The appellants are accused nos.46 and 47 in FIR No 65 of 2018 registered on 23 September 2018 at Dumbriguda Police Station, District Vishakhapatnam, in Andhra Pradesh.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
Thereafter, the MLA was taken to the left-hand side of Y- Junction and the Ex-MLA was taken to the right-hand side of Y- Junction.
He pointed out that the recovery of landmine is shown at the instance of appellant no.1- accused no.46, which on the face of it, is highly suspicious. He pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the alleged landmines had any connection with the offence of killing the aforesaid two leaders. Nataraj, learned ASG appearing for the respondent, pointed out the Memorandum dated 13 October 2018 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Evidence Act’), which shows that a steel can weighing about 10 kg containing bolts, nuts and filled with explosive material and connected to a detonator 5 through a wire was recovered at the instance of accused no.46 near a kaccha road near village Sarai where the deceased political leaders were to visit.
He, therefore, submitted that in view of the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43D of UAPA, the appellants are disentitled to bail as there is material on record to believe that the accusations against the appellants are prima facie true.
It is further alleged that appellant no.1 – accused no.46 was in constant touch with accused no.84, who in turn was in touch with the Maoists. In the said judgment, the High Court has considered the CDR records of the telephonic conversation between accused no.46 and accused no.84. The High Court observed that when an offence of such a nature happened in the vicinity, it is not unusual that accused no.46, who was an Ex- Sarpanch, would receive calls from many persons immediately after the commission of the offence. Thereafter, he received a call from accused no.84, who informed him that one person will give him a list of medicines and cash of Rs.10,000/- and he 9 should help him to purchase medicines. We fail to understand how the purchase of medicines worth Rs.8,000/- by accused no.46 at the instance of accused no.84 much before the incident has any connection with the incident which took place on 23 September 2018.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/moratorium-application-in-insolvency-case/
An exception to this is however provided by Section 26 which makes a confessional statement made before a Magistrate admissible in evidence against an accused notwithstanding the fact that he was in the custody of the police when he made the incriminating statement.
If an accused charged with a theft of articles or receiving stolen articles, within the meaning of Section 411 IPC states to the police, “I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them” and the articles are actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by him led to the discovery of a fact i.e. The first condition for the applicability of Section 27 is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact, which is the direct outcome of such information.
The same is the case with the other allegation that accused no.46 showed a Xerox shop where accused no.47 and one Kiran were allegedly standing on 23 September 2018. In the statement, he has stated that on 16 January 2019, NIA team visited his shop and inquired about the sale of medicines involving a large amount in July 2018 and the team brought accused no.46 with them.
Going by the “Mediators’ Report and Seizure Panchnama”, the appellants gave confessional statements immediately after the police caught hold of them even before their arrest was recorded.
Thereafter Bomb Disposal team removed bomb in presence of us (Mediators), ASP Amitabh Bardar, IPS and by examining it was found to be a Steel Can weighing about 10 kg, containing Bolts, Nuts and filled with Explosive Material and connected to a Detonator through a hole. If accused no.46 had made such a statement leading to the discovery of the landmine, the discovery of the fact that the landmine was planted by accused nos.46 at a particular place could have been proved, provided the landmine was to be used in the offence. In the tabular form, it is not mentioned that there are statements of the witnesses who had seen accused nos.46 or 47 giving shelter to the Maoists. It is 16 recorded in the Panchnama that eight brochures, two banners, and one landmine, along with electric wire and detonators, were seized from four persons. Taking the material against the appellants as it is and without considering the defence of the appellants, we are unable to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded in this Judgment are only prima facie observations recorded for the limited purposes of examining the case in the light of the proviso to s ub- section (5) of Section 43D of the UAPA.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
Oka)……………………….J.
Case Title: YEDALA SUBBA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2023 INSC 382)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001153-001153 / 2023
