MOHAMMAD KHALID Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on September 03,2002

MOHD.KHALID Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

VISHAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2004-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
BABBAN SHAH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2006-2-144] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS. SHIV CHARAN BANSAL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-192] [REFERRED TO]
ABUTHAGIR VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-54] [REFERRED TO]
MANNA LAL GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-150] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVI MINOR VS. MAM RAJ [LAWS(SC)-2004-2-144] [REFERRED]
MADHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-75] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH TIWARI VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-406] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SHARMA @ BANTI SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-563] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. SPECIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-148] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH BARAR @ RAJU VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP VERMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-10-27] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI BHAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-57] [REFERRED TO]
BINNU SRIVASTAVA @ PAWAN SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-137] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VALMIK VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KIRITI PAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-420] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SARNA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-526] [REFERRED TO]
SOUGAIJAM RAKESH SINGH VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
HARBEER SINGH VS. SHEESHPAL & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
MD.JAMILUDDIN NASIR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2014-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR S/O RAMSWAROOP VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-6-37] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. SITA DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MEHATA VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH P. P. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-137] [REFERRED TO]
GAUTAM MONDAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2022-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKAR GIRI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
WASIM KHAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2013-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-256] [REFERRED TO]
SYED AKRAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-4-339] [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL HASMUKHBHAI TRIVEDI VS. PANKAJ MAGANLAL SHRIMALI & 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. C.B.I. SIC-II [LAWS(P&H)-2004-11-28] [REFERRED TO]
AMOL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-66] [REFERRED TO]
O.A.A. D'ABREO VS. AIR INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
SRI LANKA VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA., REP. BY SPECIAL PP OF CBI, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2018-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ PAL VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-137] [REFERRED TO]
SUBAIR VS. UNION OF INDIA REP BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY MHA GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-205] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-311] [REFERRED TO]
LALMAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
P VIJAYAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN PANDIAN VS. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
S ARUL RAJA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA DALAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2015-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-3-140] [REFERRED TO]
AFROZ KHAN SHAHID KHAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-6-109] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SANKAR K.D. VS. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI [LAWS(KER)-2016-6-280] [REFERRED TO]
DESH DEEPAK KUMAR VIHANGAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
ERAN ELIAV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-185] [REFERRED TO]
AMANPREET SINGH ALIAS JAGGU VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-608] [REFERRED]
MANGAT RAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2022-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. SUMIT BANIK [LAWS(TRIP)-2022-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM ALIAS ABDUL SALEEM ALIAS THANGALAGU VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-266] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-12-218] [REFERRED TO]
SAIDU MOHAMMED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
DWARPAL VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2013-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
KETAN DESAI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
JATIN DUTTA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEEL AHMED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2003-4-41] [REFERRED]
SOBARAN SINGH VS. STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-15] [FOLLOWED ON]
ROHIT VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB VS. M R NATARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR KHAN VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2003-8-34] [REFERRED]
SIDHARTH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2005-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
VEGI SRINIVASA RAO VS. SENIOR INTLLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-294] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-295] [REFERRED TO]
SAHABLAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-84] [REFERRED TO]
CHAKINA KHATUN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH DOLATRAM HARJANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2006-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI MOHANBHAI KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-10-273] [REFERRED]
RANJAN DAIMARI VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(GAU)-2022-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
DOONGAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2017-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
MALA, WIFE OF SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHAMAN KUNJI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
RADHANATH YADAV VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
AMNA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-234] [REFERRED TO]
KARTIK MANDAL VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
GURNAIB SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-84] [REFERRED TO]
LAHU KAMLAKAR PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTHA VASHISHT ALIAS MANU SHARMA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2010-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
SULABH JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-71] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH PATRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2018-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-279] [REFERRED TO]
K VELLINGIRI VS. S A BASHA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-278] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)No religion propagates terrorism or hatred. Love for all is the basic foundation on which almost all religions are founded. Unfortunately, some fanatics who have distorted views of religion spread messages of terror and hatred. They do not understand and realize what amount of damage they do to the society. Sometimes people belonging to their community or religion also become victims. As a result of these fanatic acts of some misguided people, innocent lives are lost, distrust in the minds of communities replaces love and affection for others. The devastating effect of such dastardly acts is the matrix on which the present case to which these appeals relate rests. On 16th March, 1993, just before the stroke of mid-night, people in and around B. B. Ganguly street in the bow Bazar area of Calcutta heard deafening sounds emanating from thundering explosions which resulted in total demolition of a building and partial demolition of two other adjacent buildings situated at 267, 266 and 268a, B. B. Ganguly street. Large number of people were trapped in and buried under the demolished buildings. It was indeed a very ghastly sight and large number of people died because of the explosions' impact and/or on account of the falling debris. Human limbs were found scattered all around the area. Those who survived tried to rescue the unfortunate victims. Police officers arrived at the spot immediately. The first information report was lodged at Bow Bazar police station for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 120b, 436, 302, 307, 326 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') and sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances act, 1908 (in short 'the Explosive Act').
(2.)Considering the seriousness and gravity of the incident, the commissioner of police set up a special investigating team. On investigation, 8 persons including the six appellants were found linked with the commission of offences. Arrests were made. While rescue operations were on, there was further explosion on 18.3.1993. The exploded bomb was handed over to the police officer after its examination on the spot by a military officer. Meanwhile, the pay loader picked up a gunny bag containing 22 live bombs. Afterwards, they were defused after examination. Certain materials were seized by the investigating team from the site of the occurrence and on examination, it was found that nitroglycerin explosives were involved in the explosion. Large number of witnesses were examined.
(3.)Two of the accused persons, Pannalal jaysoara (accused-appellant in criminal appeal no. 299/2002) and Mohd. Gulzar (accused-appellant in criminal appeal no. 494/2002) were arrested on 29.3.1993 and 13.5.1993 respectively. As they wanted to make their confessions, those were to be recorded before the judicial magistrate. Accordingly, their confessional statements were recorded by the magistrates (PWs. 81 and 82). Some of the accused persons were also identified by witnesses in the test identification parade. On 11.6.1993, the commissioner of police on examination of the case diary, statement of witnesses, reports of the experts and confessional statements came to the conclusion that provisions of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) act, 1987 (in short "the TADA Act') were applicable. Accordingly, sanction was accorded for prosecution of the accused persons under the said statute. Charge sheet was submitted on 14.6.1993.


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