RANJIT SINGH @ JITA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                        RANJIT SINGH@ JITA AND ORS.                                   A
                                           v.
                                 STA TE OF PUNJAB

..                             SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

                    [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]                               B


           Indian Penal Code, 1860/Terrorist and Disruplive Activities (Prevention)
     Acl, 1987/Arms Act, 1959:

           Ss. 148, 3071149, 3631149/ss. 3, 5 and 15/s. 25-Alleged encounter- C
     Large scale firing alleged between accused and police party-Accused alleged
     lo have surrendered-Large number of unauthorised arms and ammunition
     alleged to have been recovered from accused-Accused prosecuted for
     respective offences-Confession recorded by police officers under s. 15 of
     TADA Act-During trial accused and defence witnesses denied prosecution D
     case and stated that they were picked up by police from the village-
     Independent recovery witness declared hostile-Designated Court convicted
     the accused for offences charged mainly on the basis ofconfessional statements
     and testimony of two police witnesses, and sentenced them accordingly-Held
     ,though prosecution alleged 175 rounds to have been fired by police and 157
     by accused, not a single in}WJ' was found on any side-No evidence to connect E
     the empties with weapons-No evidence to prove the firing except that of two
     police witnesses-None of independent witnesses supported prosecution-There
     are vital discrepancies and contradictions between the statements of the two
     police witnesses-As regards confessional statements, only half an hour period
     granted to accused to consider whether they should make the statements- p
     Confessional statements were with regard to two incidents, out of which in
     respect of one incident in a subsequent case Designated Court acquitted the
     same accused of the charge-It is not safe to base conviction on such
     confessional statements-Nor can the conviction be mainlained on the sole
     testimony of two police officials-Judgment and order of Designated Court set
     aside-Accused acquitted.                                                       G
           Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:

          S. 15-Confession-Recorded by police officer-Time to be given to
     accused to consider whether he should make a confessional statement-Accused
                                          247
                                                                                      H
    248                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 SC.R.

A   in police custod_i~Ojjicer recording confession giving half an hour time to
    accused for consideration-Held, in a given case. depending on facts, the
    recording officer 1rithout graming any time may straightall'ay proceed to
    record co11fessional statements-But in case he forms a belief that accused
    should be granted some time to think over the mailer. it hecomes obligatorv       .
    on him to gra/1/ reasonable time--The cooling time granted has to be
B   reasonable-The time of half an hour to think over before recording
    confessional statement cannot be said to be a reasonable period.

          SahPan Singh Ra/Ian Singh v. State of Punjab. AIR (1957) SC 637,
                                                                                      .   -




    relied on.
c        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
    627 of 2002.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2002 of the Court of Additional
    Judge, Designated Court, District Jail, Nabha in S.C. No. 4 l-T/1990.
D
         O.P. Sharma, R.C. Gubrela, K.R. Gupta, Nanita Sharma, Vivek Sharma
    and Abhishek Atrey, for the Appellants.                                           ..
          V.C. Mahajan, Bimal Roy Jad and Sumita Pandit, for the Respondent.

E         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           Six accused, including the four appellants, were forwarded by the Police
    to the concerned court to stand trial for offences under variou's provisions of
    l.P.C., The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (in sho11
    'the TADA Act') and The Arms Act. One of them (Gurbachan Singh) was
F   declared proclaimed offender. Another (Jagmail Singh) died. The remaining
    four, namely appellants were convicted for the offences for which they were
    tried. For offences under Sections 3071149 IPC and Section 3 & 5 of the
    TADA Act, rigorous imprisonment for five years for each of these offences
    and fine was imposed on each of the appellants. For offences under Section
G    148 !PC two years' rigorous imprisonment and for offences under Section
    363/149 IPC and Sections 25 of Anns Act one year's rigorous imprisonment
    and fine was imposed on each of the appellants. All the sentences were
    directed to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged the judgment
    and order of learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Nabha, in this
    appeal filed under Section 19 of the TADA Act.
H
                      RAN.TIT SINGH @JIT Av. STATE OF PUNJAB                  249
            The appel Iants have been convicted for the incident of encounter alleged A
     to have taken place, according to the case of the prosecution, on 18.8.1989.
     ln brief, the prosecution case is that on 18.9.1989 Inspector Ram Singh
     received information that some terrorists armed with weapons had entered
     District Kurukshetra for committing crime. Two police parties were constituted
     - one headed by S.I. Anil Kumar and the other headed by S.L Om Prakash, B
     D.S.P. Deep Ram and two independent witnesses Karnail Singh and Surjit
     Singh were with Inspector Ram Singh along with some other police officials.
     A Nakabandi was arranged with the instructions to the police officials to start
     firing when it is so ordered. It was a moonlit night. At about 9.45 p.m.,
     accused Jagmail Singh and other accused including one Gurnam Singh were
     seen coming armed with weapons. Gurnam Singh has also died. On lalkara C
     being raised by Ram Singh, Jagmail Singh who was ahead of all accused
     persons was apprehended. The other persons following him took positions
     and started firing. The police parties also fired in self defence and asked the
     accused to surrender as they were surrounded from all sides. The firing
     continued for about one hour. The police team consisted of about 50/60
     officials. During the firing 175 shots were fired by the police and 157 rounds D
..   by the accused. When all the accused surrendered, their personal search were
     taken. From Jagmail Singh one AK-47 rifle, 169 cartridges, two magazines
     were recovered. From the search of Gurbae;han Singh one AK-47 rifle, 51
     empty ca1iridges, two magazines and 163 live cartridges of Ak-47. were
     recovered. Ak-4 7 rifle was sealed and empties were also sealed. From the E
     search of Baldev Singh, one AK-47 rifle, 49 empty cartridges, one .30 bore
     pistol and 15 live cartridges of the same bore and 118 live cartridges of AK-
     47 rifle were recovered. AK-47 rifle and 49 empty cartridges were separately
     sealed. From Sukhjit Singh, one AK-47 rifle, two magazines, 47 empty
     cartridges, 127 live cartridges were recovered. Empties and the rifle w~re

-    sealed. From Ranjit Singh, one .315 bore rifle, 16 live cartridges, two empty F
     cartridges of the same bore were recovered. The recovered 16 live cartridges
     were sealed. From Gurnam Singh, one .285 bore rifle, three empties and 12
     live cartridges were recovered. Empties and rifles were separately sealed.
     From Satnam Singh, one .12 bore CBBL gun was recovered with 12 live
     cartridges and two empty cartridges and one .32 bore pistol was recovered. G
     Gun and empties were sealed separately. The accused were not carrying any
     permit or licence to carry the weapons and the ammunition.

          The accused were charged for offences under Sections 148, 307/149,
     363/149 !PC, Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA Act and Section 25 of the Arms
     Act.                                                                     H
    250                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A         To prove the case prosecution examined DSP Ram Singh (PWI), Su~jit
    Singh (PW), Shri Niwas Vashisht, S.P. (PW5), Surjit Singh Deswal, Addi.
    S.P. (PW4). Kapoor Singh (PW5), Chander Bhan, Armourer (PW6), DSP
    Deep Ram (PW?) and Dr. Harbaksh Singh (PWS).

        The defence also examined three witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh
B   (DWI), Kamai! Singh (DW2) and Gurbachan Singh (DW3),

           DW3 has deposed that he is the Lambardar of the village and the
    accused were picked up by the police from the village and nothing was
    recovered from them. DW2 has deposed that he was never called by PW I
C   Ram Singh in connection with the Nakabandi in question and that he along
    with Surjit Singh were called to Police Station and their signatures obtained
    there. No recovery was made in his presence. He also stated that no encounter
    took place between the police and the accused in his presence. Karnail Singh
    is one of the attesting witnesses to the recovery. To the similar effect is the
    testimony of DWJ-Jarnail Singh. Surjit Singh (PW2) being other independent
D   witness of the recovery also did not support the prosecution and was declared
    hostile.

          Reverting now to the prosecution witnesses, PWl has, of course, fully
    supported the prosecution case. At the same time, however, it deserves to be
    noticed that although according to the prosecution case 175 rounds were
E   fired by the police and 157 by the accused, the prosecution has not proved
    even a single injury grievous, simple or minor to anyone - whether on police
    side or on accused side. There is also no evidence to connect the empties
    with the weapons. This is despite large recoveries as noticed earlier. From the
    facts of the case, one gets an impression as if a friendly match was being
p   played. There is no evidence to prove the firing of the shots as aforesaid
    except the testimony of PWl and another police official with him PW? Deep
    Ram and the confe3sional statement to which we would advert shortly. As
    noticed above none of the independent witnesses have supported the
    prosecution.

G         There are also many viral discrepancies and contradictions between the
    statements of PWl on one hand and PW7 Cil the other. But for the view we
    are taking of the confessional statement which is one of the main basis on
    which conviction has been based and other circumstances of the case, it is not
    necessary to delve into the said discrepancies and contradictions by going_
H   into details of their testimonies.
                     RAN.HT SINGH @JITA v. STA TE OF PUNJAB                   251

          PW3 Shri Niwas Vashisht, the S.P. is stated to have recorded the            A
    confessions of Ranjit Singh and Jagmail Singh on 5.10.1989 under Section
    15 of the TADA Act. They were arrested on 18.9.1989. The confessions of
    Ranjit Singh is Exbt. P-M. It is signed by Ranjit Singh and PW3. The
    confessions of Jagmail Singh is Exbt. P-N. Likewise it is also signed by
    Jagmail Singh PW3.
                                                                                      B
          According to the deposition of PW3 in cross-examination, the accused
    were in police custody 18-20 days prior to recording of their confessional
    statements. PW3 has deposed that he gave the requisite warning to the accused
    that they were not bound to make the confessional statement and if they
    make it will be used as evidence against them, but despite the warning they C
    were prepared and willing to make the statement. After recording the
    introductory statement in this behalf in question-answer fonn he still considered
    it proper to give them some time for rethinking and for this purpose they
    were allowed to sit in separate rooms for some time and brought to him after
    about half an hour and expressed their desire to make statement and thereafter
    the confessional statements were recorded.                                        D

           Before adverting to the facts said to have been narrated by the accused
    as recorded in the two confessional statements, it deserves to be noticed that
    in case the recording officer of the confessional statement on administering
    the statutory warning to the accused forms a belief that the accused should
    be granted some time to think over the matter, it becomes obligatory on him
                                                                                      E
    to grant reasonable time for the purpose to the accused. In other words, the
    cooling time that is granted has to be reasonable. What time should be granted
    would of course depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. At
    the same time, however, when the time to think over is granted that cannot


-
    be a mere force for the sake of granting time. In a given case, depending on      F
    facts, the recording officer without granting any time may straightaway proceed
    to record the confessional statement but if he thinks it appropriate to grant
    time, it cannot be a mechanical exercise for completing a formality.·

           In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1957) S 637,
    where a magistrate granted about half an hour to accused to think over and G
    soon thereafter recorded the confessional statement, this court reiterated that
    when accused is produced before the magistrate by the Investigating Officer,
    it is of utmost importance that the mind of the accused person should be
    completely freed from any possible influence of the police and the effective
    way of securing such freedom from fear to the accused person is to send him H
    252                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to jail custody and give him adequate time to consider whether he should
    make a confession at all. It would naturally be difficult to lay down any hard
    and fast rule as to the time which should be allowed to an accused person in
    any given case.

          This Court further held :- '·However, speaking generally, it would, we
B think, be reasonable to insist upon giving ail accused person at least 24 hours
    to decide whether or not he should make a confession. Where there may be
    reason to suspect that the accused has been persuaded or coerced to make a
    confession, even longer period may have to be given to him before his
    statement is recorded. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case it is
C   impossible to accept the view that enough time was given to the accused to
    think over the matter."

           The present case as noticed earlier, relates to incident of alleged
    encounter dated 18.9.1989. The confessional statements recorded by PW3
    record two incidents. First the confession records about incidents by same
D   accused which had allegedly taken place in same village on 11.9.1989. The
    incident dated 11.9.1989 was subject matter of Sessions Case no. 6-T of
    17 .1.91 before Additional Judg1! Designated Court, District Jail Nabha.

           In respect of incidents dated I Ith September, 1989 the appellants and
  two other accused were charged for offences under Sections 148,452,323
E read with Sections 149, 427 rea.d with Sections 149, 506 !PC and for offences
  under Section 3 of the TADA Act. The confessional statements proved by
  PW3 and PW4 also contain admission of guilt by these accused in respect of
  incidents dated I Ith September, 1989. The SHO, Inspector Anil Kumar who
  inspected the spot and prepared the site plan etc. and made recoveries and
F conducted a pait of investigation of incidents of 11th September, 1989 was
  the same, namely, Inspector Anil Kumar, who headed one of the team in the
  encounter which is subject matter of the present appeal. The investigation of
  the said case was also taken upon by Inspector Ram Singh who is PW! in
  the present case. Ram Singh had arrested all these accused on 18.9.1989
  evidently in relation to both the cases, namely, one subject matter of the
G present appeal and the other which was subject matter of Sessions case no.         '·
  6-T of 17 .1.1991. The first pan of the confession records the incident dated
   l 1.9. l 989 and second part records the incident dated i 8.9.1989, namely, the
   encounter that had taken place which led to the appellants' conviction in the
   manner aforestated.

H         The earlier sessions case resulted in appellants' acquittal by judgment
                 RAN.HT SINGH @JITA v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     253

dated 20.10.1992 passed by Addi. Judge, Designated Court, District Jail. A
Nabha. That judgment was placed on the record of the Designated Court by
the appellants. It is Ext. D-1. Unfortunately, there is not even a whisper about
the judgment dated 20th October, 1992 in the impugned judgment and order
of the Designated Court convicting the appellants.

      The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to explain the B
reason why the confession which purports to admit both the incidents was not
placed and relied upon in the earlier case. The only submission made in that
regard is that the defence did not as any question in the present case from the
prosecution witnesses. On the facts of the case as noticed, that is hardly an
explanation.                                                                    C
       PW4 Surjit Singh Deswal was an Addi. Superintendent of Police. He
admitted that in the administrative hierarchy PW3 was above him and on oral
directions of PW3 he recorded the confessional statements of accused Satnam
which is Ext. P-5 and accused Gurnam (Exbt P-5/3). Like. PW3, he gave to
the accused 20 to 30 minutes to think over whether they wanted to give the         D
confessional statements, this time was given after the accused were
administered statutory warning in the similar fashion as was done by PW3.
It seems to be quite strange that both the officers though recorded confessional
statements of two accused each separately thought that half an hour or 20
minutes would be sufficient cooling time·to be given to the accused who are
being brought before them from police custody of 18-20 days and had                E
expressed, according to these officers, their willingness to make confessional
statements.

       There is a:iother aspect of recording of confessional statements by PW4.
As already noticed he was Addi. S.P. In the administrative hierarchy he was        F
lower in rank than PW3 shri Niwas Vashisht, S.P. Learned counsel for the
State has not been able to show any rule, regulation or other provision to
establish the status of PW 4 - a police officer, an Additional Superintendent
of Police. Nothing was brought to our notice to establish that he was a police
officer not lower in rank than the Superintendent of Police. It was, however,
submitted by the learned counsel that even if the two confessional statements      G
recorded PW4 are kept out of consideration still the conviction can be upheld
only on the basis of confessional statements recorded by PW3. We have
already expressed hereinbefore our views in respect of the confessional
statements recorded by PW3.

      In the facts and circumstances of the present case the grant of half an H
    254                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A hour to the accused to thfok over before recording their confessional statement
    cannot be held to be a reasonable period. We do not think that is safe to base
    conviction on such confessional statements. Fu11her. on the facts of the present
    case, conviction cannot be maintained on the sole testimony of two police
    officials. It may also be noticed that although PW6 Chander Bhan, Armourer,
B   was examined by the prosecution to prove that the weapons were in working
    conditions, no effort was made to prove that the ammunition or the empties
    matched the weapons.

          For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the
    appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of Additional Judge,
C   Designated Court, District Jail, Nabha, dated, 27th April, 2002 is set aside
    and the appeal allowed, accordingly. The appellants shall be set at liberty
    forthwith, if not required in any other case.

    R.P.                                                          Appeal allowed.