New Delhi: A 2 rupee note, a spare tire and a set of car keys. These were part of the evidence that led the Supreme Court to overturn the acquittal of two men and sentence them and two others to life imprisonment in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case.
On Thursday – 27 years after a blast in one of the national capital’s busiest markets that killed 13 people and injured several – a three-bench judge of the apex court dismissed the appeals filed by . Mohammad Naushad and Javed Ahmed upholding the trial court’s order against the 22 November 2012 judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had sentenced him to life imprisonment.
In the same judgement, a bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol allowed the Delhi Police’s appeal against the acquittal of two more accused – Mirza Nisar Hussain and Mohd Ali Bhatt – and upheld the HC’s findings regarding them. reversed and instructed them. Surrender to the authorities.
The Supreme Court sentenced the four to life imprisonment without any remission, ensuring that they cannot apply for premature release – a remedy available to convicts who spend more than 14 years in jail. Are.
In its 190-page judgement, the Supreme Court said that the court should not set aside the prosecution or testimony of police witnesses because of non-availability of public witnesses. The court reviewed the “unbroken” statements of the police, circumstantial evidence and the confessional statements of the accused to conclude that the four were part of a conspiracy hatched to carry out the blasts.
In such circumstances, the court said, the absence of public witnesses cannot cast a shadow of doubt on the “overwhelming” circumstantial evidence available on record, which, according to it, was established through “truthful” testimony of police witnesses. The bench said that the statements of the police officers recorded during the investigation and during the trial instilled “confidence” in the investigation.
Putting curtains on the May 21, 1996 blast, the bench said, “In the matter of overwhelming evidence available on record, what matters is the quality of the witness and not the number.”
The investigation of the case was handed over to the Special Cell of Delhi Police, which filed a charge sheet naming 17 people as accused. While one of the 17 died, seven never faced trial and were declared proclaimed offenders.
Of the 10 people tried by the trial court, four were acquitted, while two were partially convicted and sentenced to prison terms, which they had already served during the trial.
No appeal was filed against these decisions.
However, the same trial court convicted Naushad, Hussain, Bhat and Ahmed. While the first three were sentenced to death, Ahmed was given life imprisonment.
All four eventually appealed their convictions to the High Court, which commuted Naushad and Ahmed’s death sentences to life imprisonment, overturning the lower court’s findings in Hussain and Bhat’s case.
While Naushad and Ahmed questioned their conviction, the Delhi Police questioned the High Court’s reasoning for reducing their sentence and also sought a reversal of its verdict on Hussain and Bhat.
Car keys, spare tire – who did the court rely on
According to the Delhi Police, a major breakthrough came in the investigation of the blasts case with the arrest of Ahmed by the Gujarat Police on 1 June 1996, about a week after the blasts. While the agency had already arrested two others from Kashmir in connection with the case, according to the prosecution, Ahmed’s disclosure to the Gujarat police eventually helped them crack the case.
Naushad was among the many detained thereafter, who was arrested on 14 June 1996, 24 days after the blast. According to police, NaushadWho was arrested from New Delhi Railway Station, where he was about to catch a train to Gorakhpur, played a key role in the conspiracy.
In its decision the Supreme Court relied extensively on Ahmed’s confession to the Gujarat police was also recorded before a magistrate – the recovery that ultimately corroborates the statement, according to the bench.
The court noted that these included RDX supplied by Javed which was found at the house of Naushad and one of his neighbours, who was cited as a public witness but turned hostile during the trial.
It also cited other important evidence – a spare tire of the stolen car in which the bomb was planted, the original registration plate of the vehicle which was found at the instance of the accused, spare keys of the car found after the incident, 2 rupee note used to collect hawala money from someone in north west delhi, and a drill machine that was used to drill holes in the cylinders used for the explosion.
Besides this, the court said, the accused had also identified important places, such as the area from where they had stolen the car, the place where the car was parked for the blast, and the various shops from where they planned to carry out the blast. Necessary things were bought. Bomb.
‘Circumstantial evidence complete’
In their defence, the accused argued that they could not be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone and that there were no independent witnesses in the police team at any point of time – be it at the time of arrest or seizure. He argued that even those who were cited as public witnesses never supported the prosecution case in the court.
The prosecution had examined 107 witnesses during the trial, of whom 28 were police officers.
However, the court rejected the argument that the circumstantial evidence against the accused in the case was fully established and rejected the defense argument that no conviction could be sustained in the absence of an independent witness.
“We find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court on this aspect as the courts cannot completely ignore the fact that in cases involving serious offences, members of the public are reluctant to attend police proceedings for fear of victimisation. are reluctant. Or for the sheer harassment of attending innumerable and endless court hearings,” the SC bench said.
In the present case, many witnesses were from Turkman Gate area, Where Naushad, one of the accused, resided, the court, while accepting the version of the Delhi Police, said that many residents of the area were not willing to join the police investigation.
The bench noted that the subordinate courts had also made similar observations and noted that the lower courts had recorded that such witnesses had not told the truth during the trial.
“Courts have, on several occasions, regretted this incident and observed that the evidence of prosecution or police witnesses should not be rejected by the court because of non-availability of public witnesses,” the bench lamented. The “indifference” of the general public in not getting involved with the police prosecution.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)