Summary
The Supreme Court restored nine accused persons’ trial-court convictions and sentences for the conspiracy culminating in Haren Pandya’s murder. The eyewitness account, medical and ballistic evidence, recoveries, communications and individually corroborated confessions supported guilt; the High Court’s acquittal rested on a perverse assessment. Other accused received distinct outcomes. A separate public-interest request for further investigation was dismissed on the record and as misuse of that procedure.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s murder acquittals could stand on its assessment of eyewitness, medical, ballistic and circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the POTA confessions were voluntary and recorded with statutory safeguards, and how they could be used.
- What separate outcomes followed for the remaining accused and the petition seeking further investigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 32, Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002The Court found compliance with the recording, warning, reflection, production and custody safeguards and accepted the corroborated confessions against their makers; a co-accused’s confession was not admissible against another under this section. (¶ 113–149)
- Section 52, Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002The record showed legal assistance after arrest; there was no case that requested assistance during reflection had been denied, distinguishing the safeguards failures in the Parliament Attack case. (¶ 136–142)
- Rule 8, Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Section IThe restriction on an executive-committee member appearing for the organisation remained binding unless amended or declared invalid; a pending objection to its validity did not justify breach. (¶ 266–268)
Held
- The eyewitness’s presence was natural and corroborated. Minor discrepancies, approximate timings and inability to describe precise body positions did not discredit him; medical evidence did not negate his account. (¶ 27–79)
- The prosecution established the bullets’ chain of custody and their match to the recovered revolver. The objections about colour, firing-pin tampering, maps and recoveries did not undermine the accepted evidence. (¶ 80–111)
- The confession safeguards were satisfied on the facts, with sufficient reflection, warnings and judicial custody. Later retractions did not displace the Court’s findings of voluntariness and corroboration. Section 32 did not make one accused’s confession evidence against another. (¶ 113–149)
- The evidence was examined accused by accused and supported restoration of the nine specified murder-conspiracy convictions. The High Court’s approach overlooked material evidence and was not a reasonable acquittal view protected from appellate interference. (¶¶ 162–223, 270)
- For A-2, A-3 and A-12, the unappealed trial acquittals and completed sentences warranted no further interference; A-2’s reduced sentence was maintained. Mohd. Junaid Sheikh’s separate acquittal on conspiracy charges and the High Court’s Section 174A outcome were also left undisturbed. (¶¶ 224–234, 271–273)
- The further-investigation PIL, brought while the criminal appeals were being heard, lacked sufficient new material and was found not bona fide. The Court rejected the relied-on hearsay, reports and allegations as grounds for reopening the investigation on this record. (¶¶ 235–265, 269, 274)
Result
Trial convictions and sentences restored for A-1 and A-4 to A-11 under POTA and the IPC murder-conspiracy charges. Appeals concerning A-2, A-3 and A-12 dismissed without further interference; State appeals disposed of accordingly. Both sides’ appeals in Mohd. Junaid Sheikh’s separate case dismissed. WP(Crl) 26/2019 dismissed with ₹50,000 costs payable to the Supreme Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Fund within one month.