in the TIP were dissimilar in their
appearance and that the Criminal Manual requires that in an
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 905
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
identification parade, the accused should be placed with his A
dummies similar to his appearance. With respect to this
contention, it is submitted that the deposition of PW-469, the
Special Executive Magistrate who conducted the said TIP,
does not reveal any material extracted during the cross-
examination or otherwise for coming to the conclusion that the B
dummies selected were of dissimilar appearance. A careful
perusal of the evidence of PW-469 and the Memorandum
Exh.1506, in fact, reveals that two suspects were put for the
parade alongwith about 10 dummies. The reference to the
Memorandum also reveals that PW-469 had selected 1O C
persons of similar appearances with the suspects out of 25
dummies brought by the police. Further, para-26 of his
deposition reveals that though his evidence is silent regarding
the selection of the dummies, he had asked the police to send
10 dummies and two panchas to the parade room. Thus, in
view of this, it is proved that the prosecution has adduced D
sufficient evidence regarding the dummies selected being of
similar appearance with the suspects put in the parade.

261. In the light of the above evidence, it is established
that the appellant had thrown hand grenade towards the aircraft E
thereby causing explosion and consequent damage. The
appellant was completely aware of his acts and he had full ·
knowledge that the act committed by him at Sahar Airport
Flyover Bridge was likely to result in the death of persons
present in the aircraft. F

Sentence

262. The appellant was given full opportunity to defend
himself on the question of quantum of sentence. His statement
·was recorded on 26.09.2006 in which he prayed that the G
following factors, amongst others, may be considered while
determining his sentence:

(i) He has been in custody since his arrest in April
1993; H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1ti S.C.R.

A (ii) His children and family members are dependent on
him;

(iii) His mother has been ill since 2000; and

(iv) He is innocent. He has also expressed an apology.
B
263. In our considered view, the appellant was a coveted
member of the conspiracy and was indulged in the acts
furthering the object of the conspiracy. It is proved beyond doubt
that the appellant was in the conspiracy until the final date of
c achievement of the object of conspiracy. There is no valid
ground for interference in the conviction and sentence.
Consequently, the appeals fail and are liable to be dismissed.

Crimin~! Appeal Nos. 633 of 2008

D Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani Khairulla (A-13) ... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through CBl-STF, Mumbai
Respondent(s)
264. Mr. Aabad Panda, learned counsel for the appellant
E (A-13) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly
assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent
(CBI).

265. The instant appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
F 04.12.2006 and 20.07.2007 respectively whereby the appellant
(A-13) 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.
G
Charges:

266. 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:
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 907
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J]
"During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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- G
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 H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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."

F 1n 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
G following overt acts:

(a) He received training in· handling of arms,
ammunitions and explosives at Borghat and
Sandheri;
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 909
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(b) He attended conspiratorial meetings at the A
residence of Babloo @ Nazir Ahmed Anwar Shaikh
and Mobina @ Baya Musa Biwandiwala (A-96)
where plans for committing terrorist acts were
discussed and chalked out;
B
(c) He participated in filling of explosives in various
vehicles like ROX fitted with time device detonators
during preparation of vehicle bombs in the
intervening night of 11/12th March, 1993.

At head Thirdly: The appellant, along with other co- C
accused persons, in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal
conspiracy and being a member of the unlawful assembly,
went to Fishermen's Colony at Mahim on 12.03. 1993 at
about 1.45 pm in a Maruti Van being No. MP-13-0-385
and lobbed hand grenades on the hutments causing death D
of 3 persons, injuring 6 persons and causing loss of
property worth Rs. 50,000/- and thereby committed an
offence punishable under section 3(3) of TADA read with
Section 149 IPC.

At head Fourthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid E
act, committed an offence punishable under Section 148
IPC.

At head Fifthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid act,
which resulted into death of 3 persons, committed an F
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
149 IPC.

At head Sixthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid
act which resulted into injuries to 6 persons, committed an G
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section
149 IPC.

At head Seventhly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid
act which resulted into death of 3 persons, injuries to 6
H
91 O SUPREME CO'JRT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A others and loss of property worth Rs.50,000/- committed
an offence punishable under Section 324 read with
Section 149 /PC.

At head Eighthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid
act which resulted into loss of property worth Rs.50,000/-
B
committed an offence punishable under Section 436 read
with Section 149 IPC.

267. The charges mentioned above were proved against
the appellant (~-13). The appellant has been convicted and
C sentenced for the above said charges as under:

Conviction and Sentence:

(i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence
of conspiracy read with the offences described at ·
D 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 also been convicted under
E Section 3(3) of TADA and has been sentenced to
RI for 14 years along with a fine of Rs. 75,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 1 Y, (one and a half)_
years. (charge secondly)

(iii) The appellant has also been convicted under
F Section 3(3) of TADA and has been sentenced to
RI for life along with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default,
to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months.
{charge thirdly) . ~
·-~-~

G (iv) The appellant has ·a/so been convicted under
Section 148 of /PC and has been sentenced to RI
for 3 years along with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for a period of 6
months. {charge fourthly)
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF . 911
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]
(v) The appellant has also been convicted under A
Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and has
been sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs.
25,000/-, in default, to further u·ndergo RI for a
period of 6 months. (charge fifthly)
B
(vi) The appellant .has also been convicted under
Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and has
been sentenced to RI for 10 years along with a fine
of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for
a period of 1 year. (charge sixthly)
c
(vii) The appellant has also been convicted under
Section 324 read with Section 149 of IPC and has
been sentenc-ed to RI for 3 years. (charge
seventhly)
D
(viii) The appellant has also been convicted under
Section 436 read with Section 149 of IPC and has
been sentenced to RI for 1O years along with a fine
of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for
a period of 6 months. (charge eighthly)
E
Evidence

268. The evidence against the appellant (A-13) is in the
form of:-
F
(i) his own confession;

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and G
(iv) documentary evidence.

Confesssional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani
Khairulla (A-13)
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 269. The involvement of A-13 in the conspiracy is evident
from his own confession under Section 15 of TADA recorded
on 16.05.1993 (10:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993 (17:15 hours) by
Shri Krishar Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
Bombay. His confession reveals as under:-
B
(i) At the relevant time, he was aged about 21 years,
residing at Mahim and was an Electrician. He
studied upto class IX.

(ii) He knows Javed Chikna (AA) who was residing
c next to his house for the last three years.

(iii) On 07/08.03.1993, the appellant met Javed Chikna
who told him that Hindus have bothered Muslims in
riots so they will combat 'Jehad' against Hindus and
for this they will impart him training to fire rounds of
D
pistols and lobbying of bombs. Javed Chikna also
told the appellant that for this they have to go out of
India and asked him to be ready for travel.

(iv) On the very same day, i.e., 07/08.03.1993, Javed
E Chikna came to the residence of the appellant on
a scooter at 9' o clock and told that he has to go
along with PW-2 for some work. The appellant
accompanied Usman (PW-2) on his scooter who
took him to a building at Hill road at the back side
F of Bhabha Hospital, wherefrom, they went to a flat
on the 7th floor where Tiger Memon and other co-
accused were also present. The appellant knew all
of them as they were friends of Javed Chikna.

(v) The appellant along with other co-accused took oath
G
in the name of 'Quran' that they will do Jehad and
will not disclose anything to others.

(vi) Thereafter, Tiger Memon asked the appellant,
Mohammad, Iqbal and Mein to go to Sandra Masjid
H
ESSA@ ANJUM ABDUL RA.Zl>.K MEMON v. STATE OF 913
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
in order to offer Namaz and informed that from A
there his men will take them for the next job.

(vii) As per the instructions, Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-
11) came to Sandra Masjid in a Jeep and picked
them up.
B
(viii) On reaching t~e Hill, the appellant was asked by A-
11 to clean the gun and he did the same.

(ix) The appellant along with others took training in
throwing of hand grenades and firing of guns. c
(x) When the appellant got scared, Tiger got angry with
him and asked him to do practice by throwing
stones which he did.

(xi) After the training, they came back to Bombay. The D
appellant was dropped by Gani at Mahim Dargah
by the side of Bharat Motor Training School.

(xiii) On the night intervening 11 /12.03.1993, the
appellant went to the house of Tiger Memon.
E
Thereafter, he along with others went to the garage
where he noticed 10-12 gunny bags and boxes filled
with black chemical. He also saw co-accused
persons loading articles in jeep. He also informed
that ''Tiger Memon admired 'our' work" and then left
F
at around 3.30 am".

(xiv) On 12.03.1993, at 12.45 p.m., he went to Al-
Hussaini building along with Zakir who came to pick
him up.
G
(xv) On 12.03.1993, the appellant was given Rs.5,000/
- by Javed Chikna and he told him to accompany
Salim, Zakir, Mehmood, Moin and Abdul Akhtar in
order to throw bombs at Mahim causeway.
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S C.R.

A (xvi) He went to Mahim along with other co-accused in
a dark blue Maruti Van with registration number of
Madhya Pradesh and on the way, they took Firoz
and went towards the Basti.

(xvii) On reaching there, the appellant, Zakir, Abdul,
B
Akhtar, Mahmood, Moin and Firoz got down and
hurled bombs. The appellant could not open his
bomb and put it back in the bag. He could not get
into the escaping car and thus he ran away and got
into a bus to Bhendi Bazaar.
c
270. On perusal of the above confession of the appellant
the following facts emerge -

(i) the appellant knowingly and consciously committed
the following overt acts, viz., he agreed to take
D
revenge against Hindus and also took oath to do
'Jehad' and keep the identity of other co-accused
undisclosed;

(ii) He took training in handling arms and throwing
E hand grenades at Sandheri;

(iii) He attended conspiratorial meetings on 7th March
and 10th March, 1993;

(iv) He practiced by throwing stones in order to gain
F perfection in throwing of bombs;

(v) He filled black chemical which fact is clearly
established from his own confession that "Tiger
Memon complemented us for 'our' work" and he
G went to Mahim Causeway and made every
possible efforts to lob hand grenades at the basti.

271. Apart from the above facts, on perusal of his entire
confession we are also satisfied that the appellant has made
H the above confession voluntarily, without any pressure or
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 91 5
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]
coercion and the same has been recorded after following all A
the safeguards enumerated under Section 15 of TADA and the
rules framed thereunder. The recording officer has proved that
confession was given voluntarily and without any force, coercion
or allurement.
B
Confessional Statements of co-accused:

272. The prosecution pointed out that the involvement of
the appellant in committing overt acts, as stated above, is
further revealed in the confessional statements of the other co-
accused persons which are summarized as under: c
Confessional Statement of Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11)

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), D
the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. The confession of A-11
corroborates with the confessional statement of the appellant
that he was present at Sandra Masjid from where he was
picked up and went to a hill where they took training in throwing
of bombs. E

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 F
21.04.1993 (06:50 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189),
the then DCP, Zone-X, Bombay. The confession of A-12
corroborates with the confession of the appellant that he was
present inside the garage at th.e time when black chemical was
being loaded in the vehicles. G

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Yusuf
Shaikh (A-23)

H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Confessional statement of A-23 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-23 with
reference to the appellant is summarised hereunder:
B
(i) The appellant attended conspiratorial meeting in a
flat behind Bhabha Hospital.

(ii) The appellant, along with others, took oath by
placing their hands on Quran that they will do Jehad
c in order to take revenge.

(iii) The appellant, along with other co-accused, went to
Sandra as instructed by Tiger, from where, they
were picked up and went to a hill and were imparted
training in throwing of bombs and practice in firing.
D
(iv) The appellant attended meeting at a flat in Sandra
where Tiger Memon gave Rs. 5,000/- to each of
them.

E (v) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini building
on 12.03.1993.

Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd.
Shaikh (A-32)

F 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),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-32 reveals
the following facts:
G
(i) The appellant attended conspiratorial meeting on
10.03.1993 in a flat at Mahim and he was in one
group along with Salim, Feroz, Main and Iqbal.

(ii) The appellant went to Al-Hussaini Building on
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 917
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J]
12.03.1993 around 12.45 pm along with Zakir who A
came to pick him up.

(iii) The appellant along with othe.r co-accused received
Rs.5,000/- from Javed Chikna.

(iv) The appellant, along with other co-accused, went in B
a blue coloured Maruti car loaded with hand
grenades and they also picked up Feroz on the way
to Dargah.

(v) At Mahim, all of them got down except Salim and c
threw hand grenades.

(vi) The appellant was left behind i.e., he could not get
into the escaping car.

Confessional Statement of Abdul Akhtar Khan (A-36) D

Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and
21.05.1993 (18:20 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-36 E
corroborates with the confessional statement of the appellant
that he along with other co-accused went to Machhimar Colony
at Mahim in a blue coloured Maruti Van and all of them got down
and lobbed hand grenades and during escape the appellant
was left behind.
F
Confessional Statement of Fero.z @ Akram Amani Malik
(A-39)

Confessional statement of A-39 under Section 15 of TADA
has be.en recorded on 19,04.1993 (22:30 hrs.) and 23.04, 1993 G
(20:50 hrs.) by Shri P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then DCP, Zone
V, Bombay. The said confession reveals the following facts qua
the appellant:

(i) On 07.03.1993, in the evening, the appellant and
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A PW-2 came to the house of A-39 and took him to
a building where a meeting was held.

(ii) The appellant along with other co-accused went to
Machhimar Colony in a grey coloured Maruti Van
and all of them except Salim got down and lobbed
B
hand grenades and after lobbing, he (A-13) was left
behind.

Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @
Nasir Dhakla (A-64)
c 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 ofA-64 corroborates
D with the confession of the appellant and it reveals that the
appellant was present in the flat at Al-Hussaini building on the -
night intervening 11/12.03.1993.

Confessional Statement of Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52)
Confessional statement of A-52 under Section 15 of
E TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 and 18.04.1993 by
Mr. P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The
confession of A-52 corroborates with the confession of the
appellant. The said confession reveals that the appellant
attended conspiratorial meeting at the residence of Babloo
F when Tiger Memon assigned the appellant to the group of A-
32, A-43 and other co-accused and the appellant was present
at Al-Hussairii building in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993.
Confessional Statement of Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57)
G 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 Ill, Bombay.
The confession of A-57 corroborates with the confession of the
appellant. The said confession reveals that the appellant was
H a friend of Javed Chikna.
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 919
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J]
Confessional Statement of Mohd. Parvez Zulfikar Qureshi A
(A-100)

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
8
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The said confession reveals the
following about the appellant:

(i) He was present at Al-Hussaini building in the night
intervening 11 /12.03.1993.
c
(ii) He was present along with others in the Maruti Car
driven by Salim.

273. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the
above accused, viz., A-11, A-12, A-23, A-32, A-36, A-39, A-
0
64, A-52, A-57 and A-100 clearly establish that the appellant
committed the following overt acts:

(i) He was a friend of notorious goon 'Javed Chikna'
who was a close associate of Tiger Memon.
E
(ii) He attended both the conspiratorial meetings;

(iii) He took oath to take revenge against Hindus and
not to disclose anything to anyone;

(iv) He received training in throwing of bombs and use F
of arms;

(v) He was present at Al-Hussaini building in the night
intervening 11/1.2.03.1993 and participated in filling
of ROX in vehicles;
G
(vi) He received Rs. 5,000/- from Tiger Memon and
Javed Chikna;

(vii) He alongwith other co-accused traveled in a blue
coloured Maruti Van to Fishermen's Colony at H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A Mahim where they lobbed hand grenades.

274. It is contended by Mr. Aabad Ponda on behalf of the
appellant that since he has subsequently retracted his
confession on 12.01.1994, the same should not be relied upon.
B It is further contended that the co-accused have also
subsequently retracted and, hence, it would not be safe to base
conviction on the said confessions. This aspect has been
elaborately considered and rejected in the earlier appeals, we
are not once again assessing the same.

C Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

275. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy as stated above
is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses
0 which are as under:

Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

The relevant material in his evidence is as follows:-

E (i) PW-2 deposed that he knows the appellant as
Bashir Electrician.

(ii) PW-2 identified the appellant before the court
during dock proceedings.

F (iii) PW-2 deposed that the appellant attended a
meeting at the residence of Shakil on 07.03.1993.

(iv) PW-2 deposed that the appellant also attended a
meeting at the residence of Shakil on 10.03.1993.

G (v) PW-2 deposed that the appellant went for a survey
of Bharat Petrolium Refinery at Chembur on
11.03.1993.

(vi) PW-2 deposed that the appellant was present at Al-
H Hussaini building on the night of 11.03.1993.
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 921
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(vii) PW-2 deposed that the appellant was given hand A
grenades by Javed Chikna and he was told to throw
them at Fishermen's Colony at Mahim on
12.03.1993.

Deposition of Laxman Patil (PW-5)
8
PW-5 is the resident of the Fishermen's Colony and had
witnessed the incident and summarized the same as under:

(i) He deposed that while he was waiting on the road,
he saw the appellant and others throwing hand C
grenades towards the colony.

(ii) He identified the appellant in Court.

(iii) He identified the appellant in TIP dated 15.05.1993
conducted by Special Executive Magistrate, 0
Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469) at Mahim Police
Station.

(iv) He also identified the vehicle No. MP-13-0-385 as
the car in which the appellant and others came to E
Mahim slope in order to throw hand grenades.

Deposition of Santosh Patil (PW-6)

PW-6 is a resident of Mahim Fishermen's Colony at
Mahim. He deposed that he witnessed the incident while he F
was waiting near the Municipal School at Mahim slope.

(i) He identified the appellant in Court.

(ii) He identified the appellant in TIP dated 15.05.1993
conducted by Special Executive Magistrate, G
Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469) at Mahim Police
Station.

(iii) He also identified the vehicle No. MP-13-0-385 as
H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A the car in which the appellant and others came to
Mahim slope in order to throw hand grenades.

Deposition of Shashikant Shetty (PW-13)

PW-13 is a resident of Fishermen's Colony at Mahim. He
B witnessed the part of the incident when he came out after
hearing the sound of explosion. He saw one dark blue coloured
Van with registration number of Madhya Pradesh.

(i) He stated that in all, 6 persons got down from the
C Maruti Van.

(ii) He identified the appellant before the Court during
dock proceedings as the person who threw bomb
at the Basti.

D (iii) He also identified the appellant in identification
parade dated 15.05.1993 conducted by Special
Executive Magistrate Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469)
at Mahim police station.

E (iv) He also identified the Maruti Van on 10.04.1993 in
which all the accused persons including the
appellant came to Machhimar Colony at Mahim as
MP-D-13-385.

(v) He lodged a First Information Report (FIR} (Exh.43)
F in Crime No 185/1993 on 12.03.1993 in respect of
explosions at Fishermen's Colony at Mahim.

276. It is contended on oehalf of the appellant that
evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses is unreliable,
G untrustworthy and without any basis in order to reach to the
conclusion of any guilt to justify the detention of the appellant
any further in custody. It is further submitted that substantial
improvements have been made by these witnesses during their
evidence. We are unable to accept the same. All the eye-
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 923
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J]
witnesses to the said incident have consistently deposed that A
the appellant came out of the van which came to Fishermen's
Colony at Mahim. They identified the appellant before the Court
during dock proceedings as well as in the test identification
parade. They further identified the Maruti Van bearing number
MP-D-13-385 as the vehicle in which the appellant along with 8
other co-accused came to the scene of the crime. The
contradictions pointed out by the counsel on behalf of the
appellant are minor contradictions and does not go to the root
of the matter. W.ith regard to the same, the following
observations of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna C
Master, (2010) 12 SCC 324 are relevant.

15. Before appreciating evidence of the witnesses
examined in the case, it would be instructive to refer to the
criteria for appreciation of oral evidence. While
appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must D
be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole
appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise .
the evidence more particulatfY keeping in view the
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the E
evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether
it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether
the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to
render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial
matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical F
approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or
there from the evidence, attaching importance to some
technical error committed by the investigating officer not
going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit
rejection of the evidence as a whole. G

16. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence
had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general
tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the appellate
court which had not this benefit will have to attach due
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and
unless the reasons are weighty and formidable, it would
not be proper for the appellate court to reject the evidence
on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of
trivial details. Minor omissions in the police statements are
B never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the
witnesses before the police are meant to be brief
statements and could not take place of evidence in the
court. Small/Trivial omissions would not justify a finding by
court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The
c prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here
and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from
which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen
is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the
matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the
former case, the defence may be justified in seeking
D
advantage of incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the
latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it.

17. In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal
discrepancies, howsoever honest and truthful they may be.
E These discrepancies are due to normal errors of
observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time,
due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of
occurrence and threat to the life. It is not unoften that
improvements in earlier version are made at the trial in
F order to give a boost to the prosecution case, albeit
foolishly. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to separate
falsehood from the truth. In sifting the evidence, the court
has to attempt to separate the chaff from the grains in
every case and this attempt cannot be abandoned on the
G ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really
so confusing or conflicting that the process cannot
reasonably be carried out. In the light of these principles,
this Court will have to determine whether the evidence of
eyewitnesses examined in this case proves the
H prosecution case.
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 925
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

277. In State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC 247, it A
was observed:

"7. In support of the impugned judgment the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents vainly attempted to
point out some discrepancies in the statement of the B
prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the
prosecution version. Discrepancy has to be distinguished
from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement
of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or
variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case c
doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would
be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur
minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may
render credential to the depositions. Parrot-like statements
are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to
0
whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or
the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to
be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view
the social status of the witnesses and environment in which
such witness was making the statement. This Court in
Ousu Varghese v. State of Kera/a held that minor E
variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the
hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In Jagdish v. State
of M.P. this Court held that when the discrepancies were
comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the
root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue F
importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole
test of truth in the depositions. This Court again in State
of Rajasthan v. Kalki held that in the depositions of
witnesses there are always normal discrepancies,
however, honest and truthful they may be. Such G
discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation,
normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to
mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time
of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are
H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A those which are not normal and not expected of a normal
person.

8. Referring to and relying upon the earlier judgments of
this Court in State of UP. v. M.K. Anthony, Tahsildar
Singh v. State of UP., Appabhai v. State of Gujarat and
B
Rammi v. State of M.P.,this Court in a recent case Leela
Ram v. State of Haryana held:

"There are bound to be some discrepancies between the
narrations of different witnesses when they speak on
c details, and unless the contradictions are of a material
dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the
evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of
evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected
in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but
D variations by reason therefor should not render the
evidence of eyewitnesses unbelievable. Trivial
discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise
acceptable evidence ....

The court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses
E
react differently under different situations: whereas some
become speechless, some start wailing while some others
run away from the scene and yet there are some who may
come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the
wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends
F upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set
pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a
piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling
within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic
exercise."
G
278. In Waman vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC
295, it was observed:

"35. It is clear that not all the contradictions have to be
thrown out from consideration but only those which go to
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON 1i. STATE OF 92 7
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
the root of the matter are to be avoided or ignored. In the A
case on hand, as observed earlier, merely on the basis
of minor contradictions about the use and nature of
weapons and injuries, their statements cannot be ignored
in toto."
B
279. To sum up, there are bound to be some
discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses and
unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same
should not be used to disbelieve the evidence in its entirety. In
view of the above, we are of the view that the contradictions
~ pointed out by the counsel on behalf of the appellant are minor C
contradictions and does not render the evidence unbelievable.

Investigation, Recoveries and FSL Reports

280. PWs-5, 6 and 13 have duly identified the appellant 0
in the TIP dated 15.05.1993 for which memorandum
panchnama proved as Exhibit 1515 was prepared by
Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469).

281. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that there
is interpolation in the FIR as White coloured Maruti Van has E
been changed with dark blue coloured Maruti Van. We have
verified the entire contents of the FIR. From the perusal of the
entire complaint, it is clear that the colour of Maruti Van was
dark blue only and, hence, there is no interpolation.
F
Deposition of Shantaram Gangaram Hire (PW-562)

He was the police officer who visited the blast site and
prepared spot panchnama (Exh. 1942) in the presence of panch
witnesses, viz., Dayaram Timbak Akare and Mahendra
Sadanand Mehre. PW-562 collected the articles from the place G
of occurrence in the presence of experts vide Panchnama Exh.
1221. The articles recovered from the blast site were sent to
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for opinion. The FSL
Report is Exhibit 1943 which shows the remnants to be
explosives and part of hand grenades. H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S C.R.

A Evidence regarding injured and Death Victims:

Deposition of Achyut Shamrao Pawal (PW-542)

282. He was the police officer who collected the injury
certificates of injured persons from Bhabha Hospital, namely,
B Mr. Gurudutt Agaskar, Ms. Rajashri Agaskar and Ms. Sheetal
Keni. The certificates proved that they sustained injuries during
the blast. PWs-13 and 412 Sheetal Keni proved to have
sustained injuries during the blast.

c 283. Dr. Wadekar (PW-641) and Dr. Krishnakumar (PW-
640) issued the injuries certificates Exh. 2374 and Exhibit 2372
to PW-13 and Sheetal Keni (PW-412), respectively.

284. Gajanan Tare (PW-413) (husband of the deceased
Guiab Tare) and Karande (PW-414) (nephew of the deceased
D Hira Dhondu Sawant) claimants of two bodies, have proved the
death of Mrs. Guiab Tare (wife of PW-413) and Sm!. Hira
Dhondu Sawant (PW 414's aunt) in the said incident. Dr. Pujari
(PW-482) have deposed regarding the cause of death of Guiab
Tare and PW-480 have deposed about the cause of death of
E Hira Dhondhu Sawant and proved Exh. 1603 and Exh. 1598
respectively. Achyut Shamrao Pawal (PW-542) also proved
killing of 3 persons at Mahim blast.

Vehicle (Maruti Van) used in the incident
F
285. It is seen from the materials that the said Maruti Van
in which A-13, 32, 36, 39, 43 and Mehboob Liyaqat Khan (AA)
were traveling was arranged by Suleman Lakdawala (PW-365)
at the behest of Mohd. Shafi Jariwala (AA). This fact has been
proved by the said witness. Further, the depositions of PW-342
G and PW-366 are pertinent as they complete the link relating to
purchase/arrangement of the said Maruti Van used in the
incident.

Deposition of Kailash Govind Rao Baheti (PW-342)
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 929
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

PW-342 deposed as under: A

"On 18.01.1993 I had received a telephone call given
by Shakil Hasham from Bombay. Shakil requested
me to book one red coloured Maruti Van in the name
of Asif Darvesh resident of M.G. Road, Indore and 8
another new Maruti Van of-blue colour in the name of
Shri Kasam Ahmed residing at Indira Nagar, Ujjain. He
also requested me to register both the Maruti Van at Indore
and send the same to Bombay. He also told me that the
payments' of the same would be made at Bombay to the
driver. I quoted a price of Rs. 1,69,000/- per vehicle C
inclusive of registration and transport charges. I was having
red colour Maruti Van brought by me from Mis Bhatia &
Company, Gurgaon, Haryana and blue colour Maruti Van
brought from Vipul Motors, Faridabad, Haryana, in my
stock. I had brought both the said vehicles by making D
advance payment. After receipt of booking from Shakil
Hasham for red and blue colour brand new Maruti Vans, I
·informed the details of the purchasers to M/s Bhatia
Company and Mis Vipul Motors. After receipt of said
letters and bills from both the said companies in the name E
of purchasers who wanted red and blue Maruti Vans I sent
papers of both the Vans for registration to R.T.O. The blue
colour Maruti Van was registered in the name of Kasam
Ahmed at Ujjain R.T.O. The blue colour Maruti Van could
not be registered at Indore due to lack of E form necessary F
for registration. Thereafter, I sent both the said vans to
Bombay to Shakil Hasham. Shakil Hasham received the
delivery and paid Rs.3,38.000/- to my drivers. My drivers
gave the said amount to me. I made the necessary entries
in my office record for sending the said Vans to Bombay G
to Shakll Hasham after purchasing"the same for the
parties told by him. The R.T.O. Authority at Ujjain had
given registration Number MP-13-0-0385 to "blue
colour Maruti Van. Today I am not remembering the
H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A engine number and chassis number of the said Maruti
Van." (emphasis added)

Deposition of Shakeel Suleman Hasham (PW-366)

He deposed regarding the purchase of the said Maruti
B Vans as follows:

"In the same month (February 1993) I had also
arranged for one blue colour and another red colour
Maruti Van also registered at Madhya Pradesh for
c Suleman Lakdawala. The said vehicles were registered
at Madhya Pradesh Indore in the name of the purchasers
given to me by Suleman Lakdawala. I had given the work
of registration to one Kailash Baheti of Indore. Both
the said vans were insured by Insurance Agent Rakesh
D Tiwari before giving the same to Suleman Lakdawala.
Both the said vehicles had arrived from Indore. I had
sent the same to the Petrol pump of Suleman and asked
him to take the delivery from the said drivers who had
brought the said vehicles. Accordingly he took the delivery
by making payment to the drivers."
E
Thus, PW 366, in his deposition confirms that he had
asked PW 342 to arrange for two Maruti Vans (red and blue
color each) in February, 1993. The deposition of PW-342
therefore corroborates with the deposition of PW-366 in
F material particulars that both the vans were purchased in
Madhya Pradesh and the blue Maruti Van was registered in
Ujjain bearing registration number MP-13-D-0385. It is
established that this number and the blue Maruti van had been
duly identified by PWs- 5, 6 and 13 in court.
G
286. Further, the deposition of Mukhtar Ahmed (PW-281)
reveals about the cavity which was prepared by him in the said
Maruti Van at the behest of Mohd. Shafi Jariwala (AA). This
further corroborates the fact that it is the same vehicle which
H was used in the Mahim Causeway incident.
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF . 931
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Training in handling of arms and ammunitions and A
explosives at Sandheri and Borghat

Deposition of Harish Chandra Keshav Pawar (PW-105).

287. At the relevant time, PW-105 was studying in 8th
standard and was residing at Sandheri and is an eye-witness B
to the incident:-

(i) On 08.03.1993, at about 09:00 hrs, a special event
occurred on the eastern side hillock to village
Sandheri; C

(ii) The said event was in connection with firing of guns;

(iii) 10-11 persons participated in the said firing.

(iv) The card board sheets were placed by the side 9f o
hillock;

(v) 4-5 persons from the group of 8-10 persons were
firing at the said cardboards using gun;

(vi) He knows some persons, viz., A-17, A-79 from the E
group as they were from Sandheti Village;

PW-105 is an eyewitness to the practice session which
took place at the hillocks of Sandheri Village. He was thoroughly
cross examined by the defence and he withstood rigorous F
cross examination without being shaken. The deposition of
PW-105 corroborates the fact that the training in fire arms was
conducted at the hillocks of Sandheri and 10-11 persons
participated in the said training.

Deposition of Rajaram Ramchandra Kadam (PW-106) G

The witness deposed as under:

(i) He is an agriculturist and resides at Sandheri;
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (ii) On 08.03.1993, about 9.30 a.m., he heard the
sound of firing coming from Chinchechamal;

(iii) He went to Chinchechamal and noticed two men
standing armed with guns and a cardboard target
was placed near the hillock;
B
(iv) 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,
C A-131, A-111 and A-78.

PW-106 is also an eye witness to the practice session
which took place at the hillocks of Sandheri Village. Both the
above-said witnesses corroborate with each other on the fact
that training in fire arms was conducted at the hillocks of
D Sandheri. These witnesses also corroborate the confessional
statements and lend credibility to the incident of weapon
training as revealed by various accused persons in their
confessions.

E Deposition of Namdeo Pundlik Mahajan (PW-587)
He is a constable attached with Goregaon Police Station,
District Raigad. The witness deposed that:

(i) He inspected the site of the incident and collected
F 3 empties, 6 lead pieces, cardboard targets,
stones bearing the marks due to hitting of bullets
and broken branch of a tree.

(ii) The aforesaid articles were collected and seized by
G him in the presence of panchas and panchnama
Exh. 539 was drawn by him.

(iii) He wrote a written complaint which was registered
by Head Constable.

H The deposition of PW-587 further proves that firing took
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 933
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

place at the hillocks of Village Sandheri. A

Deposition of Mahadeo Jadav (PW-103)

He is a panch witness who deposed about the seizures
affected by police at the hillocks of Village Sandheri on
B
29.03.1993.

288. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the
aforesaid eye witnesses have not even named or identified the
appellant to be involved in any training at Sandheri or Borghat
and there is no other independent evidence to connect him to c
the said training incident. Even though the aforesaid eye-
witnesses i.e., PWs-105 and 106 have not specifically named
the appellant, their confessional statements duly corroborate
with the confessional statements of various co-accused that
training in fire arms was conducted at the hillocks of Sandheri. D
As far as naming of the appellant is concerned, mostly, the co-
accused persons referred to above have stated to his
participation in addition to his own confession.

289. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant that
it is an admitted case that there were 3 accused persons by E
name of Bashir, since the name is very common in Muslims,
so there is bona fide doubt about reference to the present
appellant in the confessional statements of co-accused, viz., A-
16, A-23, A-25, A-32, A-77 regarding his participation in the
·conspiratorial meetings. On this particular contention, the F
confessions of A-23, A-32 and deposition of PW-2 are very
clear about the presence of the appellant in those meetings and
there is no doubt about reference to the appellant.

290. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that G
since he has stated in his confessional statement that he was
arrested 6-7 days after the blasts, hence, the date of arrest
should be 19/20.03.1993, but actually he has been shown to
be arrested on 30.03.1993 so he was illegally detained by the
H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A police. The said submission is baseless and misleading as the
defence has failed to substantiate this averment and no
document has been placed on record to show that after the
arrest when the accused was produced before the Court, he
immediately made any such complaint about his illegal
B detention by the police.

291. Mr. Ponda further contended on behalf of the
appellant that the Test Identification Parade was improperly
conducted and, hence, no reliance can be placed on such
C evidence. The materials relied on by the prosecution show that
in the present case, the TIP was validly conducted and all
necessary precautions were ensured by the SEM. Further, the
evidence with regard to the TIP can only be used as a
corroborative piece of evidence and is a test to strengthen
trustworthiness of the substantive evidence of the witness before
D the Court. In the present case, all the witnesses have identified
the appellant before the Court and even the SEM on this aspect
withstood his cross examination. Further, with regard to the
same, this Court in Mui/a vs. State of UP., (2010) 3 SCC 508,
observed as follows:
E
"43. As was observed by this Court in Matru v. State of
U. P. identification tests do not constitute substantive
evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of
helping the investigating agency with an assurance that
F their progress with the investigation into the offence is
proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only
be used as corroboration of the statement in court. (Vide
Santokh Singh v. lzhar Hussain.)

44. The necessity for holding an identification parade can
G arise only when the accused persons are not previously
known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test
identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have
seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify
them from the midst of other persons without any aid or
H any other source. The test is done to check upon their
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 935
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
·veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an A
identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to
test the memory of the witnesses based upon first
impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide
whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses
~~ecrime." B

292. The above said evidence thus substantiates and
establishes the charges framed against the appellant.

Sentence:
c
293. The prosecution submitted that the appellant was
given full opportunity to defend himself on the question of
quantum of sentence. His statement was recorded on
05.12.2006 (Exh. 304 7) in which he prayed that the following
factors, amongst others, may be considered while determining 0
his sentence:

(i) He has been in custody since his arrest in April,
1993;

(ii) His sisters are dependent on him; E
(iii) He has suffered during riots; and

(iv) He has no criminal antecedent beyond this case.

294. The Designated Court duly considered all these F
factors while awarding the sentence as aforesaid. Further, the
appellant was a coveted member of the conspiracy and was
indulged in the acts furthering the object of the conspiracy. We
are satisfied that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy
from planning to execution. G

295. In the light of the above discussion, we confirm the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Designated Court and
the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

H I
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Criminal Appeal Nos. 651-652 of 2008
Dawood @ Dawood Taklya
Mohammed Phanse @ Phanasmiyan ... Appellant(s)
(A-14)
vs.
B The State of Maharashtra,
Through STF, CBI Mumbai .. Respondent(s)
********

296. Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, learned counsel appeared
C for the appellant (A-14) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior
counsel duly_ assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the
respondent.

297. The present appeals are directed against the final
D judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
22.09.2006 and 30.05.2007 respectively, whereby the
appellant (A-14) 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.
E No.1/1993.

Charges:

298. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the co-conspirators including the appellant. The relevant
F 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
G 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
H sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony
ESSA@ANJUMABOUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 937
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and A
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 B
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 0
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
E
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 F
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 Bandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur 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
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 :S.C.R.

A 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
B 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),
c (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."
D In addition to the above-said principal charge of
conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following
counts:

At head Secondly; The accused committed an offence
E punishable under section 3(3) of TADA by committing the
following overt acts:

(a) He attended the conspiratorial meeting with
Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and Tiger Memon at
Dubai on 19.01.1993 wherein he agreed to arrange
F for landing of arms, ammunitions and explosives in
India to be used for committing terrorist acts;

(b) He participated in both the landings at Shekhadi,
which was organized by Tiger Memon and his
G associates between 02-09.02.1993;

At head Thirdly; The appellant, by committing the
aforesaid acts, committed an offence punishable under
Section 6 of the TADA.

H 299. The Designated Court found the appellant guilty on
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 939
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J]

all the aforesaid charges. The appellant has been convicted A
and sentenced for the above said charges as under:

Conviction and Sentence:

(i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of
conspiracy read with the offences described at head firstly and 8
sentenced to RI for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 3 years for commission of
offence under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 1208 of the
IPC. (charge firstly).
c
(ii) The appellant has been convicted for commission of
offences under Section 3(3) of TADA mentioned at head
secondly and sentenced to RI for 14 years alongwith a fine of
Rs.50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 year. (charge
secondly). D
(iii) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
RI for life alongwith a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to further
undergo RI for a period of 1 year for commission of offences
under Section 6 of TADA (charge thirdly).
E
Evidence

300. The evidence against the appellant (A-14) is in the
form of:-

(i) his own confession; F

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and
G
(iv) documentary evidence.

Confessional statement .of Dawood @ Dawood Taklya
Mohammed Phanse @ Phanasmiyan (A-14)
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 301. The involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is
evident from his own confession recorded under Section 15 of
TADA 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 confessional statement is summarized
B hereinbelow:-

(i) The appellant along with Sharif Abdul Gafoor
Parkar (A-17) and Rahim Abbas Karamblekar@
Rahim Laundrywala (A-40) - who died on
14.12.1993 before the charges were framed, was
c working for Tiger Memon in effecting the landings
of smuggled items.

(ii) On 19.01.1993, as per Tiger's instructions, the
appellant travelled to Dubai from Bombay via flight
D where he met him (Tiger Memon) at Dubai Airport.
Tiger asked him to stay at Hotel Delhi Darbar. After
2-3 days, Tiger took him to the residence of
Dawood Ibrahim.

(iii) At that time, Dawood Ibrahim asked the appellant
E
if he could arrange for landing of chemicals i.e., gun
powder and weapons which would be smuggled
into India and also told him that they have to take
revenge for the demolition of Babri Masjid. He then
asked Tiger the cost for arranging the explosives
F who replied that it would be 9-10 lakhs.

(iv) The appellant agreed to arrange for the landing of
the arms, explosives and ammunitions.

G (v) On the next day, at Dubai Airport, Tiger reiterated
him to take care of the arrangements as told to him
by Dawood Ibrahim and also that he (Tiger) will
inform about further course of action after reaching
Bombay.
H (vi) Thereafter, he returned to Bombay on 23.01.1993.
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 941
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
After 5-6 days, he briefed his partners Rahim A
Laundrywala and Sharif Abdul Gafoor Parker @
Dadabhai (A-17) individually about the meeting with
Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai and they both agreed to
do the work.
B
(vii) Thereafter, in the end of January, on Shafi's
instructions, he made arrangements for the landing
at Shekhadi but the consignment did not arrive.

(viii) On 3rd February, 1993, he got to know that landing
was to take place in the evening and, accordingly, c
he told A-40 to make arrangements for the same.
He also discussed about the landing with the
customs officials at Mhasla and told them that they
would be given Rs. 1.6 lakh as fixed earliet after
completion of work. D

(ix) Around 8-9 p.m., he reached the spot of landing
where many other persons were already present.
At around 10 p.m., Tiger came there along with
Anwar, Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh (A-12) and 20-
E
25 other persons.

(x) The appellant saw that the guns were being
unloaded from the trawlers that had arrived and
were subsequently loaded in a truck.
F
(xi) After the loading, he along with Tiger and others
went to Waghani Tower.

(xii) The cargo was unloaded from the truck at Waghani
Tower and he saw that rifles, pistols, bullets, hand
grenades and explosives were being taken out from G
the boxes by Tiger's men.

(xiii) Tiger also showed him a pencil like thing and told
him that it was worth Rs. 25,000/- and it could even
explode Oberoi Hotel H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (xiv) After 2-3 days, he was paid Rs. 1 lakh for the above
work which was delivered at his residence by Abdul
Gani Ismail Turk (A-11).

(xv) On 08.02.1993, he collected 3 rifles and 6
magazines from the residence of Muzammil Umar
B
Kadri (A-25) on the instructions of Tiger Memon
and delivered the same to Tiger along with two
other persons.

(xvi) On the same day, in the night, he assisted Tiger
c Memon in the landing of 'Kala Sabun' at Shekhadi
alongwith co-accused Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52),
Khalil Ahmed Sayed Ali Nasir (A-42), Anwar Theba
(AA), A-17, A-12, A-11, Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-
57), Shahjahan Ibrahim Shaikhdare (A-56), Abbas
D (A-33), Mohammed Iqbal Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh
(A-23), A-25, Shafi (AA) and others.

(xvii) For the above work, he received Rs. 9 lakhs from
Shafi and Rs. 5 lakhs from A-17. The details of the
amount paid by him to the officials of Customs
E
Department, various police officers and other
private persons, who assisted in the above
landings are also available in his confession.

302. On perusal of the aforesaid confessional statement
F of the appellant (A-14), the following facts emerge:

(i) The appellant had participated in the conspiratorial
meeting with Dawood Ibrahim (AA) and Tiger Mernon on
19.01.1993 in Dubai.
G (ii) In the said meeting, the appellant had agreed to arrange
for the landing of arms and ammunitions and explosives which
were to be smuggled into India.

(iii) The appellant participated and organised the landing
H of arms at Shekhadi with the help of other co-accused persons.
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 943
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

(iv) He was fully conscious that those arms and A
ammunitions and explosives were to be used for carrying out
terrorist acts in order to take revenge for the demolition of Babri
Masjid.

303. Mr. Manish, learned counsel for the appellant 8
contended that the appellant was merely a landing agent and
he had nothing to do with the said conspiratorial meeting at
Dubai and that he had gone to Dubai only to meet his relatives
and was not aware about the contents of the bags which had
landed on the Shekhadi coast.
c
304. On perusal of the abovesaid confession, it is
established that the appellant played a key role in effecting and
organizing landing of arms and ammunitions and explosive
substances and was actively involved wit.b Tiger Memon's
illegal and nefarious activities on regular basis. He attended a D
conspiratorial meeting with Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon
wherein he agreed to arrange for landing of arms and
ammunitions and explosives which were to be used for
committing terrorist acts.
E
305. It was also contended on behalf of the appellant that
he was not aware of the contents of the boxes/parcels for which
the said landing was done at Shekhadi. The fact that the
appellant had knowledge about the contents of the boxes/
parcels is clear from his own confession wherein he has stated F
that he was present at the time when rifles, pistols, bullets,
detonators, hand grenades etc. were being unloaded from the
boxes at Waghani Tower and further that, Tiger Memon had
shown him a pencil like thing and told him that it was worth Rs.
25,0001- and it could even explode Oberoi Hotel. From the
above, it is very much clear that the appellant was not mere a G
landing agent. It is thus established that he was a conspirator
whose primary role was smooth landing of the said.arms and
ammunitions and explosives.

H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Confessional Statements of co-accused:

306. 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
8
been considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion. The
said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant (A-14)
are summarized hereinbelow:

Confessional Statement of Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11)
c
Confessional statement of A-11 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (22:35 hrs.) and
18.04.1993 (1:15 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189),
the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A brief summary of the
0 confession made by A-11 with reference to the appellant is
reproduced below:

(i) The appellant assisted Tiger Memon in his smuggling
activities and mainly in the landing of smuggled goods.

E (ii) The appellant participated in the landing of arms and
ammunitions and explosives at Shekhadi on 03.02.1993.

(iii) On 08/09.02.1993, Tiger Memon instructed A-11 to go
along with other accused, viz., Suleman Mohammed Kasam
F Ghavate (A-18) and Sayyed Abdul Rahman Shaikh (A-28) to
get the 'Kala Sabun' (ROX) from Mhasla and for this purpose
he further instructed him to pay Rs. 1 lakh to the appellant.
Accordingly, the ~aid amount was paid to the appellant and
Kala Sabun was loaded in a tempo in the evening.

G 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
H 21.04.1993 (6:50 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189),
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 945
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A brief summary of the A
confession made by A-12 with reference to the appellant is
reproduced below:

(i) The appellant along with other co-accused persons
assisted Tiger in the landing of rifles, revolvers, bullets, wire B
bundles and black soap on 03.02.1993 at Shekhadi and further
in the transportation of the same to the Waghani Tower and then
to Bombay.

(ii) He also assisted in the second landing operation at
Shekhadi which took place in the second week of February, C
1993 after which the consignment was taken to the Tower and,
thereafter, to Bombay with his assistance.

Confessional Statement of lmtiaz Yunus Miyan Ghavate
(A-15) D
Confessional statements of A-15 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 07.05.1993 (12:00 hrs.) and
09.05.1993 (13:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay A brief summary of the
confession made by A-15 with reference to the appellant is E
reproduced below:

(i) The appellant, A-17 and A-40 were the landing
agents of Tiger Memon who assisted him in
smuggling the silver sent by his brothers in Dubai. F

(ii) The appellant actively participated in the first landing
at Shekhadi.

Confessional Statement of Sharif Abdul Gafoor Parkar@
Dadabhai (A-17) G
Confessional statement of A-17 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 18.04.1993 (00:15 hrs.) and
20.04.1993 (02:50 hrs.) by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189),
H·
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R,

A the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. The said confession reveals
as under:

(i) The appellant was a close associate of Tiger
Memon and was handling the landing activities of
smuggled goods (like silver) for Tiger Memon.
B
(ii) The appellant participated in the first landing
operation at Shekhadi and transportation of the
arms and explosives to Waghani Tower.

c (iii) He (A-17) alongwith the appellant burnt the empty
gunny bags and boxes which contained the above
arms and ammunitions.

(iv) The appellant participated in the second landing
operation at Shekhadi.
D
(v) He (A-17) narrated his conversation with the
appellant about his meeting with Dawood Ibrahim
in Dubai regarding smuggling of chemicals for
taking revenge against Hindus for the demolition of
E Babri Masjid.

(vi) He also stated about the receipt of Rs. 9 lacs by
the appellant from Shafi for the above landing
operations.
F (vii) He has stated about the distribution of money to
Police/Customs officials.

Confessional Statement of Suleman Mohd. Kasam
Ghavate (A-18)
G
Confessional statement of A-18 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492)
and Shri UM Kale (PW-190). The said confession reveals as
under:

H (i) On 06.02.1993, when the appellant alongwith A-17 was
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 94 7
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
present there, A-18 was assisting in loading 59 to 63 packets A
in a tempo bearing No. MMP 4799.

(ii) Tiger instructed A-18 to go to the appellant's house and
leave the said tempo at his place.

(iii) On 8th or 9th February, 1993, he went to Mhasala tower B
in a tempo where the appellant was present alongwith Tiger
and others. The goods were loaded in the said tempo and he
was asked to take the said tempo to Mahad.

Confessional Statement of Manoj Kumar Bhanwar Lal c
Gupta (A-24)

Confessional statement of A-24 under Section 15 of.
TADA has been recorded on 30.04.1993 (16:15 hrs.) and
09.05.1993 (19:00 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the D
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The said confession reveals that
the appellant participated in the landing of rifles, pistols, hand
grenades and black soap at Shekhadi on 02/03.02.1993

Confessional Statement of Muzzamil Umar Kadri (A-25)
E
Confessional statement of A-25 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 17.04.1993 (14:00 hrs.) and
20.04.1993 (12:50 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The said confession reveals as
under:
F
(i) The appellant used to do the work of unloading of
smuggled goods for Tiger Memon

(ii) In or around March/April 1992 and also in August, 1992,
he had assisted the appellant in unloading silver for Tiger G
Memon for which he received Rs. 1,200/- and Rs. 1,500/-
respectively.

(iii) The appellant participated in the landing operations at
Shekhadi that took place on 3rd February and 9th February,
1993. H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Confessional Statement of Sayyed Abdul Rehman
Kamruddin Syed (A-28)

Confessional statement of A-28 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 18.04.1993 (17:00 hrs.) and
B 01.05.1993 (23:30 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. His confessional statement
reveals that on 05.02.1993, at the instance of the appellant and
A-17, about 55-60 sacks filled with something were dug out
from a pit and, thereafter, loaded in a tempo.

C Confessional Statement of Khalil Ahmed Sayyed Ali Nazir
(A-42)

Confessional statement of A-42 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded by Shri P.O. Pawar (PW-185). The said
0 confession reveals as under:

(i) A-42 started doing smuggling of silver and entered into
smuggling activity at the behest of the appellant whom he knew
even prior to 1983c The smuggling was mainly done for Tiger
Memon.
E
(ii) The appellant was a close associate of Tiger Memon.

(iii) The appellant was involved in the landing of arms, hand
grenades and explosives on 03.02.1993 at Shekhadi.

F (iv) On 22.03.1993, the appellant gave him a bag
containing two revolvers for keeping it with him which were
subsequently recovered by the police after his arrest.

Confessional Statement of Mohd Rafiq Musa Miariwala @
G Rafiq Madi (A-46)

Confessional statement of A-46 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded 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. A-46 in his confession stated
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 949
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
that the appellant participated in the landing that took place at A
Shekhadi on 03.02.1993

Confessional Statement of Sujjad Alam Abdul Hakim
Nazir (A-61)

Confessional statement of A-61 under Section 15 of B
TADA was rerded by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193). The
said confession reveals as under:

(i) The appellant participated in the landing of arms and
ammunitions at Shekhadi beach on 03.02.1993 and in the c
transportation of the goods to the Tower.

(ii) On 09.02.1993, the appellant alongwith A-61 and others
picked up 3 rifles and 6 cassettes from Muzammil Umar Kadri
(A-25) and handed them over to Tiger near Lonar Phata.
D
(iii) The appellant also participated in the second landing
of arms and ammunitions at Shekhadi on 09.02.1993, and in
their transportation to the. Tower.

(iv) A-61 received Rs. 4;000/- from the appellant for both
E
the landings.

Confessional Statement of Tulsiram Dhondu Surve (A-62)

Confessional statement of A-62 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded by Shri T.S. Bhal (PW-191). The said F
confession reveals as under:

(i) The appellant was a close associate of Tiger Memon.

(ii) In or around 1992, the appellant, along with Tiger
Memon, had approached him to allow them to keep the silver G
smuggled by them at the Microwave station, atop the hill of
Waghani village, for some consideration (bribe};_:to which he
consented.

(iii) T~e appellant had assisted Tiger Memon in the H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A smuggling activity that was carried out at Waghani Tower and
bribe was also paid to A-62 and others for the same.

(iv) On 03rd February and 7th February, the appellant
alongwith Tiger Memon and others was present at Waghani
Tower while the smuggled ROX and arms and ammunitions
8 were brought from Shekhadi and unloaded and reloaded in the
vehicles brought from Bombay. The appellant actively
participated in the above activity.

Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @
c Nasir Dhakla (A-64)

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 said confession reveals as
0
under:

(i) The appellant participated in the first and second
landing at Shekhadi.

E (ii) The appellant had arranged for and deployed labour
during the said landing operations.

Confessional Statement of Jayant Keshav Gurav (A-82)

Confessional statement of A-82 under Section 15 of
F TADA has been recorded by T.S. Bhal (PW-191): The
confession reveals that the appellant was a landing agent of
Tiger Memon and was engaged in his smuggling activities.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Sultan Sayyed (A-90)

G Confessional statement of A-90 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded by Shri C Prabhakar (PW-186). The
said co-accused was the Superintendent, Custom Marine
Preventive, Alibaug Circle. His confession reveals as under:

H (i) On 29.01.19g3, the appellant met Shri R.K. Singh,
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 951
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Assistant Collector at the Guest house in Hareshwar village. A

(ii) On 12.02.1993, the appellant's son handed over a
plastic bag containing Rs. 3 lakhs to Shri Singh, Assistant
Collector.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Parvez Zulfikar Qureshi B
(A-100)

Confessional statement of A-100 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (23:30 hrs.) anc
17.04.1993 (17:00 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the C
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. His confession reveals the active
participation of the appellant in the landing of arms and
ammunitions, explosives and detonators on 09.02.1993 at
Shekhadi coast and, thereafter, in the transportation of the said
consignments to Waghani Tower. o
Co.nfessional Statement of Shahnawaz Khan Faiz
Mohammed Khan (A-128)

His confessional statement under Section 15 of TADA has
·been recorded by H.C. Singh (PW-474). His confession also E
reveals the participation of the appellant in the landing and
transportation of arms and ammunitions and explosives at
Shekhadi.

307. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the F
above accused, viz., A-11, A-12, A-15, A-17, A-18, A-24, A-
25, A-28, A-42, A-46, A-61, A-62, A-64, A-82, A-90, A-100 and
A-128 clearly establish the fact that it corroborate with the
confessional statement of the appellant (A-14). After
consideration of all the abovesaid confessional statements of G
the co-accused, the involvement of the appellant in the
conspiracy is established in as much as:-

(i) The appellant was closely associated with Tiger Memon
and used to make arrangements for landing of goods smuggled
~h~. H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (ii) The appellant actively participated and organised the
said landings of arms and ammunitions, and explosives at
Shekhadi and also rendered assistance for its safe
transportation.

(iii) The appellant was present at the landing site as well
B
as at the Tower where the arms and ammunitions.and
explosives were shifted in false cavities.

(iv) The appellant attended conspiratorial meeting at
Dubai.
c
(v) The appellant worked in close association with Tiger
Memon and also paid the people for the services rendered by
them.

(vi) The. appellant held a commanding position and also
0
had people who worked for him.

(vii) The appellant was not under threat or coercion and
all his actions were voluntary. He worked in pursuance of the
conspiracy to achieve the common object.
E
(ix) The appellant was also managing government servants
by giving them bribe on behalf of Tiger Memon which shows
his closeness with Tiger Memon.

(x) The bribe was being paid to the officials by the appellant
F on behalf of Tiger Memon for the said landings at Shekhadi.

(xi) The appellant was in the core group of primary
conspirators. It is not that he merely participated in the landings
G as an agent, on the contrary, he participated in the landings
after being fully agreeable to the ultimate object of the
conspiracy.

(xii) His role in achieving the ultimate object of the
conspiracy was very crucial and decisive.
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 953
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]

Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses: A

308. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
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: B
Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

The relevant material in his evidence is as follows:-

(i) PW-2 knew the appellant as Dawood Taklya c
(ii) PW-2 identified the appellant before the court in dock
proceedings.

(iii) The appellant was present in the hut at Shekhadi and
in his (PW-2) presence, Tiger Memon with the help of the D
·appellant and others present there, opened 7 bags which
contained guns, pistols a_nd grenades.

(iv) The appellant and Dadabhai's (A-17) men assisted in
unloading the arms and ammunitions from the boats and
E
reloading them in the truck.

(v) The boxes. in which arms and ammunitions were
brought from Shekhadi were burnt by the appellant, A-17 and
his son in the backyard at the instance of Tiger Memon.
F
(vi) Tiger Memon also instructed the appellant to conceal
some "boxes of "Kala Sabun".

(vii) The appellant was present at Shekhadi at the time of
landing and his men unloaded and loaded them in a Tempo.
G
309. The aforesaid deposition fully establishes the charges /
framed against the appellant. It is further submitted that the
testimony of PW-2 also corroborates with the confessions of
the co-accused as well as the confession of the appellant.
H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

·A Travel to Dubai to attend Conspiratorial Meeti119

310. The prosecution submitted thafthe appellant travelled
to Dubai from Bombay on 19.01..1993 and returned on
23.01.1993. The departure and arrlval details of the appellant .
B have been proved by P.R. Patil (PW-242).and S.S .. Chaudhary
(PW-223), Immigration Officers, which are as under:- ·

Deposition of P.R. Patil (PW-242)

He was on Immigration duty on 19.01.1993. The relevant
c entries on the Embarkation Card (X-398) concerning the
departure have been marked as Exh. Nos. 1050, 1050-A and
1050-A(1).

Deposition of S.S. Chaudhary (PW-223)

D The arrival of the appellant to India from Dubai has been
proved by PW-223 who was on Immigration duty on.
23.01.1993. The relevant endorsements on the Disembarkation
Card (X-349) have been marked as Exh. Nos. 989 and 989A.

E Deposition of $ubhash Udyawar {PW-441)

PW-441 was an employee of M/s East.West Travel and
Tours Pvt. Ltd. and has deposed regarding· tile leservation of
flight tickets for the appellant to Dubai a!'the instance of A-1.

F On peru.sal of the above, it can easily be inferred !hat:-

(i) The appellant had been to Dubai on 1".01'.1993 and
returned Bombay on 23.01.1993.

(ii) The departure and arrillal details have been further
G corroborated by PWs-242 and 223.

(iii) The tickets of the appellant were arranged by A-1, who
is a co-conspirator and brother of prime accused, Tiger.-
Memon.
H
.'

- .. ·.,_, ' ..
. l;SSA@A~JUMABDUL RAZ/\K MEMON v. STATE OF 955
. MA!iARASHTR('" THRS1F, CBI MUMbf\I [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
'. ' ·: ~ :i ._. . .. .:· _,. .
Presence cf the ac;q.1sed a~ Waghani Tower A

Deposition o,f Harish Chanqra, Lax man Surve (PW-108)
~ .
311. PW-108 was a watchman at the Waghani Tower who
deposed as under:
B
(i) .Tu!sirarri Dhpnau Surve (A-62) and Vijay Geving More
(PW-137) were also working alongwith him at Waghani Tower
in 1992/1993.

(ii) On 03.02. 1993, the said witness was on duty at C
Waghani Tower.

\iii) He was told by A-62 that a party of the appellant was
to arrive from Mhasala in the night

(iv) At 9.00 p.rn., one Maruti Van, one motorcycle and one o
jeep arrived atWaghani Tower,

(v) The app.ellant was present in the aforesaid jeep.

Depo~iti,on ofViia¥ Geving .More (P~-137)
E
PW-137 was a laboLfrer at Waghani Tower who deposed
as under: ·
. ' ....
(i) ·A-62 and FW..:108 were workin'g as watchman at the
Tower. · ·
F
(ii) At .9.30 p.m,, a Man.iti. Car came at Waghani Tower.
Three pers<Jns were. Occupying the said car. Sarfaraj Phanse
was one of the three. Sarfraj .gave a call to A-62 and told him
to mak!3 arrangements for tea by telling that their persons had
arrived., · · · G
(iii) Om:i pe:rson out oHhe !fire~. left in the car and returned
' alongwit~ nine to. ten _µ'ersons:

, (iv) Tiger Memon, Dawo.od Phanse and others were
. amongst
'
the
.
s;iicl
. nine
. perso(ls.
. : .... . H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (v) All the persons then left and around 11 p.m .. one truck,
one tempo and two jeeps arrived at the Tower. The appellant
was present in the jeep along with others.

(vi) All the said persons went away after goods were
loaded in the Tempo and the Truck.
B
(vii) In a similar manner, in February, 1993, A-62 told PW-
137 that the goods of the appellant were to arrive.

(viii) After 11 p.m., one truck, two jeeps and a tempo
c arrived at Waghani Tower and the appellant was seated in the
jeep.

(ix) Thereafter, unloading of goods from the trucks
commenced.

D (x) Again, after 4/5 days, A-62 told PW-137 that goods of
the appellant were to arrive.

(xi) PW-137 identified the appellant in the court.

312. On perusal of the aforesaid deposition, it is clearly
E discernible that:

(i) The appellant was present at Waghani Tower when the
goods were being loaded and unloaded.

(ii) The deposition of PW-137 also lends credence to the
F
deposition of PW-108 that the appellant was seated in the jeep
which came to the Tower filled with the goods.

(iii) The said evidence read with the substantive evidence
of abovesaid confessions clearly, beyond all reasonable doubt,
G proved his fatal presence at the Tower when the arms and
ammunitions and explosives smuggled to this country were
being unpacked and reloaded.

Other Witnesses:
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 957
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Deposition of Ravindra Vaskar Sawant (PW-145) A

313. PW-145 is a resident of Kanghar and runs a grocery
shop and acted as a panch witness.

(i) He saw the powder like substance on the land within
the campus of Waghani Tower; B

(ii) He also saw the burnt cardboards at the site and their
ashes lying nearby;

(iii) The samples of the powder as well as of the said C
ashes were collected by the police in his presence.

Deposition of Vyankatesh Hirba (PW-588)

He was a police officer attached with the State Intelligence
Department, Panvel. He deposed that he went to Waghani D
Tower and collected samples of earth and ashes from the said
place. Pa-nchnama Exh. 660 was preparetj by him. The
samples were forwarded for examination to FSL, Bombay by
Shashikant Chavan (PW-676). The FSL report (Exh. 2154 colly)
confirmed the presence of ROX in the samples. E

314. A perusal of the entire evidence on record shows that
no other hypothesis is possible than to conclude that he willingly
participated and assisted Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Memon
in smuggling of large quantity of weapons, ammunitions and
explosives of mass destruction which ultimately resulted in huge F
destruction shocking to the very conscience. If the role of the
appellant is seen in the light of his agreement, understanding
and his consciousness of the ultimate use of the smuggled
arms and ammunitions and explosives, the culpability of the
appellant is no less than Tiger Memon. All the other co-accused G
persons in their confessional statements asserted that the
appellant acted not only as a landing agent but he was also
aware of the arms and ammunitions and was himself in
possession of the same. Further, it has also come in evidence
that he was aware of all the activities of Tiger Memon. Even if H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A we consider his age, he has not made out a case for any
leniency in the sentence part.

315. Therefore, in view of the above, we hold that the
appellant was actively involved in the conspiracy to cause blasts
B in Bombay and in consequence of the said involvement he has
committed the offences for which he has been charged and we
are not inclined to interfere with the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Designated Court. Consequently, the appeals
are liable to be dismissed.
c Criminal Appeal Nos. 653 AND 656 of 2008

Mohd. Moin Faridulla Qureshi (A-43)
Appellant(s)

Versus
D
The State of Maharashtra,

through CBl-STF, Mumbai
Respondent(s)
E
316. Shri Prakash Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant
(A-43) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly
assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent
(CBI).

F 317. The instant appeals by Mohd. Moin Faridulla Qureshi
(A-43) are directed against the final judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 04.12.2006 and 24.07.2007
respectively, whereby the appellant (A-43) has been convicted.
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life by the
G Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast
Case, Greater Bombay in B:B.C. No.1/1993.

Charges:

318. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 959
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.J

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 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, 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
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu
Colony1 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
D
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,
E 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
F 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
criminal conspiracy abetted and knowingly facilitated acts
preparatory to terrorist acts and committed an offence

H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 961
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

punishable under section 3(3) of TADA by committing the A
following overt acts:

(a) He received training in handling of arms,
ammunitions and explosives at Borghat and
Sandheri; B

(b) He attended conspiratorial meetings at the
residence of Babloo @ Nazir Ahmed Anwar Shaikh
and Mobina @ Baya Musa Biwandiwala (A-96)
where plans for committing terrorist acts were
discussed and chalked out; C

(c) He participated in filling and loading of
explosives like ROX in various vehicles fitted with
time device detonators in the intervening night of
11/12th March, 1993 at Al-Hussaini Building. D

At head Thirdly: The appellant, along with other co-
accused persons, went to Fishermen's Colony at Mahim
on 12.03.1993 at about 1.45 pm, in a Maruti Van bearing
No. MP-13-0-385 and lobbed hand grenades on the
hutments causing death of 3 persons, injuring 6 persons E
and causing loss of property worth Rs. 50,000/- and
thereby committed an offence punishable under section
3(2)(i)(ii) of TADA read with Section 149 IPC.

At head Fourthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid F
act, committed an offence punishable under Section 148
IPC.

At head Fifthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid act
which resulted into death of 3 persons, committed an
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section G
149 IPC.

At head Sixthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid

H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A act which resulted into injuries to 6 persons, committed an
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section
149 IPC.

At head Seventhly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid
act which resulted into several injuries, committed an
B
offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section
149 IPC.

At head Eighthly: The appellant, by doing the aforesaid
act which resulted into loss of property worth Rs.50,000/-
c , committed an offence punishable under Section 436 read
with Section 149 IPC.

At head Ninthly: The appellant was in possession of 1.7
hand-grenades during the period from January, 1993 to
D 26th April, 1993, which he concealed in the over-head
water tank of the toilet of Room No. 27, Chawl No. 22,
Transit Camp, Sandra (E), unauthorisedly, in a notified
area of Greater Bombay and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA.
E At head Tenthly: The appellant was in possession of the
above mentioned 17 hand-grenades with intention to
commit terrorist act and thereby committed an offence
punishable under s'ection 6 of TADA.

F At head Eleventhly: The appellant, by possessing the
above mentioned 17 hand-grenades, has committed an
offence punishable under Sections-3 end 7 read with 25(1-
A) and 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

319. The Designated Court found the appellant guilty on
G all the charges except charge at head tenthly. The appellant has
been convicted and sentenced for the above said charges as
under:

Conviction and Sentence:
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 963
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence A
of conspiracy punishable under Section 3(3) of
TADA and under Section 120-B for 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) B
(ii) The appellant has also been convicted under
Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of acts
specified at head secondly and has been
sentenced to RI for 12 years along with a fine of Rs.
50,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for 1 (one)
c
year. (charge secondly)

(iii) The appellant has also been convicted for the
commission of offence under Section 3(2)(i)(ii) of
TADA read with Section 149 of IPC and has been D
sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs.
50,0001-, in default, to further undergo RI for a
period of 6 months. (charge thirdly)

(iv) The appellant has also been convicted for the
E
commission of offence punishable under Section
148 of IPC and has been sentenced to RI for 3
years. (charge fourthly)

(v) The appellant has also been convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and has F
been sentenced to RI for life along with a fine of Rs.
25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for a
period of 6 months. (charge fifthly)

(vi) The appellant has also been convicted under G
Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and has
been sentenced to RI for 14 years along with a fine
of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for
a period of 3 (three) months. (charge sixthly)

(vii) The appellant has also been convicted under H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Section 324 read with Section 149 of /PC and has
been sentenced to RI for 2 years. (charge
seventhly)

(viii) The appellant has also been convicted under
Section 436 read with Section 149 of /PC and has
B
been sentenced to RI for 1Oyears along with a fine
of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for a
period of 1 (one) month. (charge eighthly)

(ix) The appellant has also been convicted for the
c commission of offence punishable under Section 5
of TADA and has been sentenced to RI for 10 years
along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to
further undergo RI for a period of 6 (six) months.
(charge ninethly)
D
Evidence

320. The evidence against the appellant (A-43) is in the
form of:-

E (i) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);

(ii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iii) documentary evidence.
F
Confessional Statements of co-accused:

321. The prosecution pointed out that the involvement of
the appellant in committing overt acts is revealed in the
G confessional statements of several co-accused persons which
are summarized as under:

Confessional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani
Khairulla (A-13)

H Confessional statement of A-13 under Section 15 of
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v, STATE OF 965
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
TADA has been recorded on 16.05.1993 (10:30 hrs.) and A
18.05.1993 (17:15 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The facts emerging from the
said confession pertaining to the appellant are summarized as
follows:
B
(i) The appellant was present on 7/8.03.1993, along
with other co-accused persons, in a flat on the 7th
floor of the building on the Hill Road, Sandra behind
Bhabha Hospital.

(ii) The appellant, along with other co-accused C
persons, took oath by placing his hands on Holy
Quran that they will take revenge for the atrocities
committed on their community and will do Jehad for
Islam and they would not disclose anything about
this to anyone. D

(iii) The appellant, along with A-13 and others, as
instructed by Tiger, went to offer Namaz at Sandra
Masjid and was told to wait for Tiger's man, who
would take him for the next job.
E
(iv) After offering Namaz, as told, around 1:15 in the
night, they were picked up by Tiger's man named
Gani and they all left and reached on a hill where
they were imparted training by Tiger Memon.
F
(v) After the training, they came back to Bombay and
the appellant got down at Kala Nagar.

(vi) The appellant, along with other co-accused
persons, attended a conspiratorial meeting on G
10.03.1993 at a flat on Hill Road, Sandra. All the
co-accused persons were given Rs. 5,000/- for
giving the same at their homes in order to celebrate
Eid and he further told them not to spend the money
on themselves.
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C R.

A (vii) The apellant was present inside the garage at Al-
Hussaini Building compound in the night of 11 /
12.03.1993 when black chemical was being fillad
in vehicles.

(viii) In the morning of 12.03.1993, the appellant and
B
other co-accused persons were present at Al-
Hussaini building where Javed gave them Rs.
5,000/-.

(ix) As told by Javed, the appellant, along with Salim,
C Bashir Khairulla, Mehmood, Feroz, Zakir and Abdul
Akhtar went to throw the handgrenades at Mahim
slope cause-way.

(x) The apellant, along with other co-accused, got down
D from the car and Jobbed hand grenades at Mahim ,
Slope.

(xi) The appellant or Mahmood was having the bag
containing hand grenades.

E 322. A perusal of the confession of A-13 shows that the
appellant actively participated in the entire conspiracy to commit
terrorist acts. He committed all possible acts, viz., taking oath
to commit jehad; received training in handling of arms and
ammunitions and explosives; attended conspiratorial meeting
F where plans were discussed; was present inside the garage
of Al-Hussaini building when black chemical was being filled
in vehicles and lobbed hand grenades at fishermen's colony
at Mahim.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Yusuf
G Shaikh (A-23)

Confessional statement of A-23 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 967
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
the then DCP, Zone-Ill, Bombay. The facts emerging from the A
said confession pertaining to the appellant are summarized as
follows:

(i) The appellant, along with others, took oath to do
Jehad in order to take revenge for the atrocities on
B
their community and not to disclose anything to
anyone at a flat behind Bhaba Hospital.

(ii) The appellant, along with others, as instructed by
Tiger Memon, went to Sandra and waited near Badi
Masjid from where they were picked up around c
12:30-1 :00 a.m. in the night, by a man of Tiger who
had come in a sky blue coloured Jeep.

(iii) Thereafter, they reached on a hill where they were
imparted training in throwing handgrenades and D
firing with AK-56 by Tiger Memon.

(iv) The appellant and others came back to Bombay
after the training. The appellant, along with A-23, got
down from the vehicle at the MHADA office.
E
(v) Two days thereafter, the appellant attended a
meeting in a Flat at Sandra where all the members
discussed their plans and Tiger distributed Rs.
5,000/- to each one of them for Eid celebrations.
F
(vi) He participated in the filling of ROX in the vehicles
in the garage at Tiger's residence.

(vii) The appellant was present in Tiger's house at
Mahim and received hand grenades from Javed
and Usman. G

(viii) The appellant went to Bangalore with Mehmud and
A-23 in order to avoid arrest.

(ix) The appellant, after returning from Bangalore, went
to his country. H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A The prosecution vehemently submitted that the confession
of A-23 duly corroborates the role played by the appellant in
the entire conspiracy. It is clear that the appellant committed
all possible overt acts in order to commit terrorist acts. It is also
clear from his confession that he was present inside the garage
B of Al-Hussaini building and participated in the filling of ROX in
vehicles which were later planted as bombs at various places.

Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd.
Shaikh (A-32)

C 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),
the then DCP, Zone 111, Bombay. The facts emerging from the
said confession, with reference to the appellant, are
D summarised hereunder:

(i) The appellant attended the conspiratorial meeting
on 10.03.1993 at Sandra where Tiger Memon
formed groups. They were directed to go to the
godown of Bharat Petroleum Company at Chembur
E
in order to throw hand grenades. Next day, PW-2
took all of us to the spot in a commander Jeep and
did survey. All the people of our group were in the
Jeep.

F (ii) He was present in the night intervening 11/12
March. 1993 at the Al-Hussaini Building.

(iii) He was present in the flat of Tiger where he was
given hand grenades by Javed and Usman.
G (iv) Javed gave Rs. 5,000/- to each one of them and
told them to leave for their mission at 2:30 p.m.

(v) The appellant, along with Zakir Hussain, Metimood,
Abdul Akhtar, Saleem Dandekar and Feroz went to
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 969
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
Mahim slope Koliwada colony around 2:30 p.m. in A
a blue Maruti and lobbed handgrenades.

Upon perusal of the confession of A-32, it is clear that the
same corroborates with the fact that the appellant attended
conspiratorial meeting; was present at Al-Hussaini building in 8
the intervening night of 11/12.03.1993; lobbed hand grenades
at fishermen's colony. The appellant also conducted survey
along with PW-2 and other co-accused persons.

Confessional Statement of Abdul Akhtar Khan (A-36)
c
Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and
21.05.1993 (18:20 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193);
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-36 reveals
the following facts: o
(i) The appellant, along with others, was loading ROX
in the vehicles in the night intervening 11/
12.03.1993 at Al-Hussaini Building.

(ii) Javed gave Rs. 5000/- to each one of them. E

(iii) The appellant, along with others, was given hand
grenades by Javed and Usman.

(iv) The appellant and Zakir brought a bag full of hand
grenades. F

(v) Javed also gave 5-6 grenades to others who were
present there which they put in their bag which was
being carried by the appellant and Zakir.
G
(vi) The appellant, along with others, went to Mahim
slope-way and threw grenades on the hutments.

It can easily be inferred that the confession of A-36
corroborates with the fact that appellant filled ROX in vehicles
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A and he along with other co-accused persons lobbed hand
grenades at Fishermen's colony

Confessional Statement of Akram Amani Malik (A-39) ·.

· Confessional statement of A-39 under Section 15 of
B TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (22:30 hrs.) and
23.04.1993 (20:50 hrs.) by Mr. P.D. Pawar (PW-185), the then
DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The facts emerging from the sclid
confession, pertaining to the appellant, are summarised as
under:
c
(i) On 10.03.1993, the appellant attended a meeting
at Sandra.

(ii) The appellant and others were asked by Tiger
Memon to do some work and that they will be given
D
Rs. 5,000/- each.

(iii) The appellant, along with PW-2 and others, went to
survey Chembur refinery.

E (iv) The appellant, along with co-accused, went in a
Maruti Van and threw hand grenades.

The confession of A-39 corroborates the abovesaid
confessions and in particular that the appellant attended
conspiratorial meeting; conducted survey of the target; travelleq
F along with co-accused persons and lobbed hand grenades.

Confessional Statement of Nasim Ashraf Sherali Barmare-
(A-49)

G Confessional statement of A-49 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 16.05.1993 (09:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993
by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
Bombay. The confession of A-49 corroborates with the fact that
the appellant filled black soap (ROX) mixed with steel scrap
jointly with other co-accused and was present at Al-Hussaini
H building till morning.
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 971
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
Confessional Statement of Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52) A

Confessional statement of A-52 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 and 18.04.1993 by
Shri P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then -DCP, Zone V, Bombay.
The facts emerging from the said .confession, pertaining to the B
appellant, are summarized as under:

(i) The appellant was present in the meeting held at
Tiger's flat where he formed groups.

(ii) The appellant, A-52 himself, Alam, Zakir, Bashir and c
Aslam were in one group.

(iii) On 11.03.1993, the appellant was present at the
residence of Tiger Memon along with other accused
persons.
D
(iv) The appellant also filled 'black soap' from the soap
boxes kept in the garage.

(v) All the persons including the appellant, who were
filling the black soap wore gloves in their hands.
E
(vi) He, along with the accused and others, went in the
Maruti Car to Mahim Slope, Koliwada and threw
hand grenades causing bomb blast.

The confession of A-52 also corroborates the fact that the F
appellant attended conspiratorial' meeting and that he filled ROX
in vehicles in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993 and also
lobbed hand grenades at fishermen's colony.

Confessional Statement of Shaikh. Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57) G

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 Ill, Bombay.
The facts emerging from the said confession pertaining to the ·
appellant are summarized as under: H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A {i) The appellant, along with others, was present in the
flat at Sandra when Tiger Memon gave lecture
about the loss suffered by Muslim community and
also that they were doing this for their community
and gave Rs. 5,000/- to everyone present there.
B {ii) The appellant participated in filling of ROX in
vehicles and putting of iron pieces in it.

{iii) The appellant was asked by Anwar to take rest from
work of filling ROX.
c (iv) In the morning, the appellant carried the rifle and
kept it in the Maruti Car No. MFC 1972.

The confession of A-57 corroborates the fact that the
appellant attended meeting where Tiger Memon talked about
D taking revenge and filled ROX in vehicles which were planted
as bombs at various places.

Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @
Nasir Dhakla {A-64)
E
Confessional statement of A-64 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 22.01.1995 (9:15 pm.) and
24.01.1995 (9.45 am) by Shri HC Singh (PW-474), the then SP,
CBl/SPE/STF, New Delhi. The confession of A-64 corroborates
with the fact that the appellant was present at Al-Hussaini
F building in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993.

323. Upon perusal of the said confessions of co-accused
persons, it is thus established that the appellant:-

(i) participated in training of handling of arms and
G
ammunitions and explosives at Sandheri and
Borghat;

(ii) participated in conspiratorial meeting;

H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 973
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
(iii) took oath that he will do Jehad; A

(iv) conducted survey of targets along with PW-2 and
other co-accused;

(v) filled ROX and iron scraps in vehicles;
B
(vi) lobbed hand grenades at fishermen's colony;

(vii) after committing such a heinous crime fled in order
to avoid his arrest.

Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses: c
324. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
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: D
Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2) (Approver)

His deposition reveals about the involvement of A-43 in the
conspiracy. The relevant material in his evidence is as under:-

(i) PW-2 stated that he knew Moin Faridulla Quereshi
as 'Moin'.

(ii) He identified the appellant before the Court.

(iii) The appellant attended the conspiratorial meeting F
at Shakeel's residence on 07.03.1993.

(iv) Tiger Memon told PW-2 to show the Chembur
Refinery to the appellant and others.
G
(v) The appellant was also present in Tiger's flat at Al-
Hussaini building in the night of 11/12.03.1993.

(vi) He was actively involved in filling of ROX in the
dickey of motor vehicles on the night of 11/
12.03.1993. H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A (vii) Javed Chikna gave 4 hand grenades to A-43 and
others in order to throw the same at Fishermen's
Colony at Mahim.

The above deposition of the approver duly corroborates
B the confessions of the co-accused and thus establishes the fact
that the appellant attended conspiratorial meetings, he was
present at Al-Hussaini building in the night intervening 11/
12.03.1993 and filled ROX in vehicles and that he was given
hand grenades to be lobbed at Fishermen's colony. PW-2 duly
corroborates the confession of co-accused in material
·C respects.

Deposition of Laxmikant Ramachandra Patil (PW-5)

PW-5 is a resident of the Fishermen's Colony and is an
0 eye witness to the incident. He had witnessed the incident while
he was waiting on the road which is summarized as under:

(i) He deposed that 5-6 persons got down from a blue
coloured Maruti Van and threw green coloured
things, which could be held in the hand, towards the
E colony.

(ii) He identified the appellant in court.

(iii) He participated in the identification parade dated
15.05.1993 conducted by Moreshwar Thakur (PW-
F
469) Special Executive Magistrate at Mahim Police
Station and he also identified the appellant.

(iv) On 13.03.1993, in the police station, he also
identified the vehicle No. MP-13-0-385 as the car
G in which the appellant came to Mahim slope in
order to throw hand grenades.

Deposition of Santosh Patil (PW-6)

PW-6 is a resident of Mahim Fishe.rmen's Colony at
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAlAK MEMON v. STATE OF 975
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Mahim. He deposed that he witnessed the incident while he A
was waiting near the Municipal School at Mahim slope. He
deposed as under:
(i) 6 persons came in a blue Maruti Van to Mahim
Machhimar colony and the number of the said 8
vehicle was MP 385 and threw something in the
direction of the 'Zopadpatty' which caused
explosions .
•
(ii) He identified the appellant before the court to be the .
person who lobbed the hand grenades. C

{iii) On 10.04.1993, he identified the blue Maruti Van
at the Mahim Police Station. The Van was bearing
the Reg. No. MP 13 D-385.

(iv) He also identified the appellant in the identification D
parade dated 15.05.1993 (Exhibit 1515) conducted
by ·Special Executive Magistrate (PW-469) at
Mahim Police Station.

Deposition of Shashikant Shetty (PW-13) E

PW-13 is a resident of Mahim Fishermen's Colony at
Mahim. He is an eye witness to the incident. He deposed as
under: ·

(i) He witnessed a part of the incident as soon as he F
came out of his house after hearing the sound of
explosions.

(ii) He saw 4-5 people getting down from the Van and
throwing something on the 'basti' whichresulted in G
explosions.

(iii) PW 13 identified the appellant in Court.

(iv) PW-13 participated in the identification parade
H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A dated 15.05.1993 (Exhibit 1515) conducted by
Special Executive Magistrate (PW-469) at Mahim
police station and identified all the accused
including the appellant.

(v) PW-13 identified the Maruti Van in which the
B
appellant along with co-accused persons came to
Mahim Machhimar Colony as MP-D-13-385.

(vi) PW 13 lodged a First Information Report (FIR) in
respect of the explosions at Mahim Fishermen's
c colony.

Upon perusal of the aforesaid depositions of PWs 5, 6 and
13, the eye witnesses to the said incident, it is established that
the appellant lobbed hand grenades and caused explosions.
,0 They further identified the Maruti van bearing number MP-D-
13-385 as the vehicle in which the appellant came along with
other co-accused and, thereafter, fled away after lobbing the
hand grenades.

Investigation, Recoveries and Reports:
E
325. The aforesaid eye-witnesses viz., PWs-5, 6 and 13
have duly identified the appellant in the TIP dated 15.05.1993
conducted by Shri Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469) for which
memorandum panchnama marked as Exh. 1515 was
F prepared.

326. On 12.03.1993, Shantaram Gangaram Hire (PW-
562), Police Officer, visited the blast site i.e., Fishermen's
colony at Mahim and prepared spot panchnama in the presence
of panch witnesses, viz., Dayaram Timbak Akare and Mahendra
G Sadanand Mehre. PW-562, in the presence of Tamore (PW-
330) and experts collected the articles from the blast site vide
Panchnama Exh. No. 1221 which were sent to the Forensic
·Science Laboratory ("FSL") for opinion. The FSL Report Exh.
Nos. 1943, 1943-A(i) and 1943-A(ii) proves the remnants to ·
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 977
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

be explosives and part of hand grenades. A

327. On 26.04.1993, the appellant, in the presence of
panch witnesses, viz., Eknath Jadhav (PW-606) and Krishnanad
Alwin (PW-41), made a disclosure to the police for which
disclousure Panchnama Exhibit 133 was prepared, and 8
thereafter, he led the police party and the panchas and got
recovered 17 hand grenades (marked as Art. 54(xvii) colly)
which he took out from a water tank and the same were seized
by the police vide seizure Panchnama Exhibit 134.

328. The seized articles were sent to FSL for opinion vide C
Exhibit 2439 and the FSL Report (Exhibit 2439-A) confirms the
articles to contain Penta Crythritol Tetra Nitrate (PENT).

Evidence regarding injured victims and deceased:

329. It is seen from the records that. in July, 1993, Achyut D
Shamrao Pawal (PW-542), Police Inspector, collected the injury
certificates of injured persons, namely, Mr. Gurudutt Agaskar,
Ms. Rajashri Agaskar and Ms. Sheetal Keni from Bhaba
Hospital which amply prove that they sustained injuries during
the blast. Injured Shashikant Shelly (PW-13) and Sheetal Keni E
(PW-412) also ,proved to have sustained injuries during the blast.
Dr. Wadekar (PW-641) and Dr. Krishna Kumar (PW-640) were
the doctors who have proved the injury certificates issued to
PW-13 and PW-412 respectively. ·
F
330. Gajanan Tare (PW-413) (husband of the deceased
Guiab Tare) and Karande (PW-414) (nephew of the deceased
Hira Dhondu Sawant) claimants of two bodies, have proved the
death of Mrs. Guiab Tare (wife of PW-413) and Smt. Hira
Dhondu Sawant (PW 414's aunt) in the said incident. PW-482 G
and PW-480 have established the cause of death to be the
injuries received on 12.03.1993. Achyut Shamrao Pawal (PW-
542) also proved the death of 3 persons at Fishermen's Colony
in the said incident. ·
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A Vehicle used for committing the act:

331. It is seen from the materials that the said Maruti Van
in which A-13, A-32, A-36, A-39, A-43 and Mehboob Liyaqat
Khan (AA) were seated was arranged by Suleman Lakdawala
B (PW-365) at the behest of Mohd. Shafi Jariwala (AA). This has
also been proved by the said witness. Further, the depositions
of Kailash Govind Rao Baheti (PW-342) and Shakeel Suleman
Hasham (PW-366) are pertinent as it complete the link relating
to purchase/arrangement of the said Maruti Van used in the
incident.
c
Deposition of Kailash Govind Rao Baheti (PW-342)

He deposed as follows:-

"On 18.01.1993 I had received a telephone call given
D by Shakil Hasham from Bombay. Shakil requested
me to book one red coloured Maruti Van in the name
of Asif Darvesh resident of M.G. Road, Indore and
another new Maruti Van of blue coloured in the name
of Shri Kasam Ahmed residing at Indira Nagar, Ujjain. He
E also requested me to register both the Maruti Van at Indore
and send the same to Bombay. He also told me that the
payments of the same would be made at Bombay to the
driver. I quoted a price of Rs.1,69,000/- per vehicle
inclusive of registration and transport charges. I was having
F red colour Maruti Van brought by me from M/s Bhatia &
Company, Gurgaon, Haryana and blue colour Maruti Van
brought from Vipul Motors, Faridabad, Haryana, in my
stock. I had brought both the said vehicles by making
advance payment. After receipt of booking from Shakil
G Hasham for red and blue coloured brand new Maruti Vans,
I informed the details of the purchasers to M/s Bhatia
Company and Mis Vipul Motors. After receipt of the said ·
letters and bills from both the said companies in the name
of purchasers who wanted red and blue Maruti Vans I sent
H papers of both the Vans for registration to RTO. The blue
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 979
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
coloured Maruti Van was registered in the name of Kasam A
Ahmed at Ujjain RTO. The blue coloured Maruti Van could
not be registered at Indore due to lack of E-Form
necessary for registration. Thereafter, I sent both the said
Vans to Bombay to Shakil Hasham. ~hakil Hasham
received the delivery and paid Rs.3,38,000/- to my drivers. B
My drivers gave the said amount to me. I made the
necessary entries in my office record for sending the said
Vans to Bombay to Shakil Hasham after purchasing the
same for the parties told by him. The RTO Authority at
Ujjain had given registration Number MP-13-D-0385 c
to "blue coloured Maruti Van. Today I am not
remembering the engine number and chassis number of
the said Maruti Van.""

Deposition of Shakeel Suleman Hasham (PW-366)
D
In his deposition, he deposed that he had asked PW-342
to arrange for two Maruti Vans (red and blue colour) in
February, 1993. Both the vans were purchased in Madhya
Pradesh and the blue Maruti Van was registered in Uiiain with
the registration number MP-13-D-0385. PW-366 further E
deposed as under:

"In the same month (February 1993) I had also
arranged for one blue coloured and another red
coloured Maruti Vans also registered at Madhya
Pradesh for Suleman Lakdawala. The said .vehicles F
were registered at Madhya Pradesh Indore in the name
of the purchasers given to me by Suleman Lakdawala. I
had given the work of registration to one Kailash
baheti of Indore. Both the said vans were insured by
Insurance Agent Rakesh Tiwari before giving the same to G
Suleman Lakdawala. Both the said vehicles had
arrived from Indore. I bad sent the same to the Petrol
pump of Suleman and asked him to take the delivery from
the said drivers who had brought the delivery of the said
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A vehicles. Accordingly he took the delivery by making
payment to the drivers."

It is relevant to note that this number and the said blue
Maruti Van has been identified by PWs-5, 6 and 13 in their
depositions as the vehicle which was involved in the said
8
incident at Fishermen's Colony. Thus, PW-342, therefore,
corroborates the deposition of PW-366 in that both the Vans
were purchased in Madhya Pradesh and the blue Maruti Van
was registered in Ujjain and was given registration number
C bearing MP-13-0-0385.

332. Further, the deposition of Mukhtar Ahmed (PW-281)
reveals that the cavity was prepared by him in the said Maruti
Van at the behest of Mohd. Shafi Jariwala (AA). This further
corroborates the fact that ii is the same vehicle which was used
D in the Mahim Causeway incident.

333. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that 3 eye
witnesses viz., Ashok Vichare (PW-104), Harish Chandra
Pawar (PW-105) and Raja ram Kadam (PW-106) have
deposed about the incident of training which took place at
E Sandheri but they have not identified the appellant and hence
his participation in the training programme cannot be
established. It is brought to our notice by the CBI that the
confessions of the co-accused viz. A-13 and A-23, establish
the involvement and participation of the appellant in the training
F programme. Even if the above witnesses have not identified
that does not cause any dent on the prosecution case as
sufficient evidence has been placed on record by the
prosecution to establish the presence and participation of the
appellant at Sandheri and Borghat.
G
Juvenile Issue:

334. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he was
17 years and 3 months old on the date of commission of
H offence and his case ought to have been dealt under the
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 981
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in A
short 'JJ Act') and the provisions of TADA are inapplicable to
his case and the learned Designated Court erred in negating
the said contention. Before dealing with this contention, it would
be appropriate to first deal with the law on the subject:
B
"Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,
2000
Preamble:

An act to consolidate and amend the law relating to C
juveniles in conflict with law and children in need of
care and protection, by providing for proper care,
protection and treatment by catering to their need, and by
adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication
and disposition of matters in the best interest of children D
and for their ultimate rehabilitation".

Section 1 (4) of the JJ Act was brought into the statute
book w.e.f. 22.08.2006 which reads as under:-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the E
time being in force, the provisions of this act shall apply
to all cases involving detention, prosecution, penalty or
sentence of imprisonment of juveniles in conflict with law
under any such law"
F
Section 2 (k) defines 'juvenile' or 'child' means a person
who has not completed eighteen years of age.

Section 2 (I) defines 'juvenile in conflict with law' means
a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has
not completed eighteen years of age as on the date of G
commission of such offence.

335. Section 15 deals with the Order that may' be passed
regarding juvenile which is as under:-
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A "(1) Where a Board is satisfied on inquiry that a juvenile
has committed an offence, then notwithstanding anything
to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being
inforce, the Board may, if it so thinks, fit-

(g) make an order directing the juvenile to be sent to a
B
special home- (before the amendment dated 22-8-2006)

(i) in the case of juvenile, over seventeen years but less
than eighteen years of age for a period of not less than
two years;
c
(ii) in case of any other juvenile for the period until he
ceases to be a juvenile"

336. Section 16 deals with the order that may not be
passed against Juvenile which is as under:-
0
"(1) Nothwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any law for the time being in force no juvenile in conflict
with law shall be sentenced to death (or life imprisonment)
or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in
E default of furnishing security:

Provided that where a juvenile who has attained the age
of sixteen years has committed an offence and the board
is satisfied that the offence committed is so serious in
nature or that his conduct and behaviour have been such
F
that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of other
juveniles in a special home to send him to such special
home and that none of the other measures provided under
this act is suitable or sufficient, the board may order the
juvenile in conflict with law to be kept in such safety and in
G such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for
the order of the State Government.

xxxxx"

H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 983
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
337. Section 28 of the JJ Act deals with Alternative A
Pu-nishment which is as under:-

"Where an act or omission constitute an offence
punishable under this act and also under any other Central
or State act, then notwithstanding anything contained 8
in any law for the time being in force, the offender found
guilty .of such offences shall be liable to punishment only
under such act as provides for punishment which is
greater in degree.

In the same light if some of the provisions of the THE C
TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES ACT, 1987 may
be considered which was also a special act to deal with
extraordinary circumstances "An act to make special provisions
for the prevention of, and for coping with terrorist and disruptive
activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental D
thereto."

338. O'Verriding Effect: Section 25 of TADA

"The provisions of this Act or any r~le made thereunder or
any order made under any such rule shall have effect E
notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
in any enactment other than this act or in any instrument
having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act."

Whether Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 µrevails over TADA F
Act, 1987:

TADA vs JJ ACT:

339. The question does arise as to whether the provisions
of JJ Act as well as of TADA provide for over-riding effect on G
any other law for the time being in force; and as to whether the
provisions of JJ Act would be applicable in case of TADA for
_the reason that this Court in Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
& Anr., (2009) 13 SCC 211, considered the definition of
"juvenile" given under Section 2 (k) & (I) for offences committed H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A prior to 01.04.2001 when the JJ Act came into force and held
that by virtue of the amendment introduced in Section 20 of the
JJ Act, particularly, putting the proviso and explanation to
Section 20 of the Act made explicit that in all pending cases
including trial, revision, appeal and any other criminal
B proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, the JJ
Act would apply retrospectively as if the said provisions had
been in force when the alleged offence was committed. More
so, Section 7-A of the JJ Act made it clear that the issue of
juvenile can be raised at any stage of the proceeding and even
c if the accused ceased to be Juvenile on or before the
commencement of the JJ Act. Thus, any person who was below
18 years of age on the date of commission of offence, even
prior to 01.04.2001 would be treated as juvenile even if the claim
of the juvenility is raised after attaining the age of 18 years on
or before the commencement of the Act. The Court further held
0
that in borderline cases, the benefit may be given to the
accused as the very Scheme behind such legislation is
rehabilitatory so as to prevent such offenders from becoming
hardened criminals. Under such a statute, the court has
responsibility to see that punishment serves social justice which
E is the validation of deprivation of citizen's liberty. Correctional
treatment with a rehabilitative orientation may be an imperative
of modern penology. Such values may find their roots under
Article 19 of the Constitution which itself sanctions deprivation
of freedoms provided they render a reasonable service to
F social defence, public order and security of the State. The Court
has categorically held that the JJ Act applies retrospectively
and a person can apply even where the criminal proceedings
have attained finality. The 1986 Act was subsequently repealed
by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
G On 22.03.2006, Section 2(1) of the Act was amended stating
that "Juvenile in conflict with law" means juvenile who is alleged
to have committed an offence and has not completed 18 years
of age as on the date of commission of such offence. The
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007
H (hereinafter referred to as '2000 Rules') were brought into force
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STAlEOF 985
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
on 26th October 2007. As per Rule 97(2) all the cases pending A
which have not received finality will be dealt with and disposed
of in terms of the provisions of the 2000 Act as amended on
22.08.2006 and 2007 Rules. This view stands approved and
affirmed by a larger bench judgment on reference in Abuzar
Hossain @ Gu/am Hossain vs. State of West Bengal (2012) B
10 sec 489.

340. Admittedly, the TADA Act 1985/1987 and JJ Act,
1986/2000, both contained provisions providing over-riding
effect on any other law for the time being in force.
c
341. 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 permissible
for the court to construe the provisions in such a manner which
would destroy the very purpose for which the same was D
enacted. The principles in regard to the approach of the Court
in interpreting the provisions of a statute with the change in the
societal condition must also be borne in mind. The rules of
purposive construction have to be resorted to which would
require the construction of the Act in such a manner so as to E
see that the object of the Act fulfilled; which in turn would lead
the beneficiary under the statutory scheme to fulfill its
constitutional obligations. It is the duty of the court to adopt a
harmonious construction by which both the provisions remain
operative. (Vide: Cantonment Board, Mhow & Anr. vs. M.P. F
State Road Transport Corpn., AIR 1997 SC 2013; Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Maddula Ratnavalli & Ors..
(2007) 6 SCC 81; and Krishna Kumar Bir/a vs. Rajendra
Singh Lodha & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 300).

342. Where two statutes provide for overriding effect on G
the other law for the time being in force and the court has to
examine which one of them must prevail, the court has to
examine the issue considering the following two basic
principles of statutory interpretation:
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 1. leges posteriores priores conterarias abrogant (later
laws abrogate earlier contrary laws).

2. generalia specialibus non derogant (a general
provision does not derogate from a special one.)
B 343. The principle that the latter Act would prevail 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 of the
general enactment covers a situation for which specific
C provision is made by another enactment contained in the ear1ier
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.

0 344. 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 these latter directions should prevail
E as regards these while as regards all the rest the earlier
directions must be given effect to.

345. 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
F 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.

G 346. In order to determine whether a statute is 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
H such a distinction cannot be blurred.
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 987
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.)
347. Thus, where there is inconsistency between the A
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 enactments and the clear
intendment of the legislature conveyed by the language of the
relevant provisions therein. (Vide: Shri Ram Narain vs. The B
Simla Banking and Industrial Co. Ltd., 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, AIR 1966 SC 785; Shri
Sarwan Singh vs. Shri Kasturi Lal, (1977) 1 SCC 750; The C
U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Hari Shanker Jain & Ors,
(1978) 4 SCC 16; The Life Insurance Corporation of/ndia vs.
- D. J. Bahadur, Al R 1980 SC 2181 ; Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and
Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 855; and
TM.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and 0
Ors., AIR 2003 SC 355).

348. In Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Bassi Cold
Storage, Khara and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2544, the question was
whether Arbitration would be applicable to all disputes under
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. This Court after considering the E
relevant provisions of the Act 191 O held:

"If the legislature while putting the Act in the statute book
would have required that all the disputes between the
parties should be subject-matter of arbitration, there would F
have been no necessity to mention about some disputes
or difference specifically in the aforesaid section as being
remediable by arbitration. This clearly shows, according
to us, that the legislature did require that the matters
enumerated in the Act alone should go for arbitration, and G
no others."

(See also: Mohan Karan vs. State of U.P. and Anr., AIR
1998 SC 1601).

H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 349. In RBI vs. Peerless General Finance and
Investment Company Ltd., and Ors. (1987) 1 SCC 424, this
Court highlighted the importance of the rule of contextual
interpretation and held:

"Interpretation must depend on the text and the context.
B
They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if
the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour.
Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That
interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation
match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we
c know why it was enacted. .... No part of a statute and no
word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes
have to be construed so that every word has a place and
everything is in its place."

D 350. In Employees Provident Fund Commr. vs. Official
Liquidator, AIR 2012 SC 11, the question arose as to whether
priority given to the dues payable by an employer under Section
11 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, is subject to Section 529-A of the
E Companies Act. 1956 in terms of which the workmen's dues
and debts due to secured creditors are required to be paid in
priority to all other debts in view of the non-obstante clause
contained in the subsequent legislation, i.e. Section 529A(1)
of the Companies Act would prevail over similar clause
F contained in earlier legislation, i.e. Section 11 (2) of the EPF
Act. The Court made reference to provisions of both
enactments, and placing reliance on earlier judgment in UCO
Bank vs. Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay & Anr.
(1994) 5 SCC 1, AP. State Financial Corpn. vs. Official
G Liquidator, (2000) 7 SCC 291, Textile Labour Assn. and Anr.
vs. Official Liquidator and Another, (2004) 9 SCC 741;
Maharashtra State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident
Fund Commr. And Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 123;

observed:
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 989
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
"The EPF Act is a social welfare legislation intended to A
protect the interest of a weaker section of the society i.e.
the workers employed in factories and other
establishments, who have made significant contribution in
economic growth of the country. The workers and other
employees provide services of different kinds and ensure B
continuous production of goods, which are made available
to the society at large. Therefore, a legislation made for
their benefit must receive a liberal and purposive
interpretation keeping in view the directive principles of
State policy contained in Articles 38 and 43 of the c
Constitution."

This Court held that the non-obstante nature of a provision
although may be of wide amplitude, the interpretative process
thereof must be kept confined to the legislative policy. The non-
obstante clause must be given effect to, to the extent the D
legislature intended and not beyond the same.

351. In A.P. State Financial Corpn. (supra), this Court
held that right to sell the property by Financial Corporation under
Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 will E
be subject to the non obstante clause contained in Sectio_n
529-A of the Companies Act and observed:

"10. The Act of 1951 is a special Act for grant of finahcial
assistance to industrial concerns with a view to boost up-- F
industrialisation and also recovery of such financial
assistance if it becomes bad and similarly the
Companies Act deals with companies including winding
up of such companies. The proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 529 and Section 529-A being a subsequent
enactment, the non obstante clause in Section 529-A G
prevails over Section 29 of the Act of 1951 in view of the
settled position of law. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the above proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 529 /
and Section 529-A will control Section 29 of the Act of
H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 1951. In other words the statutory right to sell the
property under Section 29 of the Act of 1951 has to
be exercised with the rights of pari passu charge to
the workmen created by the proviso to Section 529
of the Companies Act. Under the proviso to sub-section
B (1) of Section 529, the liquidator shall be entitled to
represent the workmen and force (sic enforce) the above
pari passu charge. Therefore, the Company Court was
fully justified in imposing the above conditions to enable
the Official Liquidator to discharge his function properly
c under the supervision of the Company Court as the new
Section 529-A of the Companies Act confers upon a
Company Court the duty to ensure that the workmen's
dues are paid in priority to all other debts in accordance
with the provisions of the above section. The legislature
has amended the Companies Act in 1985 with a
D
social purpose viz. to protect the dues of the
workmen. If conditions are not imposed to protect the
right of the workmen there is every possibility that the
secured creditor may frustrate the above pari passu right
of the workmen."
E
Child Rights:

352. The Geneva declaration of 1924 on the rights of the
child adopted by the League of Nations on 26th September,
F 1924 provided that mankind owe to the child the best that it has
to give, declare and accept it as their duty. Thus, the child must
be given the means requisite for its normal development, both
materially and spirituality. A hungry child must be fed and further
recognised various child rights included that the delinquent
G child must be reclaimed.

353. The declaration of the right of the child adopted by
the United Nations on 20th November, 1959, provides that the
'child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs
special safeguards and care including his appropriate legal
H protection before as well as after birth.
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 991
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
354. The United Nations adopted Standard Minimum Rules A
for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules)
dated November 29, 1985. India is a signatory to the
Declaration and effectively participated in bringing the
Declaration into force.
B
355. The Rules guide the States to protect children's
rights and respect their needs during the development of
separate and particular system of juvenile justice. It is also in
favour of meeting the best interests of the child while
conducting any proceedings before any authority. If children are C
processed through the criminal justice system, it results in the
stigma of criminality and this in fact amplifies criminality of the
child. The Rules say that depriving a child/juvenile of his
liberty should be used as the last resort and that too, for
the shortest period. These Rules direct the Juvenile Justice
System to be fair and humane, emphasising the well-being of D
the child. Besides that, the importance of rehabilitation is also
stressed demanding necessary assistance in the form of
education, employment or shelter to be given to the child. The
Juvenile Justice Act 1986 was enacted in pursuance of the
Constitutional obligations cast under Article 39 clause (f) of the E
Constitution of India as well as of commitment to the aforesaid
International Conventions. The Convention postulates that State
Parties recognise that every child has the inherent right to life.
State Parties shall ensure that no child shall be subjected to
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or F
punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life
imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed
for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age.

356. Aims of juvenile justice provide that the juvenile G
Justice system shall emphasize the well-being of the juvenile
and shall ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders shall
always be in proportion to the circumstances of both the
offenders and the offence.

357. The said Rules further lays down that restrictions on H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A ·the personal liberty of the juvenile shall be imposed oniy after
careful consideration and shall be limited to the possible
minimum; and deprivation of personal liberty shall not be
imposed unless the juvenile is adjudicated of a serious act
involving violence against another person or of persistence in
B committing other serious offences and unless there is no other
appropriate response.

358. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of JJ Act
reveal that the Act is in consonance with the provisions under
Article 21 of the Constitution read with clause (f) of Article 39
C of the Constitution which provides that the State shall direct its
policy towards securing the children or give opportunities and
facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity and the childhood and youth are protected
against exploitation and against moral and material
D abandonment.

359. The children if come in contact with hardened
criminals in jail, it would have the effect of dwarfing the
development of the child, exposing him to baneful influences,
E coarsening his conscience and alienating him from the society.

(Vide: Sheela Barse & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR
1986 SCC 1773, Gaurav Jain vs. UO/ and Ors., AIR 1997 SC
3021; Amit Das vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2264; and
F Pratap Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr., AIR 2005 SC
2731)

360. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the J & J Act
is beneficial in nature i.e. socially oriented legislation. In case
the provisions are not complied with, the object of its enactment
G would be frustrated.

361. 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
H been constituted, shall "have power to deal exclusively" with
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 993
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

all proceedings under this Act relating to juvenile in conflict with A
law. Section 18(i) further provides that notwithstanding
contained in Section 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 B
thereof, particularly, Sections 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 make the
legisiative intent unambiguous that the JJ Act being a special
law would have override effect on any other statute for the time
being in force. Such a view stand further fortified in view of the
provisions of Sections 29 and 37 which provide for constitution c
of a Child Welfare Committee which provides for welfare of the·
children including rehabilitation.

362. Clause (n) of Section 2 of JJ Act defines 'offence'
which means offence punishable under any law for the time
being in force. So, it means that the said provision does not D
make any distinction between the offence punishable under IPC
or punishable under any local or special law.

THE TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1987: E
363. The Terrorist and "Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1985, was enacted in May, 1985, in the background of
escalation of terrorist activities in many parts of the country at
that time. It was a temporary statute having a life of two years.
F
However, on the basis of experience, it was felt that in order to
combat and cope with terrorist and disruptive activities
effectively, it was not only necessary to continue the said law
but also to strengthen it further.

364. The TADA 1987 provides for a deterrent measures G
to deal with the menace of such serious offences like "terrorism"
and "disruptive activities" and for matters connected therewith.
Therefore, the object of the Act is to deal with the security of
the State as well as the citizens.
H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 365. Section 25 of TADA has a non-obstante clause
providing for an overriding effect to the provisions over 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
B punishments provided by Sections 5 and 6 of TADA are to be
imposed notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other
law. Section 7 enables the State to confer the power of arrest
to certain persons. The Designated Court alone has the
jurisdiction to try offences under TADA as revealed under
c Section 9. Further, Section 20 of TADA provides that
irrespective of any provision of the Code or any other law, every
offence punishable under the TADA would be deemed to be a
cognizable offence.

366. Section 15 provides different special rules of
D evidence. Section 21 provides for presumption of guilt in
specified circumstances and it carves out an exception to the
general rule of criminal jurisprudence, though presumption is
rebuttable. (Vide: Kartar Singh (supra) and Sanjay Dutt (//)
(supra).
E
367. Sections 5 and 6 which are mandatory in nature
provide for imposition of minimum sentence to achieve the
objectives of the Act. Undoubtedly, TADA applies to deal with
an extraordinary situation and problems and extreme measures
F to be resorted when it is not possible for the State to tackle
the situation under the ordinary penal law. TADA provides for
a special machinery to combat the growing menace of terrorism
in the country specifically where accused cannot be checked
and controlled under the ordinary law of the land. Disruptive
G activities have been defined in clause 2(b) as the Act deals to
prevent the menace of terrorism. Terrorism means use of
violence when its most important result is not merely the
physical and mental damage to the victim but the prolonged
physiological effect it produces or has the potentiality of
H producing on the society as a whole. Terrorism is generally an
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 995
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
attempt to acquire or maintain power or controlled by A
intimidation and causing fear and helplessness in the minds of
people at large or any section thereof and it is a totally abnormal
phenomenon. Terrorism is distinguishable from other forms of
violence as in the former, the deliberate and systematic use of
coercive intimidation is used. {Vide: Hitendra Vishnu Thakur B
& Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 602)

368. Disruptive activities have been defined under Section
4(2) which means activities to disturb or intended to disturb
directly or indirectly the sovereignty and territorial integrity of C
•. India or to bring the cessation of any part of India from the
Union.

369. Section 3 provides for punishment for terrorist acts
and provides whoever with intention commits such acts shall
be punishable. Section 3 provides for punishment for terrorist D
acts and its submissions started with 'whoever' except clause
5 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 E
punishments and refers to any person. Therefore, the
phraseology used by legislature included every person
whoever he may be.

370. There is no justification whatsoever to restrict the
meaning of 'any person' and 'whoever' only to a major or non- F
juvenile as such an interpretation would have a potentiality to
defeat the object of TADA.

371. Section 12(1) of the J & J Act 2000 which is
analogous to Section 18(1) of the Act 1986 reads as under: G
"12. Bail of juvenile.-(1) When any person accused of a
bailable or nonbailable offence, and apparently a juvenile,
is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a
Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or in any other law for the? time being in force, be
released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the
supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any
fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released
B if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the
release is likely to bring him into association with any
known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or
psychological danger or that his release would defeat
the ends of justice." (Emphasis added)
c 372. Therefore, question does arise in case the JJ Act
itself provides for an exception under which even bail may not
be granted, we cannot accept the contention 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
D an exception not to grant relief to a juvenile under the JJ Act. it
cannot be held that it would prevail over TADA under all
possible circumstances.

373. Ends of justice has not been defined in any statute,
E however, this expression "ends of justice" has been used in
the Constitution of India under Article 139-A(2) that the Supreme
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. Article
F 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
G justice. Section 482 of the Code confers inherent power upon
the High Court to pass ail order as may be necessary to secure
the ends of justice. The words in Section 151 of CPC to
"secure the" seems to be more powerful then the term to meet
the ends of justice as the former is of unfathomable limits.

H 374. It has always been the subject matter of debate as
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 997
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASNAM, J.)

what does the words "the ends of justice" mean, for the reason A
"that it is one of those questions to which the resigned wisdom
applies that man cannot find a definitive answer, but can only
try to improve the question". (Vide: L. Vijay Kumar vs. Public
Prosecutor, A.P., AIR 1978 SC 1485).
B
375. In Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another, AIR 1996 SC 2005,
this Court observed that it is advisable to leave the power
undefined and uncatalogued, so that it remains elastic enough
to be moulded to suit .the given situation.
c
376. While dealing with such 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 comers of the statute. In fact,
it means preservation of proper balance between the D
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. (Vide: State Bank of
Patiala &. Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669; and E
Mahadev Govind Gharge & Ors. vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi,
Kamataka, (2011) 6 SCC 321)

377. Thus, the law has to be interpreted in such a manner
that it develops coherently in accordance with the principles, F
so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice.

378. Anti social operation of the appellants was not
designed against any individual rather proved to be a security
risk which imperiled a very large number of innocent persons G
and damage to the properties worth a very large amount.

379. Section 4(1) of JJ Act was added by amendment with
effect from 22.08.2006. In fact, this provision gives the over-
riding effect to this Act over other statutes. However, it reads H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A that the Act would override "anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force'. The question does arise as to
whether the statutory provisions of JJ Act would have an over-
riding effect over the provisions of TADA which left long back
and was admittedly not in force on 22.8.2006. Thus, the
B question does arise as what is the meaning of the law for the
time being in force. This Court has interpreted this phrase 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
c effect. (Vide: Thyssen Stahlunion GMBH vs. Steel Authority
of India Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3923; and Management of M.C.D.
vs. Prem Chand Gupta & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 454).

380. Thus, we do not think that the JJ Act would have an
over-riding effect on TADA which was not in existence on the
D date of commencement of the provisions of Section 1(4) of JJ
Act.

381. TADA, being a special act, meant to curb the menace
of terrorist and disruptive activities will have effect
E notwithstanding the fact that JJ Act is general and 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.

382. In Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 4 SCC
F 622, this Court upheld the convictions made by the Designated
Court in respect of accused persons who had killed several
police officers in combat. While affirming that the offence
committed was rightly charged under Section 3 of TADA, this
Court made detailed observations in respect of terrorist
G activities and held as follows:

"19. Terrorism is one of the manifestations of increased
lawlessness and cult of violence. Violence and crime
constitute a threat to an established order and are a revolt
H against a civilised and orderly society. "Terrorism" though
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 999
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
has not been separately defined under TADA there is A
sufficient indication in Section 3 itself to identify what it is
by an all inclusive and comprehensive phraseology.
adopted in engrafting the said provision, which serves the
double purpose as a definition and punishing provision nor
is it possible to give a precise definition of "terrorism· or B
lay down what constitutes "terrorism". It may be possible
to describe it as use of violence when its most important
result is not merely the physical and mental damage of the
victim but the prolonged psychological effect it produces
or has the potential of producing on the society as a whole. c
There may be death, injury, or destruction of property or
even deprivation of individual liberty in the process but the
extent and reach of the intended terrorist activity travels
beyond the effect of an ordinary crime capable of being
punished under the ordinary penal law of the land and its D
main objective is to overawe the Government or disturb the
harmony of the society or "terrorise" people and the society
and not only those directly assaulted, with a view to disturb
the even tempo, peace and tranquility of the society and
create a sense of fear and insecurity."
E
TADA, thus, being an act enacted for special purposes,
as stated above, will have precedence over any other act.

383. Applying the above to the facts of the present case,
it is clear that the appellant from his conduct referred to above F
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 awarded
him lesser punishment when the co-accused who accompanied G
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.

Conclusion:
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20~J] 15 S.C.R.

A 384. Thus, from the reading of the entire evidence placed
by the prosecution, it is established beyond doubt that:

(i) The appellant took oath that he will take revenge
against Hindus;

B (ii) The appellant received training in handling of arms
and explosives at Sandheri and Borghat;

(iii) He attended conspiratorial meeting at the
residence of Babloo and Mobina;
c (iv) He participated in filling of ROX and iron scraps in
vehicles in the intervening night of 11 /12.03.1993
at Al·Hussaini Building;

(v) He along with other co-accused lobbed hand-
D grenades at Mahirn Fishermen's colony;

(vi) He possessed 17 hand-grenades which were
concealed in the over-head water tank of Room No.
27, Chawl No. 22, Transit Camp, Sandra (E),
E Bombay which were recovered at his instance.

Upon a reading of the entire evidence, we hold that all the
charges framed against him stand proved beyond any doubt.

Sentence:
F
385. The appellant was given full opportunity to defend
himself on the question. of quantum of sentence. The appellant
filed statement dated 07.12.2006 on the quantum of sentence
which is Exhibit 3051. The appellant prayed that the following
G factors, amongst others, may be considered while determining
his sentence:

(i) His brothers were residing separately after
marriage and his mother and two younger brothers
were residing with him
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1001
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

(ii) At the time of his arrest, he was 17 years and 3 A
months old.

(iii) He was the .sole bread winner of the family. He was
working in a beef shop.

(iv) His father was 70 years old and also suffered with B
diabetes and high blood pressure.

(v) His mother was 60 years old.

(vi) He had been in custody for about 13 and a half c
years

(vii) He was from a poor family and they could not pay
the heavy amount of fine

386. It is seen from the judgment that all the above said D
factors have been duly considered by the Designated Court
while determining on the question of sentence. It was observed:

"1215) Thus considering gruesome results likely to be
ensued by commission of acts arid in fact having ensued
E
and still A-32, 36, 39 & 43 without any rhyme or justification
or.even without any sort of reason plausible or otherwise,
committing such acts reveal that each of them was
coveted member of conspiracy, of which members had
become blind for working out heinous plans hatched by
them i.e. the one in which there existed no regard to the F
life of any person, not even remotely connected with any
of them. Needless to add that existence of such persons
would be eminently dangerous for the society of law-
abidjng persons. It is difficult to perceive that such persons
can be reformed by any type of punishment. However, as G
stated earlier having due regard to age of A-43 and the
same to some extent denoting of there being some chance
of reforming him necessary concession will be required to
be given to him while awarding the sentence. Thus
considering the gravity of acts committed by others i.e. A- H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A 32, 36 & 39 and still granting him only the sentence of life
by ignoring that the acts committed by him has not
transcended more than the results ensued due the grace
of God and not because of themselves were not having
such an intent; would amount to ignoring potential danger
B to the society from existence of such a person. Needless
to add any amount of life sentence and/or fine would be
too inadequate for punishing element of criminality
entertained by such accused person and so also the same
would be too inadequate to assure the society at large that
c the arms of law would be well protecting it. All the said
factors clearly warrant levying of extreme penalty for such
persons.

1216) At any rate, the aforesaid discussion being mainly
for the offence of conspiracy and so also the commission
D of terrorist acts by them and during the same considering
all the factors relevant to acts a conclusion has been flown
that considering the repetition of commission of such acts
by each of them, the same would warrant according
extreme penalty as prescribed for relevant offence
E excepting for A-43 for whom the same will be required to
be given on some what lower pedestal. However, still while
awarding the sentence basic principle on which this court
has so far progressed that awarding the same on the basis
of criminality entertained by concerned accused while
F committing the act will be required to be borne in mind
while prescribing punishment for every distinct offence
committed by each of them. The same is necessary that
as each of them had committed terrorist acts only one
occasion i.e. lobbing hand grenades at Fishermen Colony.
G Hence the punishment would be required to be awarded
for other offences committed by each of them on the same
principles on which the same has been awarded to other
accused. Since while sentencing the accused persons
found guilty for offence under section 5 of TADA no
H sentence has been awarded to accused also found guilty
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1003
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

for commission of offences under Arms Act for the same A
act, the same criteria will be required to be followed for
A-43 who has been found guilty for commission for such
offences."

387. All the materials placed show that the appellant has
8
knowingly and willingly participated at various stages of the
conspiracy. The appellant took training in handling of arms and
ammunitions. and explosives at Sandheri, attended
conspiratorial meetings, kept hand grenades in his possession,
actively participated in the preparation of vehicle bombs which C
were later planted at various locations resulting in the death of
hundreds of people and injuries tc many others and went to the
Fishermen's Colony at Mahim and threw hand grenades.
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 place, D
thereby, furthering the object of such a heinous conspiracy.

388. In view of the above discussion, we confirm the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Designated Court,
consequently, the appeals are dismissed. E

Criminal Appeal No. 924 of 2008
Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57) ... Appellant(s)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through .... Respondent(s) F
Superintendent of Police, CBI (STF),
Mumbai
********
389. Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned counsel appeared for the G
appellant (A-57) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel
duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the
respondent.
......
390. The present appeal is directed against the final
H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
06.10.2006 and 07.06.2007 respectively, whereby the
appellant (A-57) 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.
B No.1 /1993.

Charges:

391. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the co-conspirators including the appellant. The relevant
C 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
D 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
E
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
F 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
G 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,
H ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1005
MAHARASHTRA, THR STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till A
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 ahd explosives to commit · B
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 c
conspiracy to committerrorist acts, to-do and commitany
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 0
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 E
which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injt,Jred and
property worth about Rs.27 crores destroyed, and
attempted to cause bomb explosions at Nai11aum 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 F
·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), G
(1B)(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." H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A In addition to the above-said principal charge of
conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following
counts:

.At head Secondly; The accused committed an offence
punishable under section 3(3) of TADA by committing the
B
following overt acts:

(a) He participated in the landing and transportation of
arms, ammunitions and explosives at Shekhadi on
03.02.1993 and 07.02.1993;
c
(b) He participated in weapons training at Borghat and
Sandheri District Raigarh;

(c) He attended conspiratorial meetings at the house
of Nasir Ahmed Anwar Sheikh @ Babloo (AA) and
D Ms. Mobina @ Baya Moosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96);

(d) He participated in the preparation of vehicle bombs
by filling and loading explosives like ROX with time
device detonators in the night intervening 11/
E 12.03.1993;

(e) He got Gui Mohmed @ Gullu Noor Mohammed
Shaikh (A-77) into the conspiracy; and

(f) He along with other co-accused did reconnaissance
F of the BMC building and stock exchange building
which were marked as targets for planting bombs.

At head thirdly; The appellant accompanied other
conspirators in a red coloured Maruti Van No. MFC 1972
G loaded with arms, ammunition, hand grenades and
explosives with an intent to conduct terrorist acts at BMC
building and other places and abandoned the same near
the gate of Siemens factory and thereby committed an
offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1007
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
At head fourthly; The appellant was in illegal possession A
of 7 AK-56 rifles, 14 magazines, 4 hand grenades and 2
detonators, unauthorisedly in notified area of Greater
Bombay and thereby committed an offence under Section
5 of TADA;
8
At head fifthly; The appellant, by possessing the
aforesaid arms and ammunitions, contravened the
provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, Explosives Act, 1884,
Explosives Rules, 1983 and The Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 and thereby committed an office under Section C
6 of TADA.

392. The Designated Judge found the appellant guilty on
all the aforesaid charges. 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
consplracy read with the offences described at head firstly and
sentenced to RI for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 6 months for the commission E
of offence under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 1208 of
IPC. (charge firstly)

(ii) The appellant has been convicted for commission of
offence under section 3(3) of TADA for commission of acts F
mentioned at head secondly and sentenced to RI for 14 years
alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo
.RI for 6 months. (charge secondly)

(iii) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
RI for 10 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to G
further undergo RI for a period of 6. months under Section 3(3)
of TADA. (charge thirdly)

(iv) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A RI for 7 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to
further undergo RI for a period of 6 months under Section 5 of
TADA. (charge fourthly)

(v) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to RI
for 9 years alongwith a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to further
8
undergo RI for a period of 1 year under Section 6 of TADA
(charge fifthly).

Evidence

c 393. The evidence against the appellant (A-57) is in the
form of:-

(i) his own confession;

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
o accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and

(iv) documentary evidence.

E 394. Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-accused submitted that though confession under
TADA is admissible, yet it is a very weak piece of evidence
since the police extract confessions by using third degree
methods. He also submitted that unless the person who is
F confessing shows that he is in express remorse or sadness or
if there is a total emotional break down and he is ready to face
any consequence to tell the truth, it cannot be called or regarded
as a confession in law. He further pointed out that unless a
confession is voluntary, it cannot be relied upon. He also
G contended that as per the decision of the Constitution Bench
of this Court in Kartar Singh (supra), one cannot start with the
confession of co-accused but it must be established based
upon other evidence.

H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1009
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
395. Inasmuch as similar contentions have been A
elaborately dealt with by us in earlier paragraphs, applying and
reiterating the same principles, we are not once again repeating
the same.

Confessional statement of Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57) B

396. The involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy is
evident from his own confession recorded under Section 15 of
TADA on 19.04.1993 (12:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi
(PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A brief summary
of the said confession is as follows: C

(i) At the relevant time, he was 28 years old and was a
resident of Bahrampada, Bandra East and was working as a
moulder in Central Railway Workshop.

(ii) He was a childhood friend of Javed Chikna and they D
lived in the same colony. He also got acquainted with Bashir
Ahmed Usman Gani Khairulla (A-13), Mohammed Usman Jan .
Khan (PW-2), Sardar Shawali Khan (A~54), Anwar, Asgar
Yusuf Mukadam (A-10) and Mohammed Rafiq @ Rafiq Madi
Musa Biyariwala (A-46), who were the friends of Javed Chikna. E

(iii) He along with A-13, PW-2, A-54, Anwar, A-10 and A-
46 was introduced to Tiger Memon by Javed Chikna.

(iv) He also got acquainted with other co-accused at
F
Tiger's office.

(v) He, along with Javed Chikna and other co-accused,
travelled to Ajmer in July-August along with 3 Pakistani
nationals, out of whom, 2 got down 200 kms before Ajmer.
G
(vi) After reaching Ajmer, he told Javed Chikna about the
Pakistani nationals.

(vii) At that time, A-57 and others guessed that Tiger and

H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Javed Chikna were doing some illegal work along with
Pakistani Nationals.

(viii) He even after that continued to meet with Javed
Chikna and his friends.
B (ix) During the riots, he was with the rioters.

(x) He introduced Gui Mohammed @ Gullu Noor
Mohammed Shaikh (A-77) to Javed Chikna who, in turn,
introduced A-77 to Tiger Memon.
c
(xi) On 08/09.02.1993, he along with other conspirators
and Tiger Memon drove towards Goa Highway.

(xii) He was standing with a rifle while Tiger and other
accused persons came with goods in a tempo. The appellant
D also sat on the goods in the tempo.

(xiii) They all slept at the Tower that night.

(xiv) In the appellant's presence, Tiger Memon opened a
E hanging bag from the tempo which contained small bullets for
pistol.

(xv) He dropped Javed at the Airport on 12.03.1993, and
thereafter, he left for Dubai.

F (xvi) On 09.03.1993, he along with Javed, PW-2 and other
conspirators participated in the survey of BMC building as a
prospective target.

(xvii) Javed told the appellant about a meeting in Bandra
on 09.03.1993. He attended the said meeting.
G
(xviii) Tiger spoke about taking revenge and gave a
provoking lecture and also gave Rs. 5,000/- to everyone present
there.

H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 1011
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(xix) The appellant again reached the residence of llger A
Memon.

(xx) Javed told the appellant that his group has to fire
Machine Guns at people sitting in the BMC office and the Shiv
Sena office and the role of the appellant was to stand at the B
door with a hand grenade and to keep a vigil. The appellant
denied the same but agreed to sit with the driver.

(xxi) The appellant came down in the garage and noticed
other conspirators loading ROX in vehicles on the night of
11.03.1993. c
(xxii) llger left later that night.

(xxiii) The appellant also assisted in filling ROX in the
vehicles by loading iron pieces.
D
(xxiv) He also described the scene at Al-Hussaini building
on 12.03.1993 and also that rifles were packed in the goni.

(xxv) The appellant also kept packets of black soap in the
dickey of red coloured Maruti car. E

(xxvi) The appellant and Mohammed Mein Faridulla
Qureshi (A-43) kept the rifles and cassettes in Maruti car no.
MFC 1972 on 12.03.1993.

(xxvii) Thereafter, the appellant along with other F
conspirators left in the red Maruti Van for BMC office and the
plan got cancelled because they did not have bullets.

(xxviii) A blast occurred near the passport office and
because of the same the glass of Maruti car in which the G
appellant and other conspirators were sitting was blown off.
They parked the car in a lane and hired a taxi.

(xxix) The appellant then met Javed who told him that
explosions have happened and gave him Rs. 5,000/-and asked
him to go to Ahmadnagar. H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 397. A perusal of the confession of the appellant shows
that he guarded the area at the time when landing of arms,
ammunition and explosives took place at Shekhadi. He filled
iron scraps and RDX in vehicles in the intervening night of 11/
12.03.1993. He attended conspiratorial meetings and also
B conducted reconnaissance of the B.M.C. building and on the
fateful· day he travelled in a Maruti Van loaded with arms,
ammunitions, hand grenades and explosives with intent to
conduct terrorist acts at BMC building and other places and
abandoned the same near the gate of Siemens factory.

C Confessional Statements of co-accused:

398. As regards the confessional statements of co-
accused, Mr. Aabads Panda again while relying on the
judgments of this Court in Kartar Singh (supra) and Navjot
D Sandhu (supra) contended that the law in Nalini's case (supra)
and other subsequent judgments relying on Nalini's judgment
do not lay down the correct law as they have not appreciated
Kartar Singh's case in its proper perspective, consequently, the
confession of co-accused cannot be pressed into service. The
E same objection and the dictum laid down in Kartar Singh's case
and Navjot Sandhu's case as well as Nalini's case and
subsequent judgments have been considered by this Court in
the earlier part of our judgment, hence, there is no need to
analyse the same once again.
F 399. 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
G said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant (A-57)
are summarized hereinbelow:

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Farooq Mohd. Yusuf
Pawale (A-16)
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1013
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Confessional statement of A-16 under section 15 ofTADA A
has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (16:30 hrs.) and 22.05.1993
(16:45 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the then DCP,
Zone-VIII, Bombay. A perusal of his confessional statement
corroborates the statement of the appellant to the effect that he
travelled to Shekhadi along with co-accused and that he was B
given a rifle by Tiger Memon to keep a guard at the coast while
landing was taking place, whereafter, he along with others went
to the Tower with the landed goods il'.I the Tempo and slept at
the Tower.

Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @ C
· Na,.sir Dhakla (A-64)

Confessional statement of A-64 under section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 22.01.1995 and 24.01.1995 by Shri HC
Singh (PW-474), the then Superintendent of Police, CBl/SPE/ D
STF, New Delhi. A-64, in his confessional statement, stated as
under

(i) He stated that he had seen the appellant at the
reception of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) and
E
Ayub Memon, brothers of Tiger Memon.

(ii) The appellant was present at Hotel Big Splash,
Alibaug in the first week of February along with
Javed Chikna and other conspirators.
F
(iii) All the conspirators went to Shekhadi beach on the
next day.

(iv) Tiger Memon and Javed Chikna brought around 25-
30 bags.
G
(v) The appellant boarded the tempo containing arms
which had been unloaded at the landing and went
to Waghani Tower.

H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (vi) The appellant was present at the Udupi Hotel
enroute to Shekhadi along with other conspirators.

Confessional Statement of Parvez Mohammed Parvez
Zulfikar Qureshi (A-100)
B 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. The confession of A-100 with
reference to the appellant reveals as under:
c
(i) On 07/08/09.02.1993, A-100 met Javed Chikna
near Bharat Motor Training School and also met the
appellant (A-57) there along with other conspirators.
A-100 knew the appellant as being a close friend
D of Javed Chikna.

(ii) The appellant was standing at Bharat Motor
Training School. A-100 knew the appellant as he
was the friend of Javed Chikna and he had seen
the appellant several times with him.
E
(iii) After sometime, the appellant sat in a jeep on the
instructions of Javed Chikna.

(iv) The appellant and other conspirators went to
Raigad District in a jeep driven by Yakub Yeda.
F
(v) The appellant stood at the sea shore with a rifle
when the landing was to take place.

(vi) The appellant was in the same car as of A-100 on
G his way back to Bombay after landing.

(vii) The appellant was present in the flat of Tiger on
11. 03. 1993.

(viii) The appellant was standing near the car on
H
•

ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1015
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

12.03.1993 in which A-100 along with the appellant A
and other conspirators were supposed to go.

Confessional Statement of Gui Mohd. @ Gullu Noor
Mohd. Shaikh (A-77)

Confessional statement of A-77 has been recorded on B
17.04.1993 (14:10 hrs.) and 19.04.1993 (18:00 hrs.) by Shri
Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay.
A brief summary of the confession of A-77 with reference to
the appellant is as under:
c
(i) A-77 stated that the appellant is his friend for the
last two years and was also his neighbour. The
appellant introduced him to Bashir.

(ii) On 04/05.02.1993, the appellant and A-13 asked
0
A-77 if he had a passport and told that we had to
go to Dubai and Pakistan.

(iii) A-77 replied in affirmative and then the appellant
and Bashir took him to Mahim where he met Javed
Chikna. E

(iv) Thereafter, they went to a place near the Mahim
Police Station where they met a bearded man who
on seeing the passport asked if A-77 was willing
to do the 'daring worl<. F

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 20.05.1993 G
(11 :30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-98 corroborates
with the fact that the appellant participated in the survey of BMC
office as a prospective target and had accompanied Javed
H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Chikna, Babloo, Bashir and him (A-98) when Javed explained
the entire plan about how to enter from the front gate and
reaching the Shiv Sena and BJP offices and to fire and then
the way to exit from the back door.

B Confessional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani
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
C DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-13 corroborates
the fact that the appellant was present at the house of Tiger in
the night intervening 11/12.03.1993 along with other
conspirators and also on 12.03.1993.

D 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),
E the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-32
corroborates the fact that the appellant was present at the
house of Tiger in the night intervening 11/12 . 03.1993 along with
other conspirators and also on 12.03.1993 and left with the
conspirators at about 2:30 pm.
F
Confessional Statement of Abdul Khan @ Yakub Khan
Akhtar Khan (A-36)

Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and 21.05.1993
G (18:20 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-36 corroborates
the fact that the appellant was present at Al-Hussaini on
12.03.1993 along with PW-2, A-13 and others.

H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1017
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBf.I [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Yusuf A
Shaikh (A-23)

Confessional statement of A-23 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (10:00 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), 8
the then DCP. Zone Ill, Bombay. A brief summary of the
confession of A-23 with reference to the appellant is as under:-

(i) The appellant attended the meeting at a flaf in
Sandra alongwith other conspirators including Tiger
Memon where plans were discussed. C

(ii) The appellant was present in the house of Tiger on
11.03.1993. -

400. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the
0
above accused, viz., A-16, A-64, A-100, A-77, A-98, A-13, A-
32, A-36, ..and A-23 clearly establish the fact that it corroborate
with the confessional statement of the appellant (A-57). All these
materials clearly establish that the appellant committed the
following overt acts:-
E
(i) He participated in the landing and transportation of
arms and ammunitions and explosives at Shekhadi
on 03.02.1993 and 07.02.1993 and also in the
transportation of the same to the Tower;
F.
(ii) He attended conspiratorial meeting;

(iii) He participated in the preparation of vehicle bombs
by filling and loading explosives like RDX with time
device detonators in the night intervening 11/
12.03.1993; G

(iv) The appellant was actively involved in the
conspiracy as he was introducing new members in
the conspiracy.
H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A (v) He got A-77 into the conspiracy;

(vi) He along with other co-accused did reconnaissance
of the BMC building and the Stock Exchange
Building which were marked as prospective targets
for planting bombs.
B
(vii) The appellant, on the fateful day, travelled in a
Maruti Van loaded with arms, ammunitions, hand
grenades and explosives with intent to conduct
terrorist acts at BMC building and other places and
c abandoned the same near the gate of Siemens
factory.

(viii) The appellant was an important member of the
team of conspirators as he was also aware that
D people were sent to Dubai and Pakistan by Tiger
Memon for daring works

Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

401. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
E 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 Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

F The relevant material in his evidence is as follows:-

(i) He stated that he knew the appellant.

(ii) He identified the appellant before the Court.
G (iii) The appellant came to Hotel Persian Darbar on
10.02.1993 along with other conspirators after the
landing of arms and explosives at Shekhadi.

(iv) Tiger instructed the appellant to go back to
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1019
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Bombay. A
(v) On 11.03.1993, at Al-Hussaini Building, Tiger
instructed the appellant, Javed Chikna and others
to go to BMC building which had been identified as
a target.
B
(vi) On 12.03.1993, the appellant was present in the flat
of Tiger.

(vii) On 12.03.1993, the appellant was in the same
group as of PW-2 and Javed Chikna. c
(viii) The appellant, PW-2, Javed Chikna, Bashir Khan
and Babloo left in a Maruti Van loaded with AK-56
rifles, detonators, hand grenades and magazines
for BMC building on 12.03.1993.
D
(ix) On 12.03.1993, Javed Chikna gave Rs. 5,000/- to
the appellant and asked him to leave Bombay for
Ahamednagar.

(x) The appellant was present at Al-Hussaini on
E
12.03~ 1993 and was given money by Javed Chikna

(xi) The appellant threw the detonator out of the Maruti
Van on the road cin 12.03.1993 and when their Van
got damaged due to the blast, they got scared and
parked the Van and left in a taxi. F

402. It was contended on behalf of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the approver has not specifically named the
appellant and he has not been identified by him. A perusal of
the aforesaid deposition clearly establishes that the appellant G
has been specifically named and identified by PW-2-the
Approver.

403. Further, it has also been contended that the approver
has not named the appellant amongst the people who were
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A filling the explosives in the vehicles in the garage of Al-Hussaini
building in the night intervening 11/12.03.1993. The confession
of the appellant himself establishes his involvement in the
incident of filling and mere omission on the part of the Approver
in not naming the appellant would not be a reason to disbelieve
8 the confessional statement of the appellant.

Deposition of Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193)

PW-193, the· then Deputy Commissioner of Police
deposed as a witness before the Court as follows:
c
(i) He recollected that he had recorded the confession
of the appellant (A-57).

(ii) He asked the questions in Hindi language since the
appellant (A-57) spoke in Hindi. He (PW-193) and
D A-57 were the only persons in the room where
confession was recorded.

(iii) The appellant was ready to make a voluntary
confession.
E (iv) The appellant was told that his confession can be
used as evidence against him.

(v) He recognized the confession in the court and other
related documents.
F
(vi) In the cross-examination, he stated that all
precautions were taken for recording the
confession and the same was sent to the CMM.

(vii) He agreed that he did not obtain the initials of A-
G 57 at certain places in the confession.

This deposition establishes that the confession of the
appellant was recorded with full compliance of the provisions
of TADA. It also establishes that the confession was voluntary.
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZA!< MEMON v. STATE OF 1021
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Deposition of Madhav Shivaji Rao Surve (PW-572) A

PW-572 was the person who arranged for the TIP of the
appellant. He deposed before the Court for the same as under:

(i) He arranged the TIP in respect of A-57 and other
co-accused who were in judicial custody. B

(ii) He wrote a letter to Shri Moreshwar Thakur (PW-
469), Special Executive Magistrate, for conducting
the TIP on 23.09.1993 at Arthur Road prison.

(iii) He organized the TIP at Arthur Road prison on
c
• 29.03.1993 and after that handed over the
memorandum panchnama to Shri Chavan, Deputy
Superintendent of Police.

Deposition of Moreshwar Gopal Thakur (PW-469) D
PW 469, Special Executive Magistrate, conducted the TIP
on 23.09.1993 at Central Jail, Arthur Road for the identification
of the appellant. The witnesses, viz., Rajaram Ramchandra
Kadam (PW-106) and Tukaram Babu Nagaonkar (PW-176) E .
identified the appellant as the person who took training in
handling of arms and ammunitions at Chinchhemal. Further,
Pandurang Bandu Jadhav and Balya Ratna Jadhav also
identified the appellant as the person who along with other co-
accused alighted from a Jeep, took the belongings and went F
towards Chinchechamal. His deposition reveals as under:

(i) He conducted a TIP on 23.09.1993 at the Arthur
Road Jail after receiving a letter from PW-572.

(ii) He, however, did not remember the names of panch G
witnesses, suspects or identifying witnesses.

(iii) He identified the memorandum parade panchnama
prepared on 23.09.1993, before the Court.

H-
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A Deposition of Divakar Ramakwal Mishra (PW 415)

PW-415 was the Security Guard on duty at the Siemens
Factory on 12.03.1993. He deposed as follows:-

(i) He spotted a Maruti van parked outside the
B Siemens factory. He informed the Police which
came after one hour at the spot.

(ii) He was unable to identify the accused persons in
TIP conducted on 04.04.1993 since he had not
c seen any of them. He denied having identified A-
57.

Deposition of GulabraoTatojirao Kadam (PW 461)

At the relevant time, PW-461 was a SEM and conducted
D TIP on 04.04.1993 at Sacred Hearts School, Worli. Sabhajeet
Singh and Diwakar Mishra identified the appellant to be the
person who left one Maruti Van No. 14 FC-1972 near the
Company on 12.03.1993. Further, the witnesses, viz., Jagat
Singh Veer Bahadur Singh and Bhadur Jagat Singh identified
E the appellant to be the person who was loading the goods in
the vehicles in the night intervening 11 /12.03.1993 at Al-
Hussaini building.

Deposition of Narayan D. More (PW 46)
F PW 46, a panch witness, deposed regarding the recovery
of the Maruti Van outside the Siemens Factory. His deposition
reveals as under:

(i) He was an electronic goods mechanic;
G
(ii) He was the panch witness to the recovery from the
Maruti Van at Siemens factory on 12.03.1993.

(iii) He noticed 2 plastic bags in the Van. One bag was
opened and was found to contain 7 rifles. The
H second bag contained 4 bombs and 14
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 1023
MAHARASHTRA, THR. S1F, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
magazines. A

(iv) He also noticed two white bags in the front row of
the Van and a bag of dates, water bottles etc.

(v) Exhibit 190 is the spot panchnama prepared by the
police documenting recoveries from the Maruti Van. B

Deposition of Dinesh Parshuram Kadam (PW 371)

PW-371 was a Detection Officer at the Worli Police
Station when the blasts took place. His deposition reveals that: C

(i) After receiving information, he went to Siemens
factory on 12.03.1993 and saw a Maruti Van
bearing number MFG 1972.

(ii) · 2 black bags were found from the Van containing 0
7 AK-56 rifles, 4 hand grenades, 14 magazines
and Xerox copies of the registration papers of the
Van bearing registration no .. MFG 1972.

(iii) He, thereafter, lodged an FIR at Worli Police
station. E

(iv) The registration of Van revealed that the van was
in the name of Rubina Memon residing at Al-
Hussaini ,building.
F
His statement corroborates with the statement of the above
· mentioned witnesses. It is thus established that the appellant
had gone to the Siemens ~actory on 12.03.1993 in the maroon
coloured Maruti Van bearing no. MFG 1972. The identification
of the appellant as the person who was present in the Maruti
Van around the time of the incident by eye witnesses further G
establishes his involvement in the conspiracy. The fact, as
revealed in his confession, that he was on his way to the
Bombay Municipal Corporation building to kill people also

H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A stands proved. The FIR (Exhibit 1315) corroborates the
deposition of PW-371. ·

Deposition of Nandkumar Anant Chaugule (PW 444)

At the relevant time, PW-444 was the In-charge, Senior
B Inspector of Police, Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad
(BODS) of CID-Intelligence, Bombay. He stated that:

(i) He was an officer of the BODS. He received
information of a suspicious Maruti Van behind
c Siemens Company at Worli.

(ii) By using a rope and a hook, he opened the door
of the Van and found 2 black bags containing AK-
56 rifles, 4 hand grenades and magazines.

D 404. With regard to the above statements of various
witnesses on the side of the prosecution, learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that there is no specific evidence about
the appellant's taking part in any training at Sanderi or Borghat
or participating in landing and transportation of arms and
E ammunitions and explosives at Borghat and Shekhadi on 3rd
and 7th of February, 1993. According to him, the eye witnesses
were silent regarding the appellant's participation in landing
and transportation of arms and ammunitions which landed at
Shekhadi on 03/04.02.1993 and, as such, there is no material
F on record in the form of eye witnesses' testimony. Likewise,
there is no mention by any of the persons who attended the·
meeting at the residence of Shakeel about the appellant having
participated in the said meeting, hence, the prosecution case
has not been substantiated. He further pointed out that the
approver's testimony is silent about the presence of the
G appellant in the meeting at the residence of Mobina and Babloo
and with respect to filling of RDX in the vehicles .•

405. The abovesaid evidence establish that the appellant
(A-57) was a member of the conspiracy which resulted in the
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF . 1025
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
blasts and acts which took place in Bombay on 12.03.1993. A
He played an active role in the conspiracy. The involvement of
the appellant in various aspects of the conspiracy can be
summarized below:

(i) The landing of arms and ammunitions and B
explosives at Shekhadi;

(ii) The transportation of arms and ammunitions and
explosives which had landed at Shekhadi;

(iii) He took training in handling weapons and c
explosives at Sandheri;

(iv) He participated in the survey/reconnaissance of the
Bombay Municipal Corporation building conducted
on 09.03.1993;
D
(v) He attended conspiratorial meetings that took
place to further the common motives of the
conspirators and to decide the plan of action to
meet the ends of the conspiracy;
E
406. It is thus established that the appellant played a
significant role in the conspiracy and knew about the intention
of the conspirators well before the incidents .took place. The
appellant shared the motive and the intention along with the
other conspirators and was committed to achieve the ultimate
F
goal of the conspiracy.

Sentence:

407. According to the prosecution, the appellant was given
full opportunity to defend himself on the question of quantum of G
sentence. His statement was recorded on 10..10.2006 in which
he prayed that the following factors, amongst others, may be
considered while determining his sentence:

(i) He had been in custody for 13 years since his
H
arrest in March, 1993;
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (ii) After the demolition of the Babri Masjid, riots had
ensued and he shifted to his father's residence;

(iii) Thereafter, the locality of Behrampada was
attacked and houses were burnt and because of
the same, his wife and children had to shift to
B
Alunednagar;

(iv) After his savings were exhausted, he came to
Bombay on 9th March, 1993 for taking money from
his friend Javed Chikna;
c
(v) He worked with Javed Chikna and could not run
away as he needed money:

(vi) He had confessed before the police and told them
about everything which he had seen;
D
(vii) The main advocate, defending him in the case, left
at a crucial juncture;

(viii) He only has his wife and children, who are totally
E dependent on him.

408. A perusal of the judgment of the Designated Court
shows that all the above factors have been duly considered by
the Designated Judge. As rightly pointed out by the
prosecution, the aforesaid contentions are devoid of any merit
F having regard to the fact that the appellant had the knowledge
that the smuggled goods had sufficient potential for
•. commission of terrorist acts, owing to the fact that he had also
acquired training in handling sophisticated arms and
ammunitions. Further, it was contended that the appellant was
G forced by circumstances to work with Javed Chikna, is not
tenable as despite being needy and requiring money at the time
of first landing, he got to know that the first landing was of arms
and ammunitions and explosives which were capable of
causing mass destruction, he chose to remain silent instead
H of approaching the police or taking recourse to law. Despite
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 1027
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

all this, he participated in the second landing at Shekhadi, and A
moreover, he went to Sandheri and took training in handling of
arms, ammunition and explosives.

409. The appellant attended crucial conspiratorial
meetings also. On the night of 11 /12.03.1993, he participated B
in the filling of ROX in vehicles for the preparation of vehicle
bombs. He also introduced Gui Mohmed (A-77) in the
conspiracy and got him recruited for training in handling of arms
and ammunitions and explosives at Pakistan. The appellant
also undertook reconnaissance of the B.M.C. building and the C
Stock Exchange building along with A-44, PW-2, Javed Chikna
and Tiger Memon, which were marked as targets for planting
bombs.

410. The appellant's guilt is further established by the fact
revealed in his confession that after the blasts, he left Bombay D
and went to Ahmednagar. This establishes that he knew that
whatever the conspirators had done was wrong and contrary
to law. Thus, his claim that he disassociated himself at the time
of the first landing at Shekhadi has not been made out in the
light of other evidence on record. In fact, he was engaged in E
the commission of acts furthering the object of such a heinous
conspiracy.

411. The appellant participated in the acts mentioned
above willingly and with complete knowledge. He knew that the
F
arms and ammunitions, ROX and hand grenades, which were
smuggled into India at Shekhadi would be used for committing
terrorist acts. It is clearly established from his confession that
Tiger Memon had told his associates that the smuggled arms
were· to be used against Hindus to take revenge for the
demolition of Babri Masjid and that they would be used for G
causing blasts in Bombay.

412. In the light of the above, we hold that the conviction
and sentence awarded by the Designated Court to the
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A appellant is justified and there is no ground for interference.
Consequently, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 933-936 of 2008
Niyaz Mohammed @ Aslam Iqbal
B Ahmed Shaikh (A-98)
..... Appellant(s)
vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through .... Respondent(s)
CBl-STF, Mumbai
c **********

413. Mr. Aabad Ponda, learned counsel for the appellant
(A-98) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly
assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent-
D CBI.

414. The abovesaid appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
03.10.2006 and 01.06.2007 respectively, whereby the
appellant {A-98) has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous
E 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.

Charges:
F
415. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-98). The
relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder:

"During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993
G 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 Iha! you all agreed
H to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1029
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law A
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 B
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 ~ssential to the life of the community, and to c
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
D
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
E
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 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 G
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 H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A · 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E counts:

At head Secondly:-

(a) He visited Pakistan along with his co-conspirators
via Dubai and took training in handling of arms and
F
ammunitions and explosives with the object of
committing terrorist acts;

(b) He attended the conspiratorial meetings at the
residence of Nazir Ahmed Anwar Shaikh @ Babloo
G and Mobina Bayamoosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) ; and

(c) He did reconnaissance of BMC Building along with
his co-conspirators viz., Tiger Memon, Mohd.
Usman Jan Khan, Javed Chikna, Shaikh Ali for
selecting targets in order to plant bombs for the
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1031
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

purpose of committing terrorist acts. A

416. The charges mentioned above were proved against
the appellant (A-98). The appellant has been convicted and
sentenced for the above said charges as under:

Conviction and Sentence: B

(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. 25,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge firstly) c
(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 fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in
default, to further undergo RI for 6 months. (charge secondly)
0
Evidence

417. The evidence against the appellant (A-98) is in the
form of:-

(i) his own confession; E

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and
F
(iv) documentary evidence.

Confessional statement of Niyaz Mohammed @ Aslam
Iqbal Ahmed Shaikh (A-98)
G
418. The prosecution submitted that the involvement of the
appellant in the conspiracy is evident from his own confession
recorded under Section 15 of TADA on 17.05.1993 (14:30 hrs.)
and 20.05.1993 (11 :30 hrs~ by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-
193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of the
H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 15 S.C.R.

A appellant is summarized below:-

(i) His house was damaged during riots and he shifted
to Hakim building.

(ii) At the new residence, he was introduced by Sajid
B to a person called Jabir, who asked him about his
interest to go to Dubai. On expressing his desire
for the same, the appellant was asked for his
passport by Jabir.

c (iii) Thereafter, Jabir made all the arrangements for his
travel and on 08.02.1993, he went to Dubai
alongwith Firoz @ Akram Amani Malik (A-39). He
was told that his visa would be given at Dubai and
a person will receive them at the Airport.
D (iv) He along with A-39 was received by Ayub Memon
(AA) who took them to the residence of Tahir Bhai
(AA) where Nasim Ashraf Shaikh Ali Barmare (A-
49) was already present.

E (v) From Dubai, he went to Pakistan along with A-49
and A-39.

(vi) In Pakistan, he was given the fake name, 'Aslam'.

(vii) In Pakistan, he took training in handling weapons
F including dismantling, re-assembling and firing of
pistols, AK-56 rifles, hand-grenades, detonators,
timer pencils and making of bombs by using ROX.

(viii) Parvez Mohammed Parvez Zulfikar Qureshi (A-
G 100) and other co-accused persons were also
present in the training.

(ix) Tiger Memon also imparted training for two days.

(x) On completion of the training, he alongwith some
H others left Pakistan and reached Dubai on
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1033
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
27.02.1993. A

(xi) On 01.03.1993, the remaining persons, who had
participated in the training along with him in
Pakistan as well as Tiger Memon, returned to
Dubai. B

(xii) Thereafter, at the instance of Tiger Memon, he and
others (including A-100) took oath of maintaining
secrecy and committing Jehad for the sake of
Islam. Further, Tiger spoke about the atrocities
committed on Muslims during the communal riots C
in Bombay and taking revenge for the same.

(xiii) He along with Gui Mohammed @ Gullu Noor
Mohammed Shaikh (A-77) and Nasir Abdul Kader
Kewal @ Nasir Dakhla· (A-64) left Dubai on D
02.03.1993 and arrived Bombay on 03.03.1993.

(xiv) On 07/08.03.1993, A-98 and A-49 helped lrfan
Chougule (AA) in unloading 7-8 gunny bags filled
with RDX from his fiat car.
E
(xv) On 08/09.03.1993, he participated in the
conspiratorial meeting at the residence of Mobina
Bayamoosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) where A-100
was also present along with other co-accused
persons. F

(xvi) He participated in reconnaissance of the BMC
Building alongwith Tiger Memon, Javed Chikna,
PW-2, A-54 and A-57. On reaching the said
building, Tiger Memon told them that they would G
have to make indiscriminate firing pointing out to
them the entry and exit points of the building and
also pointed out the place of parking the vehicle
and the manner in which they had to flee away after
effecting the said firing.
H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 419. From the above confession of the appellant, the
following facts emerge:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at
Pakistan;
B (ii) He took oath after placing his hands on Quran that
he will take revenge;

(iii) He attended/participated in the conspiratorial
meeting at Mobina's (A-96) residence where plans
c were chalked out for committing terrorist acts; and

(iv) He participated in reconnaissance of the BMC
Building alongwith other co-accused persons where
the manner of attack was demonstrated.

D 420. From the confession of the accused and from his
various overt acts, his involvement in the conspiracy has been
clearly established. The prosecution highlighted that the
appellant has made the above confession voluntarily, without
any pressure or coercion and the same has been recorded
E after following all the safeguards enumerated under section 15
of TADA and the rules framed thereunder.

Confessional Statements of co-accused:

421. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the
F 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
said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant (A-98)
G are summarized hereinbelow:

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Farooq Mohd. Yusuf
Pawale (A-16)

Confessional statement of A-16 under Section 15 of TADA
H has been recorded on 20.05.1993 (16:30 hrs.) and 22.05.1993
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1035
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
(16:45 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey {PW-492), the then DCP, A
Zone-VIII, Bombay. The confession of A-16 with reference to
the appellant reveals that he participated in the weapons
training at Pakistan and was given a fake name - 'Aslam'.

Confessional Statement of Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar B
Qureshi (A-29)

Confessional statement of A-29 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 18.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and
21.05.1993 (14:45 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi {PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-29 with C
reference to the appellant reveals that he participated in the
weapons training at Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd.
Shaikh {A-32) D

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),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-32 with
reference to the appellant reveals that he participated in the E
weapons training at Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Abdul Akhtar Khan {A-36)

Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of TADA F
has been recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and 21.05.1993
(18:20 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The confession of A-36 with reference
to the appellant reveals that he participated in the weapons
training at Pakistan.
G
Confessional Statement of Feroz @ Akram Amani Malik
{A-39)

Confessional statement of A-39 under Section 15 of
TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (22:30 hrs.) and H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 23.04.1993 (20:50 hrs.) by Mr. P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then
DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The confession of A-39 with reference
to the appellant reveals as under:-

(i) He participated in the weapons training at
Pakistan.
B
(ii) He attended conspiratorial meeting held at the
residence of A-96 at Sandra.

Confessional Statement of Nasim Ashraf Shaikh Ali
c Barmare (A-49)

Confessional statement of A-49 under Section.15 of TADA
has been recorded on 16.05.1993 (9:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993
by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
Bombay. The confession of A-49 with reference to the appellant
D reveals as under:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at ·
Pakistan.

E (ii) All of them took oath that they will take revenge.

Confessional Statement of Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52)

Confessional statement of A-52 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 15.04.1993 and 18.04.1993 by Mr. P.O.
F Pawar (PW-185), the then DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The
confession of A-52 with reference to the appellant reveals the
following facts:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at Pakistan
and a fake name (Aslam) was given to him there.
G
(ii) All of them took oath that they will take revenge for
the loss caused to Muslims

(iii) All the co-accused persons who underwent the
1:1 above training were present in the conspiratorial
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1037
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
meeting that took place on 06107 .03.1993, at 10.00 A
p.m, at Tiger's residence, at Hill Road, opposite
Dava Hotel, Sandra.

(iv) He was present at Al-Hussaini building on
11.03.1993. B
Confessional Statement of Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57)

Confessional statement of A-57 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 19.04.1993 (12:00 hrs.) by Shri
Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. c
The confession of A-57 with reference to the appellant reveals
that the appellant participated in the survey of BMC Building
along with other co-accused.

Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @ D
Nasir Dhakla (A-64)

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 with E
reference to the appellant reveals that he participated in the
weapons training that took place at Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Rafiq Usman Shaikh
(A-94)
F
Confessional statement of A-94 under Section 15 of TADA
has been recorded on 14.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and 16.05.1993
by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone 111,
Bombay. The confession of A-94 with reference to the appellant
reveals that the appellant participated in the weapons training G
at Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Parvez Mohd. Parvez Zulfikar
Qureshi (A-100)
H.
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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. A brief summary of the
confession of A-100 with reference to the appellant is as under:-
B
(i) A-100 underwent weapons training at Pakistan. He
also met the appellant who introduced himself as
Aslam, the fake name given to him in Pakistan.

(ii) A-100 and others (including the appellant), took
c oath of maintaining secrecy and committing Jehad
for the sake of Islam. Further, liger spoke about the
atrocities committed on Muslims during the
communal riots in Bombay and taking revenge for
the same.
D
(iii) A-100 attended the conspiratorial meeting held by
liger at Bandra on 09.03.1993, wherein liger gave
Rs. 5,000/- to everyone present for celebrating Eid.
The appellant was also present in the said meeting.
E 422. The aforesaid confessions establish the following
facts:-

(i) The appellant underwent training for handling arms
and ammunitions and explosives at Pakistan;
F
(ii) The appellant took oath of maintaining secrecy and
committing Jehad for the sake of Islam alongwith other co-
accused;

(iii) The appellant was present in the conspiratorial
G meeting at the residence of A-96; and

(iv) The appellant was actively involved in
reconnaissance of the BMC Building in order to commit
terrorist acts.
,H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1039
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses: A

423. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
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: B

Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

The relevant material in his evidence is as follows:-

(i) PW-2 knew A-98; c
(ii) The appellant was introduced to PW-2 as Aslam in
Pakistan at the time of training. :=urther, PW-2
identified 'Aslam' as the appellant before the court;

(iii) The appellant left the training camp at Pakistan D
along with A-39 and A-49;

(iv) After returning to Dubai from the training camp, at
the instance of Tiger Memon, PW-2 along with the
appellant and others took oath of maintaining
E
secrecy by swearing on the Quran;

(v) The appellant participated in the conspiratorial
meeting held at Babloo's residence on
08.03.1993;
F
(vi) The appellant participated in .the survey of BMC
Building along with other co-accused including PW-
2.
The above deposition duly corroborates with the
confessional statement of the co-accused persons as well as G
the confession of the appellant in material particulars. The
evidence of PW-2 further establishes the charges framed
against the appellant.

Training at Pakistan H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A Deposition of C.G. Sawant, API, (PW-244)
424. PW-244 was an Immigration Officer who proved the
departure of the appellant to Dubai on 08.02.1993 from
Bombay. The relevant entries on the Embarkation Card which
B was marked as X-401 concerning the departure have been
marked as Exh. Nos. 1055, 1055-A and 1055-A (1).

Deposition of Lonare, PSI, (PW-209)

His arrival to Bombay on 03.03.1993 from Dubai has been
c proved by PW-209. The relevant endorsements on the
Disembarkation Card which was marked as X-305 have been
marked as Exh. Nos. 948, 948-A and 948-A(1).

425. Thus, with respect to the training at Pakistan, the
con(ession of the appellant and the other co-accused that they
D first went to Dubai and from there to Pakistan for training is
further established by the abovestated evidence.

426. It was contended by Mr. Aabad Ponda on behalf of
the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
E reasonable doubt that he went to Pakistan from Dubai. It was .
further contended that the appellant could have gone anywhere
from Dubai and that the prosecution case of his going to
Pakistan for training is manufactured one and false. It was also
contended that, in any event, taking weapons training at
F Pakistan is by itself not an offence under any Statute
whatsoever, and therefore, the appellant cannot be charged for
the same and for which he has been wrongly convicted.

427. It has been established by the very own confession
of the appellant that he had gone to Pakistan from Dubai where
G he underwent weapons training. The above confession has
been corroborated by the confession of co-accused as stated
above and, hence, there is no doubt whatsoever that the
appellant went to Pakistan from Dubai and acquired training
in arms and ammunitions and explosives in order to take
H revenge against Hindus
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1041
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

428. The passport of the appellant which has been marked A
as Exh. X-648 clearly shows that he left Bombay on
08.02.1993 and reached Dubai on 09.02.1993 and left Dubai
on the same date and entered Dubai again on 27.02.1993 and
left Dubai finally on 02.03.1993 and entered Bombay on
03.03.1993. The said entries further corroborate with the B
confessions of various accused persons that they did not have
to go through any checking at the Airport in Pakistan. It is further
submitted that it was not the case of the appellant before the
trial Court that he was elsewhere. Therefore, the evidence on
record clearly establishes the charge of going to Pakistan for c
training against the appellant.

429. The aforesaid evidence clearly establish that the
appellant along with other co-conspirators was given the said
training to equip themselves to commit terrorist acts in Bombay
and, therefore, he has rightly been convicted under Section 3(3) D
of TADA mentioned at head secondly.

430. Thus, in view of the entire evidence enumerated
above, we hold that the appellant was actively involved in the
conspiracy to cause blasts in Bombay and in consequence of E
the said involvement, he has committed the offences for which
he has been charged.

Sentence

431. Coming to the sentence, though there is no need to F
show any leniency in respect of the act involved and as proved
by the pro1;1ecution, the following facts are relevant for awarding
the appropriate sentence.

432. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that G
though the appellant was sentenced to RI for life, he had already
served 19 years in jail. He also pointed out that the appellant
is ·suffering from neuro problem and also had backache
problem for the last five years. The appellant's mother is also
suffering from heart ailment, diabetes and blood pressure. He H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A further pointed out that the appellant had been in custody since
his arrest.

433. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
CBI pointed out that there is no need to show any leniency since
B after realizing explosions that took place in Bombay on
12.03.1993, the appellant had absconded and remained away
from the clutches of law until he was arrested by the police.

434. It is true that the Designated Judge considered all
these aspects while awarding sentence. There is no dispute
C about his participation in the training and the evidence
disclosed that he participated in various conspiratorial
meetings in order to chalk out the plan for committing terrorist
acts and in pursuance of the same, he did reconnaissance of
the BMC Building alongwith other co-conspirators.
D
435. In view of the acceptable materials placed by the
prosecution, relied on by the Special Judge and the reasoning
appended therewith, we fully agree with the same, consequently,
the appeals filed by the appellant herein (A-98) are dismissed.
E Criminal Appeal Nos. 933-936 of 2008
Parvez Mohammed Parvez
Zulfikar Qureshi (A-100) ... Appellant(s)
vs.
F The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent(s)
through CBl-STF, Bombay
436. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel for the appellant
(A-100) and Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel duly
assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent-
G CBI.

437. These appeals are directed against the final judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.10.2006 and
05.06.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant (A-100) was
found guilty and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI)
H for life by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON.v. STATE OF 1043
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No. 1/ 1993. A

Charges:
438. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against
' all the co-conspirators including the appellant (A-100). The
material part of the said charge is reproduced herein: B

"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 c
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 D
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 RDX or inflammable
substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols
E
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 F
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 G
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
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c
at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea
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
D
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
E 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,
F 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
G 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
H counts:
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1045
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

At head Secondly; A

(a) He participated in the landing and transportation of
arms, ammunition and explosives smuggled into
India by Tiger Memon at Shekhadi;

(b) He took training in Pakistan in handling of arms, B
ammunitions and explosives for committing terrorist
acts;

(c) He attended the conspiratorial meetings held by
Tiger Memon at the residence of Nasir Ahmed @ C
Babloo and Ms. Mobina Baya; and

(d) He participated in filling ROX in vehicles with the
object of causing explosions in Bombay.

439. The charges mentioned above were proved against D
the appellant (A-100). The appellant has been convicted and
sentenced for the above said charges as under:

Conviction and Sentence:

(i) The appellant has been convicted for the offence E
of conspiracy read with the offences described at
head firstly and sentenced to RI for life along with
a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, !CJ further undergo
RI for 6 months. (charge firstly)
F
(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 fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further
undergo RI for 6 months. (charge secondly) G

Evidence

440. The evidence against the appellant (A-100) is in the
form of:-
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (i) his own confession;

(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-
accused);

(iii) testimony of prosecution witnesses; and
B
(iv) documentary evidence.

Confessional statement of Parvez Mohammed Parvez
Zulfikar Qureshi (A-100)
c 441. Confessional statement of the appellant (A-100)
under Section 15 of TADA was 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. The
following facts emerge from the said confessional
D statement:-

(i) He was a close friend of Javed Chikna (AA). After
the riots, one day, Javed Chikna asked him if he
had a passport, to which, he replied in the
E affirmative. Thereafter, in the first week of February,
Javed Chikna told him that he would take him to
Dubai for a trip and that he is making arrangements
for the same.

(ii) In the second week of February, he along with
F Javed Chikna, Tiger Memon and others went to
Raigad.

(iii) At Raigad, he was given a revolver by Tiger
Memon.
G
(iv) He assisted in the loading and unloading of
smuggled arms.

(v) He also went to Waghani Tower alongwith others.

H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1047
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P SATHASIVAM, J.]
(vi) The aforesaid revolver was taken back from him by A
Tiger Memon after completion of the landing activity.

(vii) On 11.02.1993, he went to Dubai alongwith Javed
Chikna and others.

(viii) He stayed in Dubai for two days and from there, he B
went to Pakistan.

(ix) In Pakistan, Javed Chikna spoke to him regarding
taking revenge for the demolition of Babri Masjid.

(x) He underwent weapons training at Pakistan. He
c
also met Niyaz Mohammed @ Aslam Iqbal Ahmed
Shaikh (A-98) there.

(xi) On completion of the training, he along with some
others left Pakistan and reached Dubai on D
02.03.1993 .
•
(xii) Tiger Memon also returned to Dubai from Pakistan,
and thereafter, at his instance, he (A-100) and
others took oath of maintaining secrecy and E
committing 'Jehad' torthe sake of Islam. Further,
Tiger Memon spoke about the atrocities committed
on Muslims during the communal riots in Bombay
and taking revenge for the same.

(xiii) On 03.03.1993, he returned to Bombay alongwith F
others.

(xiv) On 09.03.1993, he attended the conspiratorial
meeting held by Tiger Memon at Sandra wherein
Tiger distributed Rs. 5,000/- to everyone present G
there for celebrating Eid. A-98 was also present in
the said meeting.

(xv) On the intervening night of 11/12.03.1993, he was
present at Tiger Memon's residence at Al-Hussaini
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A where many other co-accused were also present
and he saw some of them loading some goods in
a jeep.

(xvi) He went to Ajmer alongwith A-98.
B 442. The prosecution highlighted that the appellant (A-100)
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.
c
Confessional statements of co-accused:

443. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the
appellant (A-100) has also been disclosed in the confessional
statements of the following co-accused. The legality and
D 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-100)
are summarized hereinbelow:

E Confessional Statement of Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10)

Confessional statement of A-10 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 23.04.1994 (18:00 hrs.) by Shri
Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay.
F A-10 confessed that he handed over the tickets and passport
of the appellant and two other co-accused, namely, Farooq and
Salim and further that they were dropped at the Airport by him.

Confessional Statement of Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh
(A-12)
G
Confessional statement of A-12 under Section 15 of
TADA was 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. The said confessional
H statement reveals the involvement of the appellant in the landing
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 1049
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
at Shekhadi. A

Confessional Statement of Bashir Ahmed Usman Gani
Khairulla (A-13)

Confessional statement of A-13 under Section 15 of TADA
was recorded on 16.05.1993 (10:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993 8
(17:15 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confessional statement
reveals the participation/presence of the appellant in the
conspiratorial meeting held at the residence of Mobina @
Bayamoosa Bhiwandiwala (A-96) at Sandra. C

Confessional Statement of Mohd. Farooq Mohd. Yusuf ·
Pawale (A-16)

Confessional statement of A-16. under Section 15 of
0
TADA was recorded on 20.05.1993 (16:30 hrs.) and
22.05.1993 (16:45 hrs.) by Shri Sanjay Pandey (PW-492), the
then DCP, Zone-VIII, Bombay. The said confessional statement
of A-16, with reference to the appellant, reveals as under:

(i) A-16 knew the appellant as a friend of Javed Chikna E
(AA). The appellant used to sell 'charas' (narcotic
substance).

(ii) He participated in the landing at Shekhadi.

(iii) He was given a pistol by Tiger Memon at Shekhadi. F

(iv) He participated in the weapons training at
Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Shahnawaz Abdul Kadar G
Qureshi (A-29)

Confessional statement of A-29 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 18.05.1993 (18:30 hrs.) and
21.05.1993 (14:45 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confessional H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 15 S.C.R.

A statement of A-29 with reference to the appellant reveals as
under:

(i) He participated in the landing at Shekhadi.

(ii) He participated in the weapons training at
B Pakistan.

(iii) He was present at Al-Hussaini building on the night
intervening 11.03.1993.

C Confessional Statement of Zakir Hussain Noor Mohd.
Shaikh (A-32)

Confessional statement of A-32 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 16.05.1993 (11 :25 hrs.) and
19.05.1993 (17:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193),
D the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confessional
statement of A-32 with reference to the appellant reveals as
under:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at
E Pakistan.

(ii) He took oath on holy Quran that whatever he has
learnt, did or happened, he will not disclose it to
anyone on reaching Bombay.

F Confessional Statement of Abdul Akhtar Khan (A-36)

Confessional statement of A-36 under Section 15 of TADA
was recorded on 19.05.1993 (17:40 hrs.) and 21.05.1993
(18:20 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
G DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. A-36, with reference to the appellant,
stated that he participated in the weapons training at Pakistan.

Confessional Statement of Feroz @ Akram Amani Malik
(A-39)

H Confessional statement of A-39 under Section 15 of
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 1051
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
TADA was recorded on 19.04.1993 (22:30 hrs.) and A
23.04.1993 (20:50 hrs.) by Mr. P.D. Pawar (PW-185), the then
DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The confession of A-39 with reference
to the appellant (A-100) reveals as under:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at 8
Pakistan. ·

(ii) He attended conspiratorial meeting held at the
residence of A-96 at Sandra.

Confessional Statement of Nasim Ashraf Sherali Barmare C
(A-49)

Confessional statement of A-49 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 16.05.1993 (9:30 hrs.) and 18.05.1993
by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill,
0
Bombay. The said confession of A-49 with reference to the
appellant (A-100) reveals as under:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at
Pakistan.
E
(ii) All of them took oath that they will take revenge.

Confessional Statement of Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52)

Confessional statement of A-52 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 15.04.1993 and 18.04.1993 by Mr. F
P.O. Pawar (PW-185), the then DCP, Zone V, Bombay. The
said confession of A-52 with reference to the appellant reveals
as under:

(i) He participated in the weapons training at G
Pakistan.

(ii) All of them took oath that they will take revenge for
the loss caused to the Muslims.

(iii) He returned from Dubai on 03.03.1993. H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A (iv) All the co-accused persons who underwent the
abovesaid training were present in the
conspiratorial meeting that took place on 06/
07.03.1993 at 10.00 p.m, at Tiger's residence at
Hill Road, opposite Dava Hotel, Sandra.
B
(v) He was present at Al-Hussaini building on
11.03.1993.

Confessional Statement of Shaikh Ali Shaikh Umar (A-57)

c Confessional statement of A-57 under Section 15 of
TADA was recorded on 19.04.1993 (12:00 hrs.) by Shri
Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay.
The said confession of A-57 with reference to the appellant
reveals as under:
D
(i) The appellant was present at Soda factory.

(ii) The appellant participated in the landing at
Shekhadi.

E (iii) The appellant participated in the conspiratorial
meeting at Sandra.

Confessional Statement of Nasir Abdul Kadar Kewal @
Nasir Dhakla (A-64)

F Confessional statement of A-64 under section 15 of TADA
was recorded on 22.01 .1995 and 24.01 .1995 by Shri HC Singh
(PW-474), the then Superintendent of Police, CBl/SPE/STF,
New Delhi. The said confession of A-64 with reference to the
appellant (A-100) reveals as under:
G
(i) He participated in the landing at Shekhadi.

(ii) He participated in the weapons training that took
place at Pakistan.

H (iii) He attended the conspiratorial meeting at Mobina's
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1053
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
residence. A

Confessfonal Statement of Nlyaz Mohd. @ Aslam Iqbal
Ahmed Shaikh (A-98)

Confessional statement of A-98 under Section 15 of TADA
was recorded on 17.05.1993 (14:30 hrs.) and 20.05.1993 B
(11:30 hrs.) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then
DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession of A-98 with
reference to the appellant reveals as .under:-

(i) The appellant participated in the training in handling c
of arms and ammunitions and explosive at
Pakistan.

(ii) He took oath for taking revenge.

(iii) He attended the conspiratorial meeting at the D
residence of Mobina Baya (A-96).

444. A perusal of the confessional statements of all the
above accused, viz., 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 clearly establish E
the fact that it corroborate with the confessional statement of
the appellant (A-100). After consideration of all the abovesaid
confessional statements of the co-accused, the involvement of
the appellant in the conspiracy is established. inasmuch as:-

. (i) The appellant participated in the landing at F
Shekhadi where arms and explosives were
smuggled into India for the purpose of committing
· terrorist acts;· ·

(ii) The appellant went to Pakistan via Dubai and G
participated in the weapons training;

.· (iii) The appellant participated in various conspiratorial
meetings held in Dubai as well as in India including
the meeting at the residence of A~96 where groups H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A were made and final shape to the plan for blasts at
various places in Bombay was discussed;

(iv) The appellant was a friend of Javed Chikna (AA);

(v) The involvement of the appellant in the conspiracy
B was very deep;

(vi) He participated in all the stages of conspiracy,
namely, landing, training, planning etc.; and

(vii) He was present at Al-Hussaini building on the night
c intervening 11 /12.03.1993 when activity of filling of
ROX in vehicles was going on.

Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:

o 445. Apart from the aforesaid evidence, the involvement
and the role of the appellant in the conspiracy as stated above
is disclosed by the deposition of various prosecution witnesses
which are as follows:

E Deposition of Mohd. Usman Jan Khan (PW-2)

We have carefully gone through his evidence implicating
the appellant (A-100). The relevant material in his evidence is
as follows:-

F (i) PW-2 knew the appellant;

(ii) PW-2 identified the appellant in Court;

(iii) The appellant participated in the landing at
Shekhadi;
G
(iv) The appellant participated in weapons training at
Pakistan;

(v) After returning from the training camp to Dubai, at
the instance of Tiger Memon, PW-2 along with the
H
ESSA@ANJUM ABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1055
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
appellant and others took oath of maintaining A
secrecy by swearing on the Quran;

(vi) The appellant was present in the conspiratorial
meeting held at Shakil's residence wherein Tiger
Memon formed groups for surveying targets. PW-
8
2, A-64 and the appellant were in one group and
were assigned the task of surveying Sena Bhavan
and Sahar Airport;

(vii) PW-2 went along with the appellant to survey Shiv
Sena Bhavan and Sahar Airport on 08.03.1993, at C
which time, the appellant told him that he would not
throw hand grenades on the Aircrafts at Sahar
Airport since it was a dangerous assignment.
However, he expressed his willingness to do the
work at Sena Bhavan; D

(viii) The appellant participated in the conspiratorial
meeting held at Babloo's residence on
08.03.1993.

The above deposition of PW-2, the Approver, corroborates E
with the confessional statements of the co-accused persons as
well as the co;ifession of the appellant. The confession of the
· appellant read with the confessions of various co-accused
persons along with the evidence of PW-2 substantiate the
charges framed against him. F

Deposition of API A.S. Narote (PW-243)

At the relevant time, PW-243 was on Immigration duty and
proved the departure of the appellant to Dubai from Bombay
on 11.02.1993. The relevant entries on the Embarkation Card G
(X-400) concerning the departure have been marked as Exh.
Nos. 1053, 1053-A, 1053-A(1) and 1053-A(2).

Deposition of PSI PE Ramgude (PW-207)
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A PW-207 proved the arrival of the appellant to Bombay on
03.03.1993 from Dubai. The relevant endorsements for the
same are on the Disembarkation Card (X-701).

Training in Pakistan:

B 446. With respect to the training at Pakistan, the
confessional statements of co-accused persons against the
appellant including his own confession are duly corroborated
with the aforesaid depositions of the officers on Immigration
duty who testified about the departure of the appellant to Dubai
C and his arrival at Bombay.

447. To undergo weapons training as a part of the.
conspiracy and to further the conspiracy to cause terrorist acts
in India constitutes an offence. The aforesaid evidence divulge
D that the appellant along with other co-conspirators was given
the said training to equip himself to commit terrorist acts in
Bombay and, therefore, he was rightfully convicted for the same.
In view of the entire evidence enumerated above, we hold that
the appellant was actively involved in the conspiracy to cause
E blasts in Bombay and in consequence of the said involvement,
he had committed various offences.

Sentence:

448. The appellant was given full opportunity to defend
F himself on the question of quantum of sentence. His statement
was recorded on 10.10.2006 in which he prayed that the
following factors, amongst others, may be considered while
determining his sentence:

(i) On the date of the incident, he was 26 years old and
G was selling bananas on the street;

(ii) He is suffering from a pancreatic ailment and
dependent on drugs;

(iii) He has been in custody since his arrest except
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDULRAZAKMEMON v. STATE OF 1057
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
occasions on the ground of medical treatment; and A
(iv) During the bail period, he has not committed any
offence or violated any condition imposed by the
Court and during this period, he was earning his
livelihood and bearing his medical expenses by
8
selling bananas.

449. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant while reiterating the same and after taking us through
the confession made by the appellant and the confessional
statements of co-accused, meticulously pointed out that even C
if we accept the prosecution case about the participation of the
appellant in the training, unloading of weapons, visiting Dubai
and Pakistan for training and participation in certain meetings,
the appellant merely witnessed the filling of RDX and he was
not one amongst the persons who filled all those explosive D
materials. With regard to the above, in the light of the evidence
in the form of his own confession and confessional statement
of co-accused persons, it cannot be claimed that he merely
witnessed the incident when his presence is evidently proved
by acceptable materials. .E

450. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing
for the CBI pointed out that there is no need to show any
leniency since after realizing explosions that had taken place
in Bombay on 12.03.1993, the appellant (A-100) had
absconded and remained away from the clutches of law until F
he was arrested by the police. It is also pointed out that so far
he has served nearly 15 years as pointed out by the counsel
for the appellant.
451. Before considering the claim of both the sides, it is G
useful to refer the conclusion of the Designated Judge while
. determining the quantum of sentence. After stating all the details
and narrating the entire events, the Designated Judge observed
at page 41049 as under:
"916) ..... Thus in short though some leniency will be H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A required to be shown to A-100 due to himself having not
continued till end of commission of final acts achieving the
object of conspiracy, still he will be liable for the due·
punishment as warranted for the acts committed by him."

8 452. Taking note of the above observation of the
Designated Judge and of the fact that that there is no dispute
about his participation in the training, evidence disclosed that
he associated in unloading of weapons and there is no need
to show any leniency in awarding sentence.

C 453. Under these circumstances, we fully agree with the
conclusion arrived at by the Designated Court, consequently,
the appeals filed by the appellant herein (A-100) are dismissed.
454. For convenience, we have reproduced the conclusion
arrived at in respect of all the appeals dealt with under this part
0
in Annexure 'A' appended hereto.
Rajendra Prasad Appeals disposed of.
Annexure 'A'

E
s Criminal Accused Name Sentence Award
No Appeal and Number. Designated by
Court Supreme
Court
1 1178/2007 Essa@Anjum Abdul Life Confirmed
Razak Memon (A-3) Sentence
F
2 1179/2007 Rubina Suleman Life Confirmed
with Memon (A-8) Sentence Dismissed
419/2011
(State)
G 3 1181/2007 Yusuf Abdul Razak Life Confirmed
Memon (A-4) Sentence

4. 1127-1128/ Sardar Shahwali Life Confirmed
2007 Khan (A-54) Sentence
H
ESSA@ANJUMABDUL RAZAK MEMON v. STATE OF 1059
MAHARASHTRA, THR. STF, CBI MUMBAI [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

5 1252-1253/ Ashrafur Rehman Life Reduced to A
2007 with Azimulla Shaikh Sentence RI for 10
413/2011 (A-71) Year
(State) Dismissed

6. 1365/2007 lmtiyaz Yunusmiya Life Reduced to
B
Ghavte (A-15) Sentence the period
already
undergone.

7. 1224/2007. Smt. Vimal Life Confirmed c
Thapa (A-112) Sentence

8 1440/2007 Muzamil Umar Kadri Life Confirmed
with 1028/ (A-25) Sentence
2012 (State)
D
9 1441/2007 Vijay Krishnaji Patil Life Confirmed
(A-116) Sentence

10 401/2008 Moh. Salim Mira Life Confirmed
with 1023/ Moh. Shaikh@ Kutta Sentence Confirmed
2012(State) (A-134) and RI for 10 Dismissed E
(A-136) Mohd. Kasam year
Lajpuria @ Mechanic
Chacha (A-136)

11 976-977/ Nasir Abdul Kader Life Confirmed
2008 Kewal @ Nasir Sentence
F
Dakhla (A-64)

12 616/2008 Salim Rahim Shaikh Life Confirmed
@Salim Babu Sentence
Wrane (A-52) G
13 979-980/ Nasim Ashraf Shaikh Life Confirmed
2008 Ali Barmare (A-49) Sentence
14 633/2008 Bashir Ahmed Life Confirmed
Usman Gani Sentence
Khairulla IA-13\ H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 15 S.C.R.

A 15 651-652/ Dawood @ Dawood Life Confirmed
2008 Taklya Mohd. Phanse Sentence
(A-14)

16 653 & 656/ Mohd. Moin Faridulla Life Confirmed
2008 Qureshi (A-43) Sentence
B
18 924/2008 Shaikh Ali Shakh Life Confirmed
Umar (A-57) Sentence

19 933-936/ Niyaz Mohd. @ Life Confirmed
2008 Aslam Iqbal Ahmed Sentence
c Shaikh (A-98)

Parvez Moh. Parvez Life Confirmed
Zulfikar Qureshi Sentence
(A-100)
D