Shafi Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan [2013]

By Ashlesha Suryawanshi

Facts

The appellants, Safi Mohammad, Chotu Khan and Chand Khan were arrested by the superintendent of police CID zone Jodhpur under section 3, 3/9 of the official secrets act and section 120B of IPC. Before the arrest was made one of the suspected persons was seen near the Air force area Jodhpur which is informed by an informant of Bhoormal Jain SP CID Zone Jodhpur. And therefore they gave instructions to Veer Singh who was working as an inspector of police CID, to keep watch on suspected persons. After some inquiry of inspector, it was revealed that the suspected person is not a resident of Gujrat and not engaged with work of tailoring so all the facts he told about himself that his name was Anil Sindhi and son of Bhagwandas Sindhi was false and his actual name was Mohammad Isfac son of Mukram Khan resident of Karachi Pakistan. This information about the suspected person was sent to the Bhoormal Jain and then they further searched his baggage and found some writing in the Urdu language, in which there were some sketches of important places of the Airforce. All documents were seized by police. After that Mohammad Isfac also revealed that he was sent by the Pakistani F.I.U intelligence agency to India on February 5,  1990. He illegally entered India with the help of B.K.D Bakkhasar, Jawahara Kohli. For this work, he gets Rs 6500 from Pakistan Intelligence Agency. After this information, it was found that  Mohammed Isfac and Sufi Mohammed were Pakistani spices and CID special zone Jodhpur send a message through special messenger Navnit Kumar to a Special police station to lodge the F.I.R  

To disclose further facts, Yadam Tiwari who was the station house officer along with Sufi Mohammed reached Jetha Chanana, he instructs Sufi Mohammed to call Mohammed Isaf and asked about the completion of their work and inform him about the status of their work. Mohammed Sufi did so. After the arrest of Sufi Mohammad, his quarter was searched and they found one diary and map. After some investigation, it was found that One person, Chotu Khan was also involved in this. After his arrest, they got one chart of the organization’s mountain division Due to headquarters. From the further investigation, it was found that Chand Khan, a person from Pakistan also involved in this and he was reached on March 17 at Bakhasar with the help of Jawahara  Kohli.

Investigating officers arrested Chand khan after disclosing things like one black purse of Ragjin, one newspaper, one belt, Sanik Samachar of Feb 14, 1988.

All the persons involved in the conspiracy were arrested after the whole investigation and the Challan submitted before the court of chief judicial magistrate. 

Issue

1)Whether the counsel of prosecution proved the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the unnecessary evidence produced by the prosecution?

Arguments by Appellants

1) Defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant charge beyond reasonable doubt and he has been unnecessarily involved in the matter.

2) also it was argued that the witness produced by the defense counsel was not taken into consideration by the trial court and no discussion about him was done in the judgment of the trial court. 

3) The defense counsel argued that the two witnesses produced by the prosecution namely Narain Ram and Mohan Singh were not able to relate to the quarter of the accused Shafi Mohammed. 

4) The item found in the investigation process was seized by police, that item was not part of the Airforce range and the material sealed was kept in sealed condition and not in Makhana. 

5) The learned counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant guilty of a crime and the appellant is in no way concerned with the crime therefore he should be acquitted.

6) The learned counsel argued that Chhotu Khan and Chand Khan were already in judicial custody for more than 4 years and 2 months so they should be released on considering the facts of the case. 

Respondent Arguments

1. The learned public prosecutor argued that considering the statements of PW 15, PW 20, PW 31, PW 32, PW 33  and the Documents and evidence recovered in the investigation is clear cut proof that proves the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and therefore it is an offence under section 3/9 of the official secrets act.
2. Also, the public prosecutor pleaded that the appellant was Pakistan spices work for a Pakistan intelligence agency and was caught near the Air Force area Jodhpur.

Judgment

After examining all the witnesses, the honorable Court applied the principle of Falsus In Uno, Falsus in omnibus means false in one thing, false in everything.  Court held that even if the major part of the evidence is found to be unnecessary but one key point is important then it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The court must examine every piece of evidence carefully. Therefore this doctrine helps the court to apply the question of weight of evidence and differentiate between the majority of unnecessary evidence and important one. In India, this doctrine of ‘Falsus In Uno, Falsus in Omnibus ‘ is not gaining general acceptance because here evidence by a witness is more important even if it is untrue and testimony is rejected and the court considers the evidence by witnesses instead of testimony body.

The evidence produced by the prosecution is necessary. The statements of Navneet Kumar, constable No. 234 CID. Special Zone, Jodhpur, Om Prakash Rathi who is a guest house owner where the accused stayed, Navnit Kumar Inspector of police recovered a map from the accused also he was seen accused near Airforce area, Jainarain Rathi, a trader recovered Cinema tickets from accused, Mohan Singh was PW.8, the stated that the accused Shafi Mohammed was posted as ASM at Jetha Chanana, PW.9 Arvind Mathur gives his statement about the sealed envelope. PW.11 Bhoormal Jain SP CID Intelligence at Jodhpur gives a full description of the complaint. Others PW.12, PW.13, PW.14, PW.15 namely Khoob Singh, Guman Singh, Rameshwar, Daulat Ram respectively were declared hostile.

Further PW. 16, Nand Kishore Atre,  PW.18 Sher Singh, PW.19 Jagdish Chand Addl, PW. 20 Mahendra Singh sub-inspector CID, PW.21 Dr T.S Kapoor, PW.22 Ghanshyam, PW.24 Yadram Tiwari, PW.25 Dilip Singh and other independent witnesses PW.28 to PW.33 supported the case of the prosecution. 

From all these statements and evidence from witnesses, it is clear that the prosecutor proves the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable ground, therefore, the accused are Pakistan spices and guilty of provision of section 3/9 of the official secrets act and the appeal of appellants are rejected and a maximum sentence under section 3/9 of the official secrets act is 7 years for heinous offenses. For these reasons the appeals filed by the accused were dismissed by the sessions judge Jaipur city.

Conclusion

This case deals with the matter of security of the nation in which the court held that evidence produced by the prosecution is important. The prosecution produces all the witnesses before the court police witnesses are also involved in this case. The finding recorded by both the courts below regarding search and seizure of the documents which influence the integrity and security of the country is that the contemporary results of fact are rightly recorded by the supreme court after proper examination of evidence.