RAVINDER SINGH BITTU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 30,2002

RAVINDER SINGH @ BITTU Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GITA LAMA TAMANG VS. STATE OF G N C T OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-121] [REFERRED TO]
GURMINDER SINGH VS. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD AFZAL KUMHAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-189] [REFERRED TO]
ACHARAPARAMBATH PRADEEPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
NASIR DAWOOD IBRAHIM SAIKH VS. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU MUMBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-10-129] [REFERRED TO]
NCB VS. AZIZ AHMAD [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-205] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATBHAI JIMI PREMCHANDBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-13] [RELIED ON]
P S SATHAPPAN DEAD VS. ANDHRA BANK LTD [LAWS(SC)-2004-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD AYUB DAR VS. STATE OF JANDK [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ADAMBHAI SULEMANBHAI AJMERI [LAWS(GJH)-2010-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANAS ABDUL RASHID MACHISWALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2011-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEEL AHMED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2003-4-41] [REFERRED]
BHARATBHAI JIMI PREMCHANDBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-2002-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY DUTT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD DAWOOD VS. DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-278] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR YADAV @ SONI VS. N.C.B. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEPAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
HARPREET SINGH BAHAD VS. D.R.I. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-366] [REFERRED TO]
SAHEBRO KALURAM BHINTADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-12-151] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Y. K. Sabharwal, J. - (1.)In this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Designated Court, only one of the accused viz. Ravinder Singh @ Bittu is the appellant. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant and one Nishan Singh have been convicted for offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act read with Section 120, IPC, Section 302 with Section 34, IPC and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1984. They have been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in respect of these offences and in default suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of six months each. They have also been convicted for offence under Section 392 read with Section 34, IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default suffer RI for six months and for the other two offences RI for a period of five years each with a similar fine and RI in default in payment of fine. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
(2.)The impugned judgment further directs the release the approver Kulvinder Singh @ Kinda and acquits accused Hardeep Singh of all the offences for which he was charged. No appeal has been preferred by Nishan Singh. We are, thus, concerned in this appeal with the case of the prosecution against Ravinder Singh @ Bittu only.
(3.)The number of incidents as projected by the prosecution before the designated Court were seven, i.e. (1) Hatching of conspiracy in September, 1991 by the appellant, Nishan Singh, Hardeep Singh, approver and deceased Pradhan Singh; (2) Commission of robbery at Sharma Petrol Pump on 22nd October, 1991; (3) Commission of robbery at Mohadi Petrol Pump, on 25th October; 1991; (4) Firing on police jeep on 25th October, 1991 and killing of three police personnel; (5) Preparation of Bomb; (6) Train Bomb blast on November 8, 1991 at 10.45 p.m. resulting in death of 12 and injuries to 65 persons; and (7) Encounter with the police and firing by the accused and police on 2nd December, 1991 resulting in death of Pradhan Singh and arrest of accused Nishan Singh.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.