Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case

1
INTHECOURTOFSHSPGARG,DJIV/ASJ
NEWDELHIDISTRICTPATIALAHOUSECOURTS,
NEWDELHI
(1)SessionsCaseNo.47/09
StateVs1 FarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat
S/oGulamKadir
R/oJanglatMandi,Distt.AnantNag
(J&K) .....A1
2 MrsFaridaDar@Bahanji
W/oMohd.MaqboolDar
R/oHouseNo.1DilsauzColony
Natipora,Distt.Badgaon
(J&K) .......A2
3 Mohd.Naushad
S/oAbdulRashid
R/oP7,DDAFlats,TurkmanGate
Delhi .........A3
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 1of408
2
4 MirzaIftqarHussain@Saba
S/oLateMirzaAliMohd
R/oNumchabalnearGMCollege
SriNagar,(J&K) ..........A4
5MirzaNissarHussain@Naza
S/oLateMirzaAliMohd
R/oKhankaiMohalla
NumchabadnearGMCollege
SriNagar(J&K) ...........A5
6 Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey
S/oHaziSherAli
R/oHusanabad,Rainabari
SriNagar(J&K) ............A6
7 LatifAhmedWaza
S/oGulamMohdWaza
R/oMohallaSamauwari
nearGandhiMemorialCollege
SriNagar(J&K) ........A7
3
8 SyedMaqboolShah
S/oSyedMohd.Shah
R/oJanMohalla
LalBazarnearIgatMissionSchool
SriNagar(J&K)........A8
9 JavedAhmedKhan@JavedJunior@
ChhotaJaved
S/oMohd.Shafi
R/oNowpora,PS:Khanyar
SriNagar(J&K).........A9
10 AbdulGani@Assadullah@Nikka
S/oBahauddinGani
R/oMohallaPassi,Badaiwah
Distt.Doda(J&K) ..........A10
11 BilalAhmedBeg
S/oMohd.YusufBeg
R/oMohallaBegumAli
AloochaBagh
4
SriNagar(J&K) .........A11
(sinceP.O)
12 Juber@Mehrazuddin
R/oPuranaMohalla
Nalipora,SriNagar(J&K).........A12
(SinceP.O)
13 RiyazAhmedSheikh@Riyaz@Mulla
S/oMohd.YusufSheikh
R/oSheikhMohalla
ChoudharyBag,Rainabau
SriNagar(J&K) ........A13
(sincedead)
14 Mohd.AshrafBhatta
S/oGulamKadirBhatta
R/oBahriKadal,PPUrduBazar
PSMaharajGanj,
(sinceP.O)
5
15 JavedKariwar@JavedAhmedGoojri
S/oGulamAhmedGoojri
R/o11/2BabaDamNalamarRoad
KailashPora
PSMagarajGanj
(sinceP.O)
16 IbrahimAbdulRazakMenan@Muslaq
@TigerMenan
S/oAbdulRazakMenan
R/o2225and26AlHussaini
CooperativeHousingSociety,
DargahStreet,Mahim,Mumba.........A16
(sinceP.O)
17 DaudHassanSheikhKaskar@Daud
Bhai@DaudIbrahim
S/oIbrahimSheikKaskar
R/o33PakmadiaStreet
HaziIsmailMusafirKhana
6
Dongri,Mumbai.........A17
(sinceP.O)
FIRNo.517/96
U/s302/307/12B124A,212IPC&
U/s3,4&5ExplosiveSubstanceAct&
U/s25ArmsAct
PS:LajpatNagar
2281996ChargesheetfiledintheCourtofld.MM.
21071997Casecommitted/allocatedtoSessions.
17032010Datereservedforjudgment.
08042010Dateofannouncementofjudgment.
(14yearsoldcase)
(2)SessionsCaseNo.41/09
StateVs 1 Mohd.Naushad
S/oAbdulRashid
R/oP7,DDAFlats,TurkmanGate
Delhi .........A3
2 MirzaNissarHussain@Naza
7
S/oLateMirzaAliMohd
R/oKhankaiMohalla
NumchabadnearGMCollege
SriNagar(J&K) ...........A5
3 Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey
S/oHaziSherAli
R/oHusanabad,Rainabari
SriNagar(J&K) ............A6
4 SyedMaqboolShah
S/oSyedMohd.Shah
R/oJanMohalla
LalBazarnearIgatMissionSchool
SriNagar(J&K)...........A8
FIRNo.286/96
U/s379/411IPC
PS:Nizamuddin
22081996ChallanfiledintheCourtofld.MM.
8
24071997AllocatedtoSessions
17032010Datereservedforjudgment.
08042010Dateofannouncementofjudgment.
(14yearsoldcase)
JUDGEMENT:
1 AccusedA1toA10werearrestedbythepoliceofPS
LajpatNagar/SpecialCellincaseFIRNo.517/96,u/s302/307/120
B/124A/212IPC, u/s3/4/5ExplosiveSubstanceActandu/s25
Arms Act. Accused A11 to A17 could not be arrested during
investigation and they were got declared P.Os. However,
subsequently,afterfilingofthechallanagainstA1toA10,A13
wasapprehendedinthiscaseandsupplementarychallanwasfiled
againsthim.However,duringpendencyoftrialA13expiredand
proceedingswereorderedtobedroppedagainsthimvideorder
dated23/10/1998asabated.
9
2 The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details
asprojectedincaseFIRNo.517/96,PSLajpatNagaragainstthe
accusedpersonsmaybestatedthus:
(A)BriefFacts:
3 On21.5.96apowerfulexplosiontookplaceatabout
6.30 p.m. at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar. On receipt of WT
message, Sh Anand Prakash, Addl. SHO , PS Lajpat Nagar
alongwithstaffrushedtothespotandmetwithhorrificsight.Many
shopsatPushpaMarketwereonfire.Numberofpersonshaddied
in the incident. Some were lying in injured condition and were
crying.Onreachingatthespotwiththeassistanceofhisstaffand
thepublicpersonspresentthere,thepoliceremovedtheinjured
persons to different hospitals in different vehicles. With the
assistantoffiretenders,firewasputoff.NSGs'experts,explosive
expertsfromCFSLweresummonedatthespot.
4 PresentcasewasregisteredonthestatementofSh
10
SubhashChandKatar,ashopkeeperofPushpaMarketwhoinhis
statementtothepoliceinformedthatatabout6.30p.m.,hewas
checkingbillbookatthecounterofhisshop. Allofasudden,
therewasaloudblastinaMaruticarofwhitecolourstandingata
distance of about 10 ft from his shop. The photo frames and
wooden panelling in his shop fell down due to explosion. He
immediately came out of the shop and saw 45 ladies lying
smearedinbloodontheground.Thecarinwhichtheblasthad
takenplacewasinflames.Firehadspreadtofourorfiveadjacent
cars.Havingfearofanotherexplosion,heimmediatelycameout
ofshopandwentintheadjoiningstreet. Therehesaw2or3
boysininjuredconditionlyingontheground.Thesaidboyswere
strugglingtocomeoutofaclothshopwhichwasonfire.
5 Thecomplainantfurtherinformedthepolicethatone
chowkidar/parkingmanwhosenamehedidnotrememberused
to remain in the market as 'Chowkidar'. His name could be
ascertainedfromshopkeeperAshokThakur.Thesaidchowkidar/
11
parkingmanhadnotcomeondutyonthatday.Heusedtositon
thechairinfrontofhisshop. Thecomplainantinformedthathe
was not aware of the registration number of the car in which
explosionhadtakenplace.Hedidnotknowastowhohadparked
thesaidcarinfrontofhisshop.
6 During further investigation, Crime team,
photographer, NSGexpertsanddogsquadweresummonedat
thespot.CopyoftheFIRwassenttotheseniorofficersthrough
specialmessenger. IOpreparedroughsiteplanoftheplaceof
occurrence.Hegotthesceneofincidentphotographed.Carused
in the bomb blast was seized and necessary memos were
prepared. Some number plates were also seized at the spot.
EightMaruticarswhichwereinburntconditionwereseizedvide
seizurememos.CasepropertywasdepositedintheMalkhanaof
PS Lajpat Nagar. On the spot the IO recorded statements of
witnessesu/s161CrPC.
7 On 22.5.96, Sections under TADA were removed
12
andsections302/307IPCwereaddedasnumberofinjuredhad
expiredinthehospitals.
8 In the explosion, in all 13 persons expired; 38
sustainedinjuries,8Maruticars/vansgotburntand14buildings
sufferedextensivedamages. Postmortemonthedeadbodiesof
deceasedweregotconductedandMLCsofinjuredpersonswere
collected. Metalic plates recovered from the spot were sent to
CFSL.
9 Furthercaseoftheprosecutioninthechargesheetis
thatinquiriesweremaderegardingthepersonswhohadparked
maruticarusedintheblast.OnthebasisofEngineNo.923255,
ChasisNo.632905ofthemaruticar,itsregistrationnumberwas
ascertained as DL2CF5854 from the Transport Office. During
furtherinvestigation,ittranspiredthatthiscarwasstolenonthe
interveningnightof17/18596fromA51,NizamuddinEastand
ownerofthecar,ShAtulNathhadgotregisteredacomplaintat
PS Nizamuddin and a case vide FIR No. 286/96 had been
13
registeredthere.
10 Further case of the prosecution is that on 21.5.96
terrorists of Jammu & Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) took
responsibilityforcausingbombblastatLajpatNagarbymaking
telephonecallstopress/media.Theyalsotookresponsibilityfor
causingbombblaston22.5.96inabusatDausa,Rajasthanby
making telephone calls to press/media. On tracing of the
telephonecalls,itcametonoticethatthosetelephonecallswere
madefromtelephonenumber22315atAnantNag,Kashmir.J&K
police was informed to develop the information. On getting
information from J&K police, on 24.5.96 A1 and A2 were
arrestedbypoliceofPSSherGarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94.
11 Further case of the prosecution is that on getting
requiredinformationfromJ&Kpoliceabouttheapprehensionof
A1andA2,NBWsweregotissuedagainstthemfromthecourt.
Insp.JasbirSinghalongwithhisteamwenttoJ&Ktoapprehend
A1 and A2. Both A1 and A2 were arrested by Insp. Jasbir
14
Singhandhisteam atSriNagaron25.5.96. On26.5.96, they
both were produced before Ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate at
PatialaHouseCourt,NewDelhi.Theywereinterrogatedandtheir
disclosurestatementswererecorded.A1confessedthathehad
taken responsibility of Lajpat Nagar bomb blast by making
telephone calls to media. He claimed himself to be Chief
Spokesmanof JKIF. A2alsoconfessed her involvement in the
bombblastcase.
12 Ondirectionsofseniorofficers,furtherinvestigationof
thecasewastransferredtoSpecialStaff/SBIIon26.5.96. Insp.
ParasNathofOperationCellcarriedoutfurtherinvestigationinthe
case.
13 A1andA2wereinterrogatedintensively.Therecord
oftelephoneno.22135fortheperiodfrom10.5.96to30.5.96was
collectedfromthetelephoneexchangeatAnantNaganditwas
foundthattelephoneno.22135wasinstalledattheresidenceofA
1atJanglatMandi,AnantNag,J&KsinceMarch,1996anditwas
15
having STD facility. On checking normal billing record, it was
foundthaton21.5.96atabout8.39p.m.,varioustelephonecalls
were made to PTI, NDTV, Zee TV etc. from telephone number
22135. It was also found that on 21.5.96, A1 had made 31
telephone calls to A2 on phone no. 32221 installed at her
residence.
14 On 2.6.96 Insp. Rajinder Prasad and SI Harinder
SinghwenttoJ&KforsearchofA11andA12.On2.6.96ATS,
Ahmedabad,GujratinformedDelhipolice aboutapprehensionof
A9andA10alongwithAbdulRashidShah@Jalaluddin,Ayub
Bhatta@Zulfikar@TazamulandalsoaboutinvolvementofA9
and A10 in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case. Insp. Ram
Chander alongwith his staff reached at Ahmedabad on 3.6.96.
Insp.Rajinder Prasad , who had reached at Sri Nagar was
informedregardingthismessage.HewasinstructedtosearchA
15andhisassociates.
15 On 3.6.96 Insp. Rajinder Prasad conducted house
16
search at the residence of A9, A14 and A15 and recovered
someincriminatingdocuments.
16 On 4.6.96 A1and A2 were again interrogated and
theirdisclosurestatementswererecorded.Bothdisclosedtoget
recover explosives and ammunitions lying at their residences.
BothA1andA2ledthepoliceteamconsistingofACPP.P.Singh
andInsp.PawanKumartoJ&K.AtJ&KassistanceofBSFwas
taken.On7.6.96,A1gotrecoveredoneAK56AssaultRifle;two
magazines, 59 rounds, two RDX slabs and some incriminating
documents from his residence. Necessary seizure memos were
prepared.Inpursuanceofherdisclosurestatement,A2ledthe
policeteamtoherresidence,i.e.1,DilsauzColony,Natipora,Sri
Nagar and from there, she got recovered one raxine bag lying
underneaththelandnearAnaartree.Oncheckingthebag,itwas
foundcontainingtwoRDXslabsand5timers.Necessaryseizure
memoswerepreparedaftersealingthearticlesinapullanda.SI
Harinder Singh brought the pullandas containing explosives by
17
roadtoDelhianddepositedthecasepropertyinMalkahanofPS
LajpatNagar.
17 On10.6.96bothA1andA2wereproducedatPatiala
HouseCourtsandtheirJCremandtill24.6.96wasobtainedinthis
case.OnthatdayofficialsofCrimeBranch,DelhitookbothA1
andA2inpolicecustodyinconnectionwithcaseofbombblastat
ConnaughtPlace.
18 Furthercaseoftheprosecutionisthatonthebasisof
informationreceivedfromAhmedabadpolice,inquiriesweremade
from the residence of Wazid in Turkman Gate area. On 2.6.96
Wazidwasjoinedintheinvestigationandhisstatementu/s161
CrPCwasrecorded.OnthebasisoftheinformationgivenbyPW
Wazid,itwasfoundthatA3involvedinthiscasewasresidingat
P7,TurkmanGate,DDAFlats,DelhiEffortsweremadetotrace
A3athisresidencebuthecouldnotbetraced. Hishousewas
keptundersurveillance.
19 On14.6.96onthebasisoftheinformationofsecret
18
informer,A3andA4werearrestedatPlatformNo.4,NewDelhi
RailwayStationwhentheywereboardingVaranashiExpresstogo
to Gorakhpur. They were interrogated and their disclosure
statementswererecorded.Theydisclosedthattheyweregoingto
GorakhpurtocollectcashfromtheirassociatesA5andA6and
who were also involved in the bomb blast case. From the
nd
possessionofA3,onerailwayticketof2 classfortwopersons
wasseized.A3andA4werebroughtatOperationCellandwere
interrogated. On 14.6.96 disclosure statement of A4 was
recorded. On15.6.96disclosurestatementofA3wasrecorded
whorevealedastohowandunderwhatcircumstancesthebomb
blastwascaused.
20 On15.6.96inpursuanceofdisclosurestatement,A3
ledthepoliceteamtohisresidenceatP7,FirstFloor,DDAFlats,
TurkmanGate,Delhiandfromthere,hegotrecoveredtwoRDX
slabs, one timer,one iron solder, one wire cutter, two araoldite
tubes, one gas cylinder, one detonator. All these articles were
19
seizedvideseizurememosand depositedinthePSMalkhana
alongwithCFSLforms.
21 On 14.6.96 Insp. Ram Chander collected required
documentspertainingtoA9andA10incaseFIRNo.12/96u/s
121,121A,122,123,120Betc.PSATSAhmedabad(Gujrat).
22 On 16.6.96 Insp.Rajeshwar arrested A7 and
recovered Re. two note bearing No. 66M571634 from his
possession,onthebasisofwhichRs.1lacweretobecollected
fromShMangalChandofShalimarBaghtobegiventoA3byA
4. Someotherincriminatingdocumentwerealsorecoveredfrom
the possession of A7. A6 was also arrested alongwith A7 by
Insp.Rajinder Prasad from Gorakhpur on 16.6.96. They were
broughttoDelhiandtheirdisclosurestatementswererecorded.
23 On16.6.96Re.twocurrencynoterecoveredfromthe
possessionofA7washandedovertoA4.On17.6.96, A4led
thepoliceteamattheresidenceofShMangalChandatBJ24,
ShalimarBagh,Delhiandonproducingthesaidcurrencynoteof
20
Re.two,cashofRs.1lacwasobtainedfromShMangalChand.
CurrencynoteofRs.2/andcashofRs1lacwererecoveredand
seizedbythepolice.Necessarymemoswereprepared.
24 On7.6.96,investigationofcaseFIRNo.286/96,PS
Hazrat Nizamuddin was also transferred to Operation Cell and
Insp.ParasNathcarriedouttheinvestigationinthesaidcasealso.
25 On 17.6.96 A8 was arrested in this case and on
searchofhishouse,somedocumentsandclothespertainingtoA
1wererecovered.OnestepneyofMaruticarNo.DL2F5854was
also recovered at his residence which was seized. A8 was
arrestedincaseFIRNo.286/96also.
26 On17.6.96A5wasarrestedfromMussorieandhis
disclosurestatementwasrecorded.
27 On18.6.96A3,A4,A5ledthepoliceteamandgot
recoveredfrontandrearnumberplatesofmaruticarNo.DL2F
5854. On 19.6.96 they also pointed out the place at Dulhan
DupattawheretheyhadparkedthevehicleinquestionatCentral
21
Market,LajpatNagar.Sh.SumitKumar,ownerofthesaidshop
wasexamined.Theseaccusedpersonsalsoledthepoliceteamto
shopofMohd.Alamfromwheretheyhadpurchasedarlditetubes.
Theseaccusedpersonsalsoledthepolicepartytotheshopof
Mohd.Aslamfromwheretheyhadpurchaseddrillmachine;shop
ofMohd.Nasimfromwheretheyhavepurchasedwires. These
accusedpersonsalsoledthepoliceteamtotheplacefromwhere
theyhadgotpreparedduplicatekeyofthecar.
28 On18.6.96SIBaljitSinghcollectedreservationchart
fromrailwaystafffortrainNo.4673UPShaheedExpressdated
27.5.96 in which there was mention of name of A3. He also
collectedrecordofGuptahotelatGorakhpurwhereon27.5.96A3
hadstayed.
29 Further case of the prosecution is that during
investigationA3,A4andA5alsoledthepoliceteamatshopof
ShVijayKapoorfromwheretheyhadgotconnectedterminalsof
batterycell.TheyalsoledthepoliceteamtoshopofMahmood
22
KamalwhereA3andA5hadpurchasedtwogascylindersforRs.
580/.TheyalsopointedoutshopofShRajeshKumarfromwhere
theyhadpurchased9voltbatterycell.Hewasexaminedinthis
case.ShYogeshGuptaofM/sImperialGramophoneCowasalso
examined. Statements of various witnesses from where these
accusedpersonshadpurchasedvariousarticlestoexplodebomb
wereexaminedinthiscase.
30 On27.6.96inpursuanceofdisclosurestatementA6
gotrecovered500grams explosivesubstance,twosilvercolour
pencil type detonators, fuse wire 165cms, one binocular, one
dischargecapfromhisresidenceatSriNagarwhichwereseized
by Insp. Jamal Singh. Some documents and photographs were
alsorecoveredfromhishouse.
31 On 27.6.96 A7 also got recovered two hand
grenadesetcandsomedocumentsfromhisresidencewhichwere
seizedvideseizurememos.
32 A5alsogotrecoveredonestickhandgrenadefrom
23
hisresidencewhichwasseizedbyInsp.JagmalSingh.
33 On26.7.96A9andA10whohadbeenarrestedby
Ahmadabad police on 1.6.96 were arrested by police of Jaipur.
FromJaipur,bothA9andA10werebroughttoDelhiandwere
arrested in this case and their disclosure statements were also
recorded.
34 During further investigation, police collected various
documentsondifferentdates.ExhibitsweregotsenttoCFSLand
subsequentlyCFSLreportswerecollected.Specimensignatures
ofA1andA3wereobtainedandreportsfromhandwritingexperts
were collected subsequently. IO recorded statements of
concernedwitnessesatdifferentstagesofinvestigation. Itwas
concludedthattheincidentwasaresultofconspiracywhichwas
mastermindedbyA11andhisassociatestocauseandcarryout
actsofterrorismanddisruptiveactivitiesinIndiabyuseofbombs
explosionetc.,soastoscareandcreatepanicbysuchactsinthe
mindofthepeopleandtherebytostriketerrorinthepeople.
24
35 After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filedagainstA1toA10fortheaforesaidoffencesinthecourtof
ld. MM vide main challan and subsequently supplementary
challansbearing S.C.No.52/2000, S.C.No.55/2000and S.C.No.
172/2000. Vide orders dated 18/10/2003 all these connected
caseswithcaseFIRNo.286/96wereclubbedtogether.
(B)BriefFactsofFIRNo.286/96:

36 CasevideFIRNo.286/96,u/s379/411/120BIPC,
(sessions case No. 41/09 ) was registered at PS Hazrat
Nizamuddinon18.5.96onthecomplaintofShAtulNathwhenhe
informedthepolicethatmaruticarno.DL2F5854ofwhitecolour
wasstolenfrominfrontofhishouseNo.A51,NizamuddinEast,
NewDelhiinbetween10p.m.,to6a.m.,onthepreviousnight.
PriortothatDDNo.7Adated18.5.96wasrecordedinthisaspect.
During investigation efforts were made to trace the car but the
samecouldnotbetraced.
37 Subsequently,onarrestofaccusedpersonsincase
25
FIR No. 517/96, PS Lajpat Nagar, on the basis of disclosure
statementsoftheaccusedpersons,itwasfoundthatcar stolen
fromtheareaofPSHazratNizamuddinwasusedincausingbomb
blastatCentralMarket,LajpatNagaron21.5.96.A3,A5,A6&
A8 were apprehended in this case. After completion of
investigationin thiscase,policefiledchallanagainstthesefour
accusedpersons forcommissionoftheoffences punishableu/s
379/411/120B IPC in the court of concerned ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate.
(C)Committalofbothcases:
38Aftercomplianceoftheprovisionsofsections207
and208Cr.P.C,theLd.M.M committedthecaseregistered
videFIRNo.517/96totheCourtofSessions.
39 Videorderdated4.6.97,Ld.M.M.Committedthe
caseregisteredvideFIRNo.286/96tothesessionscourtasit
wasconnectedcasewithmaincasevideFIRNo.517/96.
26
40 Subsequently,boththesecasesweretriedtogether
and evidence was recorded in the main case vide FIR No.
517/96,PS:LajpatNagar.
(D)Charges:
41 AfterhearingLd.SpecialPPfortheStateandtheLd.
Defence Counsels for A1 to A10, in case FIR No. 517/96,
chargeu/s120B,124A,120Br/wSec.302IPC, 120Br/w
Sec. 307 IPC, 120B r/w Sec. 436 IPC was ordered to be
framedagainstA1toA10videorderdated20112000.
42 Separatechargesu/s4r/wSec.5ExplosiveSubstance
ActwasorderedtobeframedagainstA1,A2andA3.
43 Separatechargeu/s212IPCwasorderedtobeframed
againstA8.
44 Separatechargeu/s25ArmsActwasorderedtobe
framedagainstA1
45 All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the
27
chargesframedagainstthemandclaimedtrial.
46 IncaseFIRNo.286/96PSHazratNizamuddincharge
u/s379/411IPC r/wSec.34IPCwasorderedframedagainst
A3,A5andA6.
47 Separatechargeu/s411r/wSec.34IPCwasordered
tobeframedagainstA3,A5,A6&A8forpossessingstolen
stepney of Maruti car No. DL2F5854. All these accused
personspleadednotguiltytothechargesframedagainstthem
andclaimedtrial.
(E)ProsecutionWitnesses:
48 Toproveboththesecases,prosecutionexamined
102 witnesses. Subsequently, during the course of final
arguments, prosecution moved an application u/s 311 CrPC
which was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor. Thereafter,
prosecution examined PW 103 SI Paramjit Singh, PW104 SI
JeevanSingh,PW105ACPPPSingh,PW106SubhashChand
28
andPW107SanjeevKumar.
(F)StatementsofAccusedPersonsu/s313Cr.P.C:
49 Statementsoftheaccusedpersonswererecorded
u/s313CrPC. Incriminatingmaterialappearingagainstthem
wereputtothem.Accusedpersonsdeniedtheirinvolvementin
thecommissionoftheoffences.
50 PleaofA1isthathewasworkingasJuniorEngineer
with State of J & K. He was residing at his official
accommodationat22K,ChhnaraPura,LalNagar,Kashmir.
Hewasnotstayingwithhisparentsevenbeforehismarriage.
HewasarrestedbyJ&KTaskForceon23.5.96withoutbeing
producedbeforeanyMagistrate. HewastorturedatPSLodhi
Colony. Telephoneinquestionwasnotinstalledinhisname.
Thetelephonewasinstalledinthenameofhisfatherbutthere
wasnoSTDfacility.
51 A2 in her statement u/s 313 CrPC pleaded her
29
innocenceclaimingthatsheisahousewifehaving twosons
andonedaughter.Shehasbeenfalselyimplicatedinthiscase.
She did not make any disclosure statement and nothingwas
recoveredatherinstance.
52 A3inhisstatementu/s313CrPCclaimedthathe
wasarrested14dayspriortothedateshownasthedateofhis
arrest.HewasarrestedfromhishouseatTurkmanGate,DDA
Flats, Delhi at odd hours at night. Even his wife was
manhandled when she protested. All the witnesses are
interestedwitnessesandrecoverieshavebeenplanted.
53 Inhisstatementrecordedu/s313CrPCA4pleaded
that he was arrested from his residence at Bhogal in the
intervening night of 27/28.5.96 and was kept in illegal
confinement of Operation Cell at Lodhi Colony for about 18
days.Nothingwasgotrecoveredbyhim.
54 A5pleadedthaton8.6.96hewaspickedupbyNepal
Police and brought to PS where he found many Kashmiris
30
having been detained. On 9.6.96 he alongwith coaccused
personswasbroughttoSaonali,IndoNepalBoarderandwas
handedovertoACPPPSingh.Theywereproducedbeforethe
Ld. ACMM on 17.6.96 at Patiala House Court. He had not
madeanydisclosurestatementandnothingwasrecoveredat
hisinstance.
55 A6 took the plea that he was innocent. He was
working as carpet seller in Kathmandu. On 9.6.96 various
KashmirisworkinginNepalwerearrestedbyNepalpolice.He
alongwithA5andA7washandedovertoDelhipolicebyNepal
Police at Sonali Boarder between Nepal and India . He had
nevervisitedDelhipriortothesaiddateatleastforaboutone
year.
56 A7 pleaded he has been working as carpet
salesman in Naya Bazar near Hotel Garden in Kathmandu
since1992. A9wastheowneroftheestablishmentandhe
washisrelation.HewasdoingcarpetsellinginKathmandu.On
31
7.6.96hewaspickedupbyNepalpoliceandwasbroughttoPS
havingjurisdictionofDelhiBazararea.Hewasnotproduced
beforeanyMagistrate.On9.6.96amongstmanyKashmiriswho
hadbeenbroughttothePSwithhim,hefoundA5andA6
there. They were handed over by Nepal Police to ACP PP
Singh. On 17.6.96 they were produced before Metropolitan
Magistrateandduringthisperiodhissignatureswereobtained
onvariouspapers.Nodisclosurestatementwasmadebyhim
andnothingwasrecoveredathisinstance.
57 Inhisstatementu/s313CrPCA8expressed his
ignorancetotheincriminatingcircumstanceappearingagainst
him. He denied recovery of stepney at his residence. He
disclosed that he was arrested in the intervening night of
27/28.5.96andmadenodisclosurestatement.
58 Inhisstatementu/s313CrPCA9pleadedthathe
is innocent and was falsely implicated. He never knew co
accused persons or if at all knew any one, it was only for
32
business. He was shawldealer. He did not make any
confessional statement. He was arrested on 24.5.96 in
AhmedabadandwasnotproducedbeforeanyMagistrate.
59 PleaofA10isthathewasfalselyimplicatedinthis
case and nothing was recovered at his instance. On the
interveningnightof 30.5.96and1.6.96,hewas travellingby
Samtha Express from Vishakhapatnam to Delhi and he was
arrested and brought to Ahmedabad. On1.6.96 he was
producedbeforeMetropolitanMagistrate.Hedidnotmakeany
disclosurestatement.
(G)DefenceWitnesses:
60 Accused persons examined DW1 Mukesh and
DW2ArunKumarSharmaintheirdefenceevidence.
61 IhaveheardtheLd.SpecialPPfortheStateand
theLd.DefenceCounselsfortheaccusedpersons.Ihavegone
throughthevoluminousrecord. Ihavealsogonethroughthe
33
writtensubmissionsfiledonrecordbytheaccusedpersons. I
havealsogonethroughtheauthoritiesrelieduponbytheLd.
DefenceCounselsfortheaccusedpersons.
(H)ArgumentsonbehalfofState:
62 Ld. Special PP for the State has argued that the
prosecution has established its case against the accused
personsbeyondreasonabledoubt.Theprosecutionwitnesses
examinedbytheprosecutionhavefullysupportedthecaseof
theprosecutionandthereisnothingtodisbelievetheirpositive
testimonies. The telephone calls made by A1 from his
residencewherebyheownedresponsibilityofhisorganization
JKIFtohavecausedbombblasttovariousnewsagenciesin
Delhi were traced out. On apprehension of the A1 and A2,
theymadedisclosurestatementsandinpursuancethereofgot
recovered arms and explosives from their respective
residences. Confessional statement of A9 also revealed
hatching of conspiracy by the accused persons. Huge
34
explosives were recovered from the residence of A3 in
pursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement.Prosecutionwasableto
provethatalltheaccusedpersonshatchedcriminalconspiracy
to cause bomb blast at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar. They
pointed out various places from where they had purchased
variousarticlesforcausingtheexplosion.
(I)ArgumentsonbehalfofallaccusedexceptA2:
63 OntheotherhandtheLd.DefenceCounselforall
accused exceptA2has vehementlyarguedthat thereisno
iota of evidence to connect these accusedpersons with the
commissionofanyoffenceinconspiracywiththecoaccused
persons. Number of witnesses examined by the prosecution
have turned hostile. There are various discrepancies,
contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the
prosecutionwitnesses.
64 Itisfurtherarguedbytheld.defencecounselforthese
35
accusedpersonsthatnoindependentpublicwitnesswasjoinedby
the police during investigation and at the time of effecting
recoveries at the residence of A1 and A2. The arms and
ammunitionshavebeenplantedupontheaccusedpersons.The
accusedpersonswereliftedfromtheirrespectiveresidencesmuch
priortotheirarrestshowninthiscase.Theywerekeptinillegal
detentionandsubsequentlyfalselyimplicatedinthiscase. The
independentpublicwitnessesexaminedbytheprosecutionhave
not identified the accused persons categorically. Nothing
incriminatingwasrecoveredfromthepossessionoftheaccused
personsorattheirinstance. Theprosecutionfailedtoproveon
recordanycogentevidencetoshowifpoliceofficialshadvisitedJ
&K,Gorakhpur,Mussorieetc.Noproofregardingtheirvisitwas
placedonrecord.Theprosecutionhasfailedtoproveastowhen
andatwhichplacetheallegedconspiracytocausebombblastat
CentralMarket,LajpatNagarwashatched.Nocalldetailsofthese
accusedpersonswereevercollectedbytheprosecutiontoshowif
36
they wereinconstanttouchwitheachother.Real culpritshave
beenletoffbythepolice.
(J)ArgumentsonbehalfofA2:
65Contentionoftheld.defencecounselforA2isthatshe
has been falsely implicated in this case. There are number of
inherentdefectsinthecaseoftheprosecutionwherebytheyhave
allegedlyshownrecoveryofRDXandfivetimersatherinstance
fromherresidence.Thereisnodocumentaryevidenceonrecord
toshowifthepoliceofficialsalongwiththeaccusedpersonshad
visitedJ&Kandifsowhen.Nodocumentaryevidencehasbeen
placedonrecordtoshowastohowandunderwhatcircumstances
therecoveredammunitions/explosiveswastransportedtoDelhi.
No person from the locality of the accused was joined in the
investigation. The prosecution witnesses have given different
accountastohowmuchRDXinweightwasrecoveredfromthe
possessionoftheaccused.Therearevital contradictions inthe
depositionoftheprosecutionwitnessesastofromwhichplacethe
37
ammunitionswererecoveredandastowhohaddugtheearthto
takeouttheRDX.Therearecontradictionsastofromwherethe
scale was arranged by the police at the spot. The prosecution
witnesseshavefailedtostatetheexactlocationofthehouseofA
2. There is serious discrepancy in the register maintained by
MHCM to show the deposit of RDX of particular weight with it.
ThereisnoevidencewhatsoeveronrecordtoshowifA2hatched
conspiracywithcoaccusedpersonsatJ&K.Theevidenceon
record reveals that conspiracy took place in Nepal and
ammunitions used in the commission of the offence were
transported from Nepal. No incriminating article was recovered
fromthepossessionofA2.NocaseunderExplosiveActwasgot
registeredagainstA2atJ&K.Delhipolicehadnojurisdictionto
prosecuteA2underExplosiveActfortheallegedrecoveryather
residenceatJ&K.Ld.defencecounselforA2hasrelieduponthe
authoritiesreportedin AIR1933Lahore50;AIR1952Bombay
38
72;1990 Cr.L.J 1491;AIR1962SC399;AIR1962 SC1788;
(1949)1SCC57;AIR2004SC797;(1975)4SCC176;AIR1960
SC1080;(1999)5SCC253and(1979)1SCC128.
(K)Findings:
66 Ihaveconsideredthearguments oftheld.SPPforthe
Stateandtheld.defencecounsel fortheaccusedpersons and
havegonethroughtheevidenceadducedonrecordbyboththe
parties.
67 At the outset, it may be mentioned here that the
prosecutioncaserestssolelyoncircumstantialevidence.There
is no eye witness account regarding the incident whereby a
powerful bombexplodedon21/5/1996 atabout6.30p.m.,at
CentralMarketLajpatNagar.Noreliancehasbeenplacedby
theprosecutiononthetestimonyofanyeyewitnesswhohad
witnessed the accused persons committing the offence. The
39
prosecution has examined number of witnesses to prove
circumstantialevidenceagainsttheaccusedpersonstoconnect
them with the commission of the offence. The circumstances
culled out from the evidence adduced on record by the
prosecutionarebeingdiscussedindetailasunder:
(1)HomicidalDeaths:
68 Itisnotdisputedthatnumberofpersonslosttheirlives
in the bomb blast that took place on 21.5.1996. Number of
personssustainedinjuriesintheincident.
69 ProsecutionfurtherexaminedPW37Dr. Bajrang Lal
Bansal,whohasprovedpostmortemreportsEx.PW37/AandEx.
PW37/Bpertainingtodeceased ReenaArora and TaraChand.
ThesereportswerepreparedbyDrMSSagarandDrA.Sinha.
PW37 has identified their hand writing and signatures on both
thesepostmortemreports.Thecauseofdeath wasopinedasa
resultofbombblastinjuriesinboththecases. Thiswitnesswas
40
also not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the
accusedpersons.
70 PW47Dr.SanjeevLalwanihasprovedonrecordthe
postmortem report pertaining to deceased Ravi Kumar. This
report was prepared by Dr Biswa Nath Yadav. PW47 has
identified handwriting and signatures of Dr B N Yadav on the
postmortem report Ex. PW47/A. The cause of death of was
opinedshockduetobombblastinjuries.
71 Similarly,PW47Dr.SanjeevLalwanihasprovedthe
postmortem report pertaining to deceased Rakesh Sood ( R K
Sood),prepared inthehandwritingofDrAlpanaSinha,whohas
sincemigratedtoUSA.PW47hasidentifiedherhandwritingand
signature on the postmortem report Ex. PW47/B. The cause of
deathwasasaresultofbombblastinjury.
72 PW 51 Dr. Sunil Kumar Sharma has proved
postmortemreportpertainingtodeceasedChanderPrakashand
41
SatishKumarwhichareinthehandwritingofDrRanjitKumarDas
and Dr Lal Razama. As per postmortem report of deceased
Chander Prakash Ex. PW51/A, the antemortem injuries were
superficialburnsonbothhandsetcandthecauseofdeathwas
shockresultingfrommultipleinjuriesconsequentuponbombblast.
However,asperpostmortemreportpertainingtodeceasedSatish
Kumar,Ex.PW51/B,thecauseofdeathwasopinedshockasa
result of antemortem burns. This witness was not testified in
crossexamination.
73 ProsecutionfurtherexaminedPW53Dr.SudhirGupta,
who has conducted postmortem on the dead bodies of Manoj
KumarSingh,LoveKumar,PriyankaAhiyaandNareshMukhia
and proved their postmortem report as Ex. PW53/A, Ex.
PW53/B,Ex.PW53/C,andEx.PW53/D.Causeofdeathincaseof
ManojKumarSinghwasopined shockasaresultofextensive
burninjuriesinbombblastexplosive.IncaseofdeceasedLove
42
Kumar the cause of death was instantaneous as a result of
massivedestructionofbodyduetoeffectofexplosivebast.Incase
of Priyanka Ahiya, the cause of death was septicemia on
consequentuponsustainingburninjuriesduetoexplosivebomb
blast.However,thecauseofdeathincaseofNareshMukhiyawas
instantaneousdeathduetomassivedestructionofthebodydueto
explosiveblasteffect.Thiswitnesswasalsonotcrossexamined
onthefactsdeposedbyhim.
74 Prosecution further examined PW70 Dr. Alexander
Khakha, who has proved postmortem report dated 23.5.1996
pertainingtodeceasedRohitAhuja.Theinjuriessustainedbythe
deceasedweredetailedinthepostmortemreportEx.PW70/A.The
doctoropineddeathinthatcaseduetoheadinjuryresultingfrom
bluntforceimpactwithahardobject/splinterandalsoduetoshock
resultingfromantemortemburninjuriescausedbydryheatand
theinjurieswereopinedantemorteminnatureandconsistentto
43
thosecausedbyabombblast.Thiswitnesswasalsonotcross
examinedbytheLd.DefenceCounselfortheaccusedpersons.
75 ProsecutionhasexaminedPW71Dr.Chanderakant,
whoconductedpostmortemonthedeadbodyofdeceased Smt.
Inder Mohini Ahuja on 23.5.1996. He has proved her
postmortem report No. 657/96 as Ex. PW71 which contains
number of external injuries found on the person of deceased.
Causeofdeathwasopinedasaresultof100%superficialand
st th
deep1 to6 degree(DUPYTRENSClassification)Type1,II&III
(Willsons Classification) antemortem burns and splinter injuries
causedbyduetoflamesfromsomeexplosivedevicenecessarily
fatal.Thetimesincedeathwasopined42hours.Thiswitnesswas
notcrossexaminedbytheLd.DefenceCounselfortheaccused
persons.Testimonyofthiswitnessremainedunchallenged.
76 From the statements of these doctors, who have
proved the postmortem of the deceased persons, it stands
44
establishedthatallthesepersonssustainedsevereburn injuries
inbombblastontheirbodiesandsuccumbedtotheinjuries.Itis
thusacaseofculpablehomicide.
(2)Injuries:
77 In the instant case number of persons sustained
injuriesontheirperson.ProsecutionexaminedPW45Dr.P.Rama
Krishna,whohasprovedMLCpertainingtoJaiRamEx.PW45/A.
Theinjurieswereopinedassimplecausedbybluntobject.
78 ProsecutionfurtherexaminedPW53Dr.SudhirGupta,
whohasprovedMLCof Ramesh. ItisinthehandwritingofDr
SuvirGosh.TheMLCisEx.PW53/E.Theinjurieswereopinedas
simple received in bomb explosion. Similarly, PW53 D Sudhir
GuptahasprovedtheMLCsEx.PW53/FtoEx.PW53/Jpertaining
to one unknown, Avadh, Gajender Kumar, Ravi Kumar and
other two unknowninthehandwriting ofDrSudhirGupta. All
thesepersonswereallegedtohavesustainedinjuriesinthebomb
45
blastofLajpatNagar.
79 PW55ShRSKheda,RecordClerkhasprovedthe
handwriting and signatures of Dr Rajneesh on the MLCs Ex.
PW55/AtoEx.PW55/EpertainingtoAjayBakshi,Peeplani,Mani,
andtwounknownpersons.
80 PW56DrNareshSoodhasprovedtheMLCofinjured
SanjayasEx.PW56/ApreparedinthehandwritingofDrAnupam
Mittal.
81 PW57 Dar. R. Ali has proved the MLCs of injured
PriyankaAhuja,Ravi,SangitaSahaandandsingleMLC ofPS
Dogra,Jitender,Sandeeparora,DhanSingh,AnitaRaheja,Tara,
BittooMalhotra,VinodKumar,Swarankanta,sinceMLCofRajesh,
PramodSingh,Himani,MehakKohli,UdayKumar,RakeshSood
andanunknownpersonwhichareinthehandwritingofDrRP
Singh. The MLCs are Ex. PW57/A to Ex. PW57/M. All these
personswerebroughtwithhistoryofgettinginjuredinbombblast
inLajpatNagarCentralMarket.OutofthesepatientsPrinyanka
46
Ahujaexpiredduetoinjuriessustainedon8.6.1996.Thiswitness
was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the
accusedpersons.
82 PW69 Sh Shankar Prasad, Medical Record
TechnicianhasprovedMLCNos. 41234,41235,41242of1996
prepared by Dr Prakash Sharma in respect of injured Rajesh
Guchu,BabyAditiwhichareEx.PW69/AtoEx.PW69/C.
83 ProsecutionexaminedPW75ShJaiPrakash,Record
Clerk,whoprovedMLCNo.41228/96pertainingtoinjuredRaja
andMLCNo.41261/96pertainingtooneunknownmaleaged28
years,preparedbyDrSudhirGhosh.TheMLCsareEx.PW75/A
andEx.PW75/B.
84 PW89ShRamCharan, RecordClerkappearedfor
thesecondtimeandprovedtheMLCsmarkA,BandCpertaining
toinjuredRachna,RashimiandArti.
85 Fromthetestimoniesoftheabovewitnessesitstands
established that number of persons mentioned in the MLCs
47
sustained injuries on their person due to bomb blast in Lajpat
Nagar.
(3)LossOfProperty:
86 Besideslossoflife,therewashugelossofproperty
duetobombblast.
87 PW4NPChauhanhastestifiedthat hehadlostall
thearticleswhichwerekeptinthecarwhichcaughtfiredueto
bomb explosion. He suffered loss of Rs. 60,000/ excluding
damageofcar. Hehadgivenlistofarticlestothepolice.This
witnesswasnotcrossexaminedbytheaccusedpersonsforthe
losssufferedbyhiminthebombblast.
88 PW7 Upesh Aggarwal has desposed that his shop
wascompletelyburntout. Otheradjoiningshopsweredamaged
extensively.
89 PW21 Subhash Chand deposed that he sustained
lossofaboutRs.10lacsashisshopwastotallygutted.
48
90 PW72DineshKumarhasdeposedthathesuffered
lossof3.5lactoRs.4lacduetobombexplosion.Statementof
all these witnesses have remained unrebutted and
unchallenged in the crossexamination. It thus stands
establishedthatnumberofpersons sufferedhugedamageto
theirpropertiesinthebombexplosion.
(4)ArrestofA1andA2atJ&K:
91 Caseoftheprosecutionisthatsoonafterthebomb
blastatLajpatNagar,CentralMarket,A1madetelephonecallsto
MediaandownedresponsibilityofhisorganizationJKIFofwhich
hewasthechiefspokesman.A1hasdeniedthisallegation.
92 ProsecutionexaminedPW68VinodKapri,Editor,Zee
NewsandhetestifiedthatinMay,1996,hewaspostedasSenior
CorrespondentinZeeTV.Nearly23hoursafterthebombblaston
receiving telephone call from an unknown person, he came to
knowthat someonetalkingto himonphoneonbehalfofJKIF
49
hadundertakenresponsibilityofLajpatNagarbombblast.Despite
his efforts to know his name, he (the caller) did not reveal his
name.FromhisvoiceheappearedtoberesidentofKashmiras
hewasfrequentlyusingUrduwords.
93 Thiswitnessdidnotstateinhisexaminationinchief
astoonwhichtelephonenumberofhisoffice,thetelephonecall
wasreceived.Healsodidnotstatethetelephonenumberfrom
whichthecallerhadmadetelephonecalltohim.
94 Inthecrossexamination, thewitness statedthatin
the news at 10 pm, on the same night, they had given a
comprehensivenewsonZeeTVnews onthebasisoffirstand
secondcallandfieldinformation.Hewascontactedbythepolice
afteraboutoneandhalfmonthlaterinthatconnection.Atthat
time,hedidnotshowthepoliceanytaperecordedconversation,
callerIDnumberorthenewstelecaston21/5/1996at10.00pm.
95 Thetestimonyofthiswitnessisnotatallsufficientto
connectA1withthecallreceivedbyPW68VinodKapri.IOhas
50
failed to explain as to why caller ID number (if any) was not
ascertained fromthewitness. Itisalsonotexplainedastowhy
thetaperecordedconversationwasnotseizedsoonafterthenews
wastelecastwherebysomeoneonbehalfofJKIFhadundertaken
theresponsibilityofbombblast.Thiswitnessdidnotstateifany
informationaboutJKIFtohaveundertakenresponsibilityforthe
blastwasgivenbyhimtothepolice.
96 Prosecution further examined PW74 Amitabh Rai
Chaudhary,SpecialCorrespondent,PTI.Inhisstatementbefore
thecourt,thewitnessstatedthatwhileworkingasChiefReporter
inPTIon21/5/1996 atabout9.00pm,theyreceivedtelephone
call on their office telephone no. 371662124, EPBAX through
EditorialSectionandthecallerinformedthatthebombblasthad
takenplaceatCentralMarket,LajpatNagarandthatwascaused
byJammuKashmirIslamicFront(JKIF).Whenheaskedthecaller
hisname,herefusedtotell.Thevoiceofthecallerappearedtobe
thatofayoungmanandhewasspeakinginHindijustlikethe
51
Kashmirispeak.Theytransmittedtheinformationtotheofficeof
othernewspapersasusual.
97 Thiswitnessdidnottestifythetelephonenumberfrom
where the telephone call was received on the telephone no.
371662124.Thiswitnessalsodidnotstateiftheinformationwas
given to the police regarding the call received by them. The
testimonyofthiswitnessisrelevanttofindoutthaton21/5/1996at
9.00pm,someoneonbehalfofJKIFhadownedresponsibilityof
the bomb blast at Central Market. This witness was not cross
examined by the ld. defence counsel for the accused. No
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthat
telephoneno.371662124didnotbelongtoPTI.
98 Prosecution further examined PW90 Suparna Singh
workingasNewsCoordinatorwithNDTV.Inherexaminationin
chief,shedidnotsupporttheprosecutionandmerelystatedthat
she did not remember anything about the case. She did not
rememberhavingreceivedanytelephonecall. Shedidnothand
52
over print out of the news script regarding some person taking
responsibility of having caused the bomb blast in Lajpat Nagar.
Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPfortheState
and was cross examined. In the crossexamination, the witness
deniedifstatementmarkDX90wasmadebyhertothepolice.No
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationbythe
ld. Addl PP as to on which telephone number and from which
telephonenumber,thetelephonecallwasreceived.Thetestimony
ofthiswitnessisofnohelptotheprosecution.
99 FromthetestimoniesofpeoplefromMedia,nothingis
clearifitwasonlyA1whohadmadetelephonecallstothemto
ownresponsibilityofthebombblastatLajpatNagar.IOdidnot
bothertocontactanynewsagencytoascertainastofromwhich
telephonenumbercallwasmade.PWsfrommediaalsodidnot
considerittheirresponsibilitytoalertthepoliceaboutsomeone
takingresponsibilityofbombblastsoonaftertheygotthecalls.
NoevidencewhatsoeverwascollectedbytheprosecutionifA1
53
was the chief spokesman of JKIF prior to the incident. The
prosecutiondidnotcollectanyevidenceonrecordtoshowifA1
waseverarrestedinanycaseatJ&Kregardinghisactivitiesin
JKIF.ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA1hadparticipatedin
theactivitiesofJKIFpriortotheincident.
100 ProsecutionhaspleadedthatA1alongwithA2was
arrestedbythepoliceofPSSherGarhi,J&KinFIRNo.162/94
prior to 25/5/1996. Prosecution, however, did not produce on
recordanycogent documenttoshowapprehensionofbothA1
andA2intheFIRNo.162/94atPSSherGarhi.Nothingisclear
toinferastowhenA1andA2weredetainedbythepoliceofPS
SherGarhiandifsofromwheretheywerearrested.Nothinghas
comeonrecordtoshowastowhathappenedtothesaidcase.
Nothinghasbeenrevealedastohowafterdetentioninthesaid
casevideFIRNo.162/94,thepoliceofPSSherGarhidischarged
A1andA2.
101 There is contradictory version given by prosecution
54
witnessesregardingapprehensionofA1andA2on25/5/1996.
PW25SIVijaySinghinhisexaminationinchiefhasstatedthaton
24/5/1996 after obtaining NBWs against A1 and A2 from the
residenceofMrs.RajRaniMitra,thethenldMM, healongwith
InspJasbirMalik,Insp.RajinderSingh,SIRameshRana,LadySI
Duggal,H.Ct.SurenderhadgonetoSrinagarbyaironthemorning
of25/5/1996.Firstofall,theywentattheofficeofSPatSrinagar.
There they were told that A1 andA2 were at PS Sher Garhi,
Srinagar.WhentheyreachedatPSSherGarhi,Srinagar,bothA
1andA2hadalreadybeendischargedaftertheirinterrogationby
thepoliceofPSSherGarhi.IOofthiscasearrestedbothA1and
A2andbroughtthemtoDelhi.
102 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatIOhad
preparedthearrestmemowhenA1andA2werearrestedfrom
outsidePSSherGarhi.IOhadnotobtainedhissignaturesonthe
arrestmemo.IOhadnottakensignaturesofanyoftheofficialsof
PSSherGarhionthearrestmemo.Suggestionwashoweverput
55
tothiswitnessthatA1wasincustodyoftheofficialsofPSSher
GarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94andA1wasnotarrestedbythem
(Delhipolice).Thewitnessfurtherstatedinthecrossexamination
on behalf of A2 that she was arrested by them and was not
handed over by Sher Garhi police. The witness denied the
suggestion that A1 and A2 were already under arrest and
detentionofPSSherGarhiandtheybothwerehandedoverto
thembythepoliceofPSSherGarhi.
103 TestimonyofthiswitnessrevealsthatbothA1andA2
werenothandedovertothembythepoliceofPSSherGarhi.IO
hasfailedtoexplainastohowandunderwhatcircumstancesthe
policeofPSSherGarhidischargedbothA1andA2inFIRNo.
162/94PSSherGarhi.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowasto
onwhatfactsbothA1andA2wereinterrogatedbythepoliceof
PS Sher Garhi. IO did not examine any witness from PS Sher
Garhitoclarifyalltheseaspects.InthefaxsentbyPW78Shri
Farooq Khan to Delhi Police Ex. PW 78/A on 25/5/1996 and
56
wirelessmessagesEx.PW78/BandPW78/C,thereismentionof
A1andA2tohavebeenarrestedbythepoliceofPSSherGarhi
incaseFIRNo.162/94.ItshowsthatPW78ShriFarooqKhan,
SSPOperations(Srinagar)J&KinMay1996wasawareabout
thedetentionofA1andA2bythepoliceofPSSherGarhiand
had informed Delhi police about their involvement in the bomb
blastcase.InhistestimonyalsoPW78ShriFarooqKhanstated
thattheresponsibilityofthesaidblastwastakenbyJ&KIslamic
Front.Theyhadsomecluesfromreliablesourcesaboutthesaid
organizationandworkingonthatclueswiththehelpoftheirsecret
reliable sources, they apprehended suspect A1 who was
residentofAnantNagar.Duringinterrogation,A1 disclosedhis
involvementinbombblastofLajpatNagar.Hefurthertestifiedthat
A1haddisclosedthathehadmadetelephonecallstodifferent
newsagenciesclaimingresponsibilityforLajpatNagarbombblast.
OntheleadsgivenbyA1intheinterrogation,aladysuspectA2
wasalsoapprehendedfromSrinagar. Informationinthisaspect
57
was given to Delhi police. Again the testimony of this witness
reveals that prior to sending wireless or fax messages to Delhi
police on 25/5/1996, this witness had come to know about the
involvement of A1 and A2 in the commission of the incident.
HoweverthiswitnessdidnotrevealastowhenandfromwhereA
1andA2werearrested.NoproceedingsinwhichA1andA2
were interrogated or their disclosure statements (if any) were
recordedwereproducedbeforethecourt.This witnessfailedto
explain as to how and from whom he had come to know the
involvementofA1andA2inthecommissionoftheincident.He
didnotassertifhehimselfhadinterrogatedA1andA2andifso
whenandwhere.Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessexpressed
hisignoranceastofrom wherehehadarrestedA1andA2in
caseFIRNo.162/94PSSherGarhi. Hefurtherdidnotstateif
afterthearrestofA1andA2 heobtainedtheirpoliceremand
becausehedidnotrememberforhowmuchtimetheyremained
with them. He stated that the documents with respect to the
58
detentionofA1andA2wouldbeintherecordofPSSherGarhi.
ThiswitnessvolunteeredtoaddthathepersonallydidnotarrestA
1andA2and infact,hewasheadingtheoperationssetupin
SrinagarDistrictandsomeofhisofficialworkingunderhimmust
havearrestedA1andA2withthehelpoflocalpolice.Hefurther
didnotgiveanyreplyastowhenforthefirsttimehesawA1and
A2.Hestatedthathewasassistingthelocalpoliceinrespectof
apprehension of A1 and A2 for crimes related to terrorist
activities. He further admitted that he did not personally
interrogateanyofthetwoaccusedpersons.Hehoweverclarified
that their questioning was done in his presence at their Head
QuartercommonlyknowasCargoComplex,adjacenttoPSSher
Garhibyhissubordinates.Noconfessionalstatementofanyofthe
aforesaidtwoaccusedpersonswasrecordedundertherelevant
provisionsofCr.P.C.Hehoweveraddedthataccusedpersonshad
madetheir confessionduringtheir questioningand the answers
givenbythemweresenttoDelhipolicewithrespecttotheoffence.
59
Hedidnotrememberwhethertheanswersgivenbytheaccused
personsduringtheirquestioningweresignedbythemornot.He
did not remember if he had countersigned the same. In the
furthercrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatinthepresent
casetheactual arrest andproceedings were carried outby the
policeofPSSherGarhiontheirinstructions.
104 InthecrossexaminationonbehalfofA2thewitness
statedthattheconfessionofA2wasnotrecordedinhispresence.
A2 was arrested by his police party. She was arrested as a
suspect in an FIR registered at PS Sher Garhi. The record
regardingarrestofA2shouldbeavailableinthePSSherGarhi.
105 FromtheentiretestimonyofPW78ShriFarooqKhan,a
seniorpoliceofficer,nothinghastranspiredastowhenandfrom
whereA1andA2werearrested.Nothinghasbeenexplainedas
towhatledthepoliceofPSSherGarhitodischargebothA1and
A2 in the said case FIR No. 162/94 after their alleged
apprehension and confession. If PW 78 Shri Farooq Khan was
60
awareoftheinvolvementofA1andA2intheincidentatLajpat
NagarbeforesendingthefaxandwirelessmessagetotheDelhi
police on 25/5/1996 and if both A1 and A2 were already in
detentionincaseFIRNo162/94ofPSSherGarhi,therewasno
occasionforthepoliceofPSSherGarhitodischargeorsetfree
bothA1andA2priortothearrivalofDelhipoliceatJ&Kon
25/5/1996.DelhipolicewasquicktogetNBWsagainstA1andA
2fromtheresidenceofld.MMat11.45pmandhadpurportedly
reachedatJ&Kbyairinthemorningof25/5/1996.Onreaching
theretheycametoknowfromtheofficeofPW78ShriFarooq
Khan that A1 and A2 were at PS Sher Garhi. However on
reaching atPSSherGarhi,theDelhiPolicewasinformedthat
afterinterrogationbothA1andA2hadalreadybeendischarged.
DelhipolicehappenedtocomeacrossbothA1andA2nearPS
Sher Garhi to apprehend them. PW 78 Shri Farooq Khan has
failed to explain as to why Delhi police was not waited to
apprehendA1andA2whiletheywereinthecustodyofPSSher
61
Garhi. The testimony of PW78 Shri Farooq Khan regarding
apprehensionofA1andA2atSrinagaron25/5/1996 doesnot
inspire confidence. It is pertinent to note that in the application
movedbeforeMs.RajRaniMitra,thethenld.MMtogetNBWsof
A1andA2atherresidence on24/5/1996,atabout11.45pm,
therewasnomentionifanyfaxorwirelessmessagewasgotfrom
PW78Insp.FarooqKhan.
106 Testimony of PW49 Insp. Jasbir Malik also does not
removethemistregarding apprehensionofA1andA2inthe
manner relied upon by the prosecution. In his examinationin
chief,thiswitnessdeposedthatafterobtainingNBWsofA1and
A2,healongwithSIVijaySingh,Insp.Rajinderetc.proceededto
J&Kon25/5/1996attheofficeofPW78ShriFarooqKhan.He
wastoldthatbothA1andA2hadbeenarrestedbythepoliceof
PSSherGarhi.WhenhereachedatPSSherGarhi,hecameto
knowthatA1andA2whowereunderarrestweredischargedby
thepoliceofPSSherGarhi.ThereafterhearrestedbothA1and
62
A2 inpursuance ofthe NBWs with him and came back to the
office of SP Operations and recorded his statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C. Thereafterboththeaccused persons were broughtto
Delhi.
107 Thiswitnessalsodidnotfileonrecordanydocumentto
showifA1andA2hadbeenarrestedbythepoliceofPSSher
Garhiandifsosincewhen. Healsofailedtoexplainastohow
andunderwhatcircumstancespoliceofPSSherGarhidischarged
bothA1andA2.Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessadmitted
thathedidnotprocureanyarrestmemoofA1andA2fromJ&K
police. He did not procure the discharge report of the accused
persons.Hedidnotobtaintransitremandoftheaccusedpersons
tobringthemtoDelhi.Hedidnotseekpermissionfromanycourt
toarresttheaccusedpersons.HefurtherstatedthatA1andA2
werealreadyunderdetentionbythepoliceofPSSherGarhiin
caseFIRNo.162/94.Hedidnotclarifyaboutanyjudicialorpolice
remandbeinggivenagainstA1andA2bythecourtconcernedin
63
J&KinthesaidFIR.
108 InthefurthercrossexaminationonbehalfofA2the
witnessstatedthatcopyofDDNo.16dated25/5/1996PSSher
GarhiwasonthejudicialfileaboutthedepartureofA1andA2
fromSrinagartoDelhi.Howeverduringcourtobservationitwas
observedthatDDNo.16markPW49/Awasonlyasinglepage
documentandblankfromothersideandapparentlyappearedto
beunconcludedandunsigned. Onthat,thewitnessstatedthat
theDDwasrecordedbyhimintherojnamchaofPSSherGarhi
andmarkPW49/Awasonlyacopythereof.Thewitnessfurther
statedthathedidnotpreparepersonalsearchmemoofA1andA
2ashehadtakentheircustodyfromJ&Kpolice.Hedidnotjoin
anypublicwitnessatthetimeofsecuringtheircustody.
109 Theentiretestimonyofthiswitnessdoesnotexplain
categoricallyifbothA1andA2werearrestedbytheDelhiPolice
whiletheywerealreadyinthecustodyofpoliceofPSSherGarhi
oriftheywerearrestedfromoutsidePSSherGarhiafterbothof
64
themhadallegedlybeendischarged.Thecircumstancesinwhich
the arrest of both A1 and A2 has been shown do not inspire
confidence as all the members of the team were having no
familiarity with A1andA2toapprehendthemoutsidethePS
SherGarhiwithoutseekingassistance oftheofficialsofJ&K.
AftertheirallegeddischargebythepoliceofPSSherGarhiincase
FIRNo.162/94, bothA1andA2werenotexpectedtoremain
presentoutsidethePSjusttoenabletheDelhipolicetoreachand
apprehend them. Had PW 78 Shri Farooq Khan been aware
abouttheinvolvementofA1andA2intheincidentatDelhion
24/5/1996or25/5/1996,hewasnotimaginedtoallowthepoliceof
PSSherGarhitodischargeboththeaccusedpersonsbeforethe
arrivalofDelhipolice.Thepolicedidnotrecordthestatementof
anypoliceofficialofPSSherGarhitoascertainastowhenand
how bothA1andA2were apprehended and sincewhenthey
wereintheircustodyorwhatweretheallegationsagainstthemin
thecaseFIRNo162/94orwhathappenedtothesaidcaseorin
65
whatcircumstances bothA1andA2withoutpermissionofthe
courtweredischarged.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifat
thetimeofapprehensionofbothA1andA2byDelhipoliceon
25/5/1996 there was any evidence/material whatsoever against
them for their involvement in the commission of the offence at
Delhi. NoneofthepoliceofficialofPSSherGarhidisclosedto
DelhipoliceifduringtheirinterrogationincaseFIRNo.162/94,the
accusedpersonshaddisclosedtohavemadetelephonecallsto
differentmediaagenciesinDelhitakingresponsibilityofthebomb
blastinDelhi. PW78ShriFarooqKhanalsodidnottestifyasto
howandfromwherehehadcometoknowregardingthecontents
sentbyhimbyfaxandwirelessmessagetoDelhipolice.Inhis
depositionbeforethecourtPW78Sh.FarooqKhandidnottestify
ifon25/5/1996atthetimeofapprehensionofboththeaccused
eitherbypoliceofPSSherGarhiorDelhipolicehehadcometo
knowifA1hadmadetelephonecalltoMediaon21/5/1996andif
sofromwhichtelephonethesaidcallsweremadeandonwhich
66
telephonecallstheresponsibilitywasundertaken. Fromthefax
messageEx.PW78/AitrevealsthatPW78ShFarooqKhanhad
come to know the telephone calls made to media by A1. He
testifiedthatduringinterrogationA1haddisclosedhisinvolvement
inthebombblastofLajpatNagarandthathehadmadetelephone
callstodifferentnewsagenciesclaimingresponsibilityfortheblast.
HaditbeensoPW78ShFarooqKhanorhisofficialsatPSSher
Garhimusthaveattemptedtofindoutastofromwhichtelephone
A1hadmadetelephonecallstodifferentnewsagencies.However
evenafterdetentionofA1andA2bythepoliceofPSSherGarhi
incaseFIRNo.162/94 andevenafterapprehensionofbothof
thembyDelhipoliceon25/5/1996, noeffortsweremadetofind
outastofromwhichtelephoneA1hadmadetelephonecalls.No
searchofthehouseoftheaccusedpersonswas conductedon
24/5/1996or25/5/1996eitherbyJ&KpoliceorbyDelhipolice.
Nocalldetailsofthetelephone installedattheresidenceofA1
werecollectedon24/5/1996or25/5/1996.TheinterrogationofA
67
1andA2madebythepoliceofPSSherGarhiorbyPW78Shri
FarooqKhanhasnotbeenbroughtonrecord.Delhipolicealso
did not interrogate both A1 and A2 at J & K after their
apprehensionanddirectlybroughtthematDelhi.Evenafterthat,in
theabsenceofA1andA2noattemptwasmadebyPW78Sh.
FarooqKhanorhisagenciestosearchthehouseofA1andA2to
findoutanyincriminatingsubstanceshowingtheirinvolvementin
theincidentatDelhi.
110 NopersonalsearchofA1andA2wasconductedat
thetimeoftheirapprehensionon25/5/1996. NoofficialfromPS
SherGarhiwasexaminedtofindoutifanyofthemhadconducted
personalsearchofA1andA2atthetimeoftheirdetentionin
case FIR No. 162/94. Prosecution examined PW 95 DSP Shiv
KumarwhowaspostedasInspectorSpecialOperationGroupin
Srinagar on 25/6/1996. He deposed that on 25/6/1996 he had
handedoverthejamatalashiincaseFIRNo.162/94byPSSher
Garhi,J&KofA1toSIBanwariLal. Articlesrecoveredinthe
68
personalsearchofA1Ex.PW9/1to8werehandedoverbyhim
to SI Banwari Lal. He also handed over the seizure memo of
documentsrecoveredfromA1toSIBanwariLal.Personalsearch
memoEx.PW95/ApertainingtoA2andpersonalsearchmemo
Ex.PW95/BpertainingtoA1wasseizedbySIBanwariLalvide
seizurememoEx.PW95/B.
111 Inthecrossexaminationthiswitnessadmittedthathe
had not arrested A1 and A2 in FIR No. 162/94. He did not
rememberastowhohadarrestedA1inthesaidFIR.Hedidnot
knowastowhenA2wasarrested.HewasnotpostedinPSSher
Garhi at the relevant time. He did not remember the name of
Inspector,PSSherGarhiwhowaspresentatthetimeofpersonal
search.HehimselfdidnotinvestigateFIRNo.162/94.Personal
searchmemoofA2waspreparedbyhiminhisofficeatCargo
complex. Hedidnotrememberthenameoftheofficerwhohad
seizedthedocumentshandedovertoDelhipoliceinhispresence.
112 The testimony of this witness also does not inspire
69
confidence regarding handing over the articles recovered in the
personalsearchofA1andA2. Admittedlypersonalsearchof
both A1 and A2 was not conducted in the presence of this
witness.HeisnotawareastowhichofficialofPSSherGarhihad
conductedpersonalsearchofA1andA2. Prosecutiondidnot
examinetheofficer whohadconductedpersonalsearchofA1
andA2.Itisalsonotclearastowhereallthesearticlesremained
for about one month after recovering the same in the personal
searchofA1andA2bythepoliceofPSSherGarhi.Norelevant
entryintheconcernedregisterregardingdepositofthesearticles
beinghandedovertoPW95DSPShivKumarhavebeenfiledon
record.Theprosecutionhasfurtherfailedtoshowastowhyall
thesearticlesandpersonalsearchmemospreparedon24/5/1996
or25/5/1996werenothandedovertoDelhipolicesoonafterthe
apprehensionofA1andA2on25/5/1996andwhythesewere
handedoveronlyon25/6/196afteraboutonemonth.
113 Fromtheabovediscussion,Iamoftheviewthatthe
70
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to
howandunderwhatcircumstancesandfromwhereA1andA2
were apprehended by Delhi police on 25/5/1996. The fact
howeverremainsthataftertheirapprehensionbothA1andA2
werebroughttoDelhiandwerearrestedinthiscase.
(5)RecoveryofArms&ExplosivesattheinstanceofA1:
114 Case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of his
disclosurestatementEx.39/Brecordedon4/6/1996atDelhi,A1
led the police at his residence at Srinagar and got recovered
arms and explosives/ammunition. A1 has denied all these
allegations. It is stated that no such disclosure statement was
made by him and nothing was got recovered by him at his
residence.Theweaponshavebeenplantedupontheaccused.
115 ProsecutionhasexaminedPW18Insp.PawanKumar
whoinhisdepositionstatedthatontheinstructions ofIOInsp.
Paras Nath as well as on the instructions of senior officers, he
71
alongwithladyInsp.ShakuntlaKokkar,SIArvindVerma,ASIAjit
Singh, one Ct. Nirmala and ACP Sh.P.P.Singh had gone to
Srinagarfortheinvestigationofthiscase.BothA1andA2were
withtheminpolicecustodyandtheyweretakenalongwiththemto
J&Kon6/6/1996.On7/6/1996both theaccusedpersonsalong
with BSF personels Shri P.B.Dhyani, SI Madhusudan Sharma,
J.A.D,Srinagarandtheirstaffarmedwithweaponsweretakento
AnantNagfromSrinagar.OnreachingAnantNag,thelocalBSF
unitwasalsocontactedandInsp.NBKSinghwastakenalongwith
them.Thereaftertheentirepartyalongwiththeaccusedpersons
reachedatJanglatMandi,AnantNag.A1tookthepoliceteamto
hisresidenceatJanglatMandiandonthepointingoutofA1from
thewoodencardboardaffixedinthedrawingroomfromthecavity,
A1took outone assaultrifleAK56,twomagzines which were
filledwithlivecartridgesandonepolythenebagwhichcontained
twoslabsofblackcolourwhichweredisclosedbyA1tobeRDX
slabs. On checking the magzines, it were found containing 59
72
bullets. The RDX was weighed and its weight came to 1kg
70gms. All these four items were sealed separately in cloth
pullandasandseizurememoEx.PW18/Awasprepared.Allthe
pullandasweresealedwiththesealofPKBandsealafterusewas
giventoInsp.ShakuntlaKokkarafterpreparingtheCFSLformon
whichalsoasimplesealwasaffixed.
116Thiswitnessfurthertestifiedthatthereaftersearchof
thehouseofA1wasconductedandsomedocumentssuchas
permanent residential address of A1, documents pertaining to
Aeronautical issued by Delhi, some documents pertaining to
installation of telephone, demand notice etc., were seized vide
seizurememoEx.PW18/B.This witness identifiedassaultrifle
AK56Ex.PW18/1,cartridgesEx.PW18/2to61,twomagzines
Ex.PW18/62and63andRDXslabsEx.PW18/64and65tobe
thesamewhichweregotrecoveredbyA1fromhisresidence.
117 In the cross examination, the witness denied the
suggestionoftheld.defencecounselforA1thathealongwith
73
accusedandotherinvestigationteamhad leftDelhiforSrinagar
byairontheeveningof7/6/1996.Thewitnessclarifiedthatthey
had gone to Srinagar by Indian Airlines. ACP PP Singh had
accompanied them. He did not remember the time when they
reachedatSrinagar.FromtheairportatSrinagar,theyallwentto
BSF camp. The witness denied the suggestion that at Srinagar
theirmovementswererestrictedorcontrolledbyBSF.Hestated
thattherewasnointerferencefromBSFintheinvestigation.The
witness fairly admittedthatthey did notapproach localpolice
before starting the investigation. The witness further denied the
suggestionthatportionencircledin'red'inthesiteplanEx.PW
18/HwascompletelyinthehandsofA1drawnbyhimbeforehe
wastakentoSrinagarbyair.Thewitnessadmittedthesuggestion
oftheld.defencecounselthattheirvisittoSrinagarwasalready
knowntoBSF. Thewitnessdisclosedthatperhapson8/6/1996
they cameback fromSrinagartoDelhi by airwiththeaccused
personsandwithassaultrifleinapullanda.Therestoftheseized
74
articlesweresentbyroad.Adeclarationwasmadeforcarryingthe
assaultriflefromSrinagartoDelhibyair.Thepullandacontaining
assault rifle was perhaps deposited in PS Lajpat Nagar on
8/6/1996.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthattheyremainedpresentat
thehouseofA1forabout1hours.FatherofA1andhiswife
werepresenttherewhentheyhadvisitedthesame.Hedeniedthe
suggestionthatfatherofA1wasnotpresentatthehouseorthat
hewaspresentatAmritsaratBabaNursingHometolookafterhis
another son who was admitted there as his right leg was got
imputed.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthattheydidnotfind
anybodyinthehouseofA1atAnantNag.
118 Overalltestimonyofthisofficialwitnessrevealsthat
nomaterialinconsistenciesorcontradictionshavebeenelicitedby
theld.defencecounseltodiscardhistestimony onthisaspect.
Thiswitness stoodthetestofcrossexaminationand answered
the relevant queries of the ld. defence counsel in the cross
examination.This official witness intheabsenceofany specific
75
ordersfromtheseniorofficerscan'tfabricatehisvisittoJ&Kon6
61996/761996.Nomotivehasbeenimputedtothiswitnessto
plant heavy recoveries on A1. This witness had joined the
investigationbeingconductedbyInsp.ParasNathandhadgone
toJ&Konhisinstructions.BothA1andA2werealreadyinthe
custodyofDelhipoliceafterhavingbroughtthemfromJ&Kon
May25,1996.OnlyinpursuanceofthedisclosurestatementEx.
PW39/Brecordedon4/6/1996,Delhipolicecametoknowabout
theavailability/concealmentoftheseweaponsattheresidenceof
A1.Theseweaponswerefoundlyingconcealedinsidethecavity
ofwoodencardboardintheroomofA1anditwashewhotook
outthesame.Delhipolicewasnotawareaboutthepresenceof
thesearmsandammunitionsattheresidenceofA1.HadDelhi
policeanevilintention,theycouldhaveplantedtheweaponseven
onthedaywhenA1wasapprehendedatJ&Kandwasbrought
toDelhi. Delhipolicehadnooccasion togoJ&K,thenative
placeofA1withoutthedisclosurestatementofA1togetrecover
76
theweapons.Fromthesuggestionputtothewitness,itreveals
thatevenld.defencecounselforA1hasnotdisputed visitof
Delhi police to J & K. Categorical assertion was made by the
witnessregardingthepresenceofparentsofA1athishouseat
the time of recovery. This statement of the witness was not
rebuttedbyleadinganyevidenceindefencebyA1. A1didnot
produceonrecordanydocumenttoshowifonthatdayortimehis
fatherwasnotavailableinsidethehouseorthathewaspresentat
BabaNursingHome atAmritsarforthetreatmentofhisanother
sonassuggested. A1didnotdaretoexaminehisfatherorhis
motherindefence tocontrovertthevisitofDelhipolicetohis
houseandrecoveryofarmsandammunitionthere.Considering
thedisturbedconditionsinJ&Kin1996,Delhipolicehadtaken
assistanceofBSFtoeffectrecoveryattheresidenceofA1.Under
thosecircumstancestherewasleastpossibilityofDelhipoliceto
joinanyindependentpublicpersonfromthelocalityatthetimeof
recoveryofarms.Delhipoliceitselfwasstrangertotheplaceof
77
incident and the witnesses residing in the locality were known
personsofA1.Theymustbereluctanttojoin theinvestigation
withDelhipoliceagainstA1.
119 Materialfactsassertedbythiswitnesshaveremained
unrebuttedinthecrossexamination.A1hasfailedtoshowifsite
planEx.PW18/HwaspreparedbyhimatDelhi.Hedidnotlodge
anycomplaintwithanyauthorityorcourtifhewasforcedtodraw
siteplanEx.PW18/H. HugerecoveryofassaultrifleandRDX
slabswhicharenoteasilyavailableinthemarketisnotimagined
tobeplantedbyDelhipoliceandthattooattheresidenceofthe
accusedathisnativeplacemuchfarawayfromDelhi.Thereis
nothingonrecordtoshowifDelhipolicehadtakenallthesearms
andammunitionswiththemfromDelhitobeplanteduponA1at
Srinagar. Minor contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by
theld.defencecounselforA1arenotfataltothetestimonyofthis
witnessasthese donotgointotherootofthecase. Merely
because some formalities regarding airline tickets, declaration,
78
seekingassistancefromthelocalpoliceetcwerenotperformedor
brought on record, it does not nullify the otherwise cogent
testimonyofPW18Insp.PawanKumar. A1didnotexaminein
defenceanyneighborertofalsifythepleaofPW18Insp.Pawan
KumarthathealongwithhisteamnevervisitedthehouseofA1
orthatnosuchrecoverywaseffectedfromthere.A1didnotdeny
that the house from where the recovery was effected did not
belongtohimorthatitwasnotbeingoccupiedbyhim.A1also
failedtostateastowhoelsewaspresentinsidethehouseatthe
timeofrecoveryinquestion.AftertherecoveryoftheweaponsA1
orhisld.counseldidnotmakeanycomplainttold.MMforfalse
plantation.
120 It has come on record that these arms and
ammunitions got recovered by A1 in pursuance of disclosure
statementEx.PW39/Bweresubsequentlynotconnectedwiththe
commissionoftheincidentofthiscase.Hadtherebeenulterior
motiveforDelhipolicetofalselyimplicatetheaccused,theycould
79
haveplantedtheweaponsconnectedwiththecommissionofthe
offenceinthiscase.
121 Testimony of PW18 Insp. Pawan Kumar has been
corroborated by PW19 Insp. Prem Bhallab Dhayani from BSF,
Srinagar. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,hetestifiedthaton
7/6/1996, he was posted as SI, BSF at Frontier Head Quarter,
BSF, Srinagar. On that day, Delhi police came to them and
requestedforassistanceinaraidandsearch. Thepoliceparty
consistedofInsp.PawanKumar,Insp.Shakuntlaandotherstaff,
A1 was also with the police. Thereafter he along with Sh.
MadhusudanSharmaJAD(G)Insp.N.B.K.SinghandDelhipolice
proceededtoAnantNaginthefirstpartoftheday.AItookthem
tohishouseinJanglatMandiandpointedoutasafeinhishouse.
Thesafewasawoodenalmirahtypewhichwashavingalock.The
lockwasbroken.FromthealmirahoneAK56andtwomagzines
containing59roundswererecovered.Explosivesmorethan1kg
werealsorecoveredfromrexinebag/polythenebag.Thearms
80
andammunitionsandexplosivesweresealedinaclothpullanda
withthesealofPKBandseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW18/A
whichcontainedhissignatureatpoint'A'.Somedocumentswere
alsorecoveredduringthesearchofthehouseoftheaccusedand
the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 18/B. The
documents recovered were Ex. PW 19/1 to 8. The witness
identifiedthecasepropertyrecoveredfromthehouseofA1.
122 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.AddlPPfor
theStateonsomefactsandinthecrossexamination,headmitted
that with all the recoveries, form CFSL was also filled by the
Inspectoratthespot.
123Thiswitnesswastestedinthecrossexamination.Inthe
crossexaminationthiswitnessstatedthatrecoverieseffectedby
Delhipolicewerenotreportedtolocalpolice.On7/6/199around9
amhewastoldbyhissuperiorthattheyhadtogotoAnantNagto
help Delhi police in the investigation of the case for raid and
search.At9.30amon7/6/1996InspectorPawanKumarmethim
81
inhisofficepremises.TheyreachedatAnantNagat11.30am.In
Anant Nag, BSF unit was asked to give assistance to
Insp.N.B.K.Singh.TheyleftAnantNagafter2.00pm.Afterseizure
ofthearticlesrecoveredfromAnantNag,thesameremained in
thecustodyofDelhipoliceandtheirguardswereguardingthem.
They returned to their location around 5.00 pm. The witness
deniedthesuggestionthatnorecoverywaseffectedatAnantNag
atthehouseofA1.Thewitnessadmittedthesuggestionoftheld.
defencecounselthatrecoveryandraidwasconductedunderthe
supervisionofSh.M.S.Sharma,thethenJointDirector,BSF.
124 Theentiredepositionofthiswitnessfullysupportsthe
prosecution on all material facts and corroborates the version
givenbyPW18Insp.PawanKumar. Presenceofthewitnessat
thespotatthetimeofrecoveryhasnotbeencontrovertedinthe
crossexamination. Nothingwassuggestedtothiswitnessifany
familymemberoftheaccusedwaspresentatthespotatthetime
ofrecovery.Nosuggestionwas puttothis witnessinthecross
82
examination that father of A1 was not present at the time of
recoveryorthathewaspresentatAmritsaratBabaNursingHome
for the treatment of his another son. No ulterior motive was
assigned to this independent witness from BSF unit to falsely
allegerecoveryofarmsandammunitionsattheinstanceofA1.
Thiswitnesshadnoconcern/connection/nexuswithDelhipolice
to falsely support their case. This witness was having no prior
enmity against A1 to make false deposition. This witness from
BSFunitwaspresentalongwithDelhipoliceontheirrequestto
provide assistance to visit the house of A1. Delhi police was
havingnoprioracquaintancewiththiswitnesstojoinhimfalselyin
theraid.Thiswitnesswasdeputedtoassist Delhipoliceinthe
ordinarycourseofhisdutiesbyhissuperiors.
125 Themannerinwhichtherecoverieswereeffectedat
theinstanceofA1fromthehishouseasdescribedbythewitness
has not been shattered in the cross examination. This witness
gavedetailaccountastohow,whenandfromwhereA1hadgot
83
recovered arms and ammunitions. Again there was least
possibilityofDelhipoliceorBSFunittoplanttheseheavyarticles
whichwerenotavailableinthemarketeasily.Nosuggestionwas
put to this witness if Delhi police was having possession of all
these arms and ammunitions at the time of seeking their
assistance. SinceconditionsinSrinagarweredisturbed,itwas
naturalandprobableforDelhipolicetoseekassistanceofBSF
unit.Thisofficialwitness can'tfalsely pleadhispresenceatthe
spot.
126 NumberofdocumentsEx.PW19/18pertainingto
A1werealsorecoveredatthetimeofhousesearchofA1. No
suggestionwasputtobothPW18andPW19thatthesedocuments
didnotbelongtoA1orthatthesamewerenotrecoveredinthe
house search of A1. A1 did not explain as to how and from
where else the prosecution came into possession of these
documentswhichweremostlypersonaltohim.Recoveryofthese
personaldocumentsofA1furtherlendscredencetothefactthat
84
Delhipolicevisitedthehouseoftheaccusedon7/6/1996.Number
of documents prepared at the spot regarding seizure of the
documentsalsocontainsignaturesofPW19Insp.BallabDhayani
which further establishes his presence at the spot. PW19 Insp.
BallabDhayaniisnotexpectedtosubsequentlyvisitDelhitoput
hissignaturesontheseizurememos.
127 AgainA1didnotexamineanywitnessfromhisfamily
orneighborhoodtodeny visitofDelhi policetohis houseand
recoveryofallthesearmsandammunitions.
128 Prosecution has further examined PW22 SI Arvind
Verma to supplement its case on this aspect. PW22 SI Arvind
Verms also testified that on 7/6/1996, he along with ACP
P.P.Singh,Insp.PawanKumar,Insp.ShakuntlaKhokar,ASIAjit
SinghandSIHarinderhadgonetoSrinagarfortheinvestigation
ofthiscase.AtthetimeofhousesearchofA1twoofficialsofBSF
andSh.Dhayaniwerejoined. On searchofthehouseofA1
documentsEx.A1toA8wererecoveredwhichwereseizedvide
85
seizurememoEx.PW18/B.Inthecrossexaminationaccuseddid
notdenythatthesedocumentsdidnotbelongtoA1.Ratherinthe
crossexaminationthiswitnessrevealedthatsiteplanEx.PW18/G
was prepared in his hand. This official witness can't plead his
presenceoutofstationatJ&K. Thereisnosubstanceinthe
suggestion of the ld. defence counsel for the accused that this
witnesswasnotpresentatthespotatthetimeofhousesearchof
A1.
129 From the above depositions of the witnesses, it
standsestablishedthatthearmsandammunitionsandexplosives
Ex.PW18/1;Ex.PW18/2to61;Ex.PW18/62to63;Ex.PW
18/64to65weregotrecoveredbyA1inpursuanceofdisclosure
statementEx.39/Bmadetothepolice.Simplybecausethepolice
failedtojoinanypublicwitnessduringinvestigationatJ&K,atthe
timeofrecovery,itdoesnotnullifythecogenttestimoniesofthe
police witnesses. The law is very clear on this aspect which is
discussedatcircumstancenumber45.
86
(6)RecoveryofexplosivesattheinstanceofA2:
130 FurthercaseoftheprosecutionisthatA2inpursuanceof
her disclosure statement Ex. PW 39/A recorded on 4/6/1996 at
Delhi led the police party at her residence at Srinagar and got
recoveredexplosivesfromthere.A2hasdeniedthisallegationof
theprosecution.
131 Theprosecutionhasagainrelieduponthetestimony
ofPW18Insp.PawanKumarwhoinhisdepositionbeforethecourt
stated that after effecting recoveries at the residence of A1 at
JanglatMandi,AnantNagthesaidteamalongwithA2reachedat
herresidenceatH.No.1DilsouzeColony,Nattipura,Srinagar.A2
tookthepolicepartytoherresidenceandpointedoutaplacein
thecompoundofherhousenearAnar tree. A2dugoutthe
saidplaceandfromtheearth,shetookoutarexinebagwhich
containedpolythenebags.Fromonepolythenebag,A2tookout
twoslabsofwhitecolourwhichshetoldwereRDXslabs. From
87
theotherpolythenebag,A2tookoutfivetimers.RDXslabswere
weighedanditweightcameto1.325kg.Boththeitemswereputin
therespectivepolythenebagsfromwhichitwerefoundandwere
seizedafterpreparingseizurememoandaftersealingthesame
withthehelpofclothpullanda.OnboththepullandassealofPKB
wasused.CFSLformwasalsofilled.Sealafterusewashanded
overtoLadyInspectorShakuntalaKokkar.SeizurememoEx.PW
18/CcontainedhissignatureatpointA. Pullandas containing
explosivesrecoveredonthatdaywashandedovertoSIHarinder
withthedirection toreachDelhiby whateveravailablemeans.
Thereafter,onthenextday,theyreturnedtoDelhi.
132 The witness identified the case property i.e., five
timers Ex.PW 18/P2/15, polythene Ex. PW 2/6; white cloth
containingtheparticularsofthecaseandsealofPKBEx.PW2/7;
plasticrexineEx.PW2/8.RDXslabsEx.P2/9andpolythenebag
Ex.P2/10.Thewitnessstatedthatthesiteplansoftheplacesof
recoveriesEx.PW18/GandHwerepreparedbyhim.
88
133 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatA2
was kept inthe custody ofW.InspectorShakuntla Kokkarat a
placeprovidedinBSFcampitselfduringtheirstay atSrinagar.
Theyvisited Dilsouze colonyatabout4.00p.m., on 7/6/1996.
HedidnotknowthedistancebetweenthehouseofA1andA2.
The witness further stated that from Srinagar Airport they had
straight away reached at BSF camp in their vehicle. A2 had
disclosedheraddressinherdisclosurestatement. Someladies
werepresentinthehouseofA2whentheyreachedthere. A2
took about 1520 minutes in digging the earth to take out the
polythenecontainingRDX.Itwas1feetearthwhichwasdugby
herwithsomesharpobject. A2tookthatsharpobjectfromher
house itself. The same was not seized by them. The witness
admitted that no photographs of the said spot were taken. He
furtherdeniedthesuggestionthatnoearthwasdugbyA2and
thatnorecoverywaseffectedfromthere. He admittedthatno
public person was present at the time of seizure. The witness
89
deniedthesuggestionthatentireproceedingswereconductedat
DelhiandRDXwasplantedontheaccusedpersonsatDelhi.A2
hadledthemtoherhouse,sohewasnotawareaboutthelocality
whereitwaslocated.ThesiteplansEx.PW18/GandHwerein
thehandsofSIArvindVerma.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestion
thehedidnotvisitthelocationofEx.PW18/GandH.
134 Fromtheabovetestimonyofthewitness,itstands
establishedthatA2ledthepoliceteamatherresidenceandgot
recoveredtheexplosivesfromherresidence.TheresidenceofA
2 was not known to the police and it was A2 who led the
investigationteam to herhouse on 7/6/1996. No ulterior motive
was assigned to this official witness to visit J & K just to plant
recoveriesonA2.Thewitnesscategoricallyassertedthatsome
ladies werepresentatthehouse oftheaccusedatthetimeof
seizureoftheseexplosives.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitness
inthecrossexaminationastowhoelsewasinoccupationofthe
houseatthetimeofrecoveries.A2wasalreadyinpolicecustody
90
forsomedayspriortovisitofherresidenceon7/6/1996.A2did
not deny that the said house from where the recoveries were
effecteddidnotbelongtoher. Asobservedabove, itwasvery
difficultforDelhipolicetojoinanyindependentpublicwitnessfrom
thelocalityofA2.Delhipolicewhoitselfwasstrangertotheplace
wasnotexpectedtobeassistedbytheneighborersofA2against
her.A2 herselfdidnotproduceanywitness fromherfamilyto
controvertvisitofDelhipoliceatherhouseandtherecoveriesof
thearticles.A2didnotdenythattherewasnoAnartreeatthe
backportionofherhouse.OnperusalofExPW18/Gitreveals
thattheplacefromwheretherecoverieswereeffectedissituated
inthebacksideoftheportionifseenfrompoint'A'. A2didnot
examineanywitnessfromherlocalitytoprovethatDelhipolice
hadnotvisitedherresidencealongwithherforrecoveryofthe
ammunition.
135 StatementofPW18Insp.PawanKumarhasbeen
corroborated by another independent witness PW19 Insp Prem
91
BhallabDhayanifromBSF,Srinagar.InhisdepositionagainstA
2, he specifically pleaded that on the request of Delhi police
assistancewasprovidedbyBSFfor searchandseizure.PW19
Insp.PremBhallabDhayaniafterprovingrecoveriesatthehouse
ofA1atJanglatMandifurthertestifiedthatintheafternoon,they
allproceededtoNattiipura,DilsouzeColony.A1wasalsowith
them.Thereafterthey reachedatthehouseofonelady named
Faridawhowasin'burka'. HedidnotseeherfacebutA2was
statingherselfasFarida(A2). Inbackcourtyardofthehouse,
nearthetreeofAnartheearthwasdugandonepolythenebag
wastakenoutwhichfurthercontainedtwopolythenebags.Inone
ofthebags,therewasexplosiveandinanotherbag,therewere
five timers. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW
18/CaftersealingthesamewiththesealofPKB. Thewitness
fairlyadmittedthathecouldnotidentifythatladyFaridaashehad
seenheronlyinburka.Thewitnessidentifiedthecaseproperty
EX18/P2/1to5(fivetimers)andRDXslabsEx.P2/9recoveredat
92
theinstanceofA2.
136 Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPP,the
witnessstatedthatA2waspresentincustodyandpointedouther
house and the spot from where the incriminating articles were
recoveredatherinstance.Thewitnessstatedthattheearthwas
notdugbyher.Hefurtherstatedthatdespiterequestnoonefrom
publiccameforwardtojointheinvestigation.Sealafterusewas
handedovertoInsp.ShakuntlaKhokkar.
137 Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.defencecounsel
forA2,thewitnessstatedthattheyleftAnantNagafter2.00pm
andreachedatDilsouzeColonyataround3.00p.m.Thewitness
clarifiedthat entranceofthehouseofA2of Dilsouze Colony,
Nattipura,wasfromthefrontsideRecoverywasmadefromthe
back side of the house from the courtyard. There were some
peopleinherhousebuthedidnotrememberexactlywhothey
were.Thehousewasapuccahouse.Hefurtherstatedthathe
couldnotsay whetherthepersonspresentinthehouseofA2
93
wereoutsidersorherrelations.Headdedthatsomepersonswere
presentinthehouse.ThedistancebetweenthehouseofA1and
A2wasaround50kilometers.Theyusedthehighwaytoreachthe
houseofA2.DilsouzeColonyisaresidentialareaofSrinagar.
He further stated that it was a 'kachha' portion from where
recovery was effected. Thewitness deniedthesuggestionthat
nothingwasrecoveredatthehouseofA2orthathedidnotjoin
theinvestigationwithDelhipolice.Thewitnessassertedthathe
hadsignedtheseizurememo.
138 ThetestimonyofPW19InspPremBhallabDhayani
inspiresconfidenceasnoulteriormotivehasbeenassignedtothis
witness to falsely support the recoveries in this case at the
instance of A2. Nothing has come on record to show if this
witnessorhisunithadanyenmicaltermsagainstA2priortothe
occurrence to falsely allege recoveries of explosives at her
instance.Thiswitnesshasnoaxetogrindtofalselyprovethe
recoveriesinacaseinwhichhewasnotatallconcerned.Delhi
94
policewasalsonotexpectedtocontactPW19InspPremBhallab
Dhayanitoshowfalserecoveryofheavyprohibitedarticleswhich
werenoteasilyavailableinthemarket.A2didnotexplainastoin
whose occupation the house in question was at the time of
recovery. Shedidnotexamineanywitnessindefencefromher
familytocontrovertthatDelhipolicehadnotvisitedthehouseor
shedidnotgotrecoveranyexplosives.A2didnotdenythatthe
houseinquestiondidnotbelongtoher.
139 Minor discrepancies pointed out by ld. defence
counsel for the accused are not material to discard the entire
independentversionofthiswitnesswhosepresenceatthespot
wasquitenatural.Thewitnesswasnotgoingtobebenefitedfor
falsely supporting Delhi police against A2. This witness gave
graphicdetailinhistestimonybeforethecourtastohowA2got
recoveredtheexplosivesfromaplaceataparticularspotather
house.A2didnotdenythattheAnartreedidnotexistather
house at the spot as shown in the site plan. Prosecution has
95
established the location from where the recoveries were got
effected.
140 PW22 SI Arvind Verma further supplemented the
statementsofPW18Insp.PawanKumarandPW19 InspPrem
BhallabDhayani.Thoughinhisexaminationinchief,thewitness
didnottestifyaboutrecoveriesattheinstanceofA2.However,
in the cross examination by the ld. defence counsel for the
accused,thewitnessstatedthatthesiteplanEx.PW18/Gwasin
hishand.
141 Fromthetestimoniesofthewitnessesreferredabove
andintheabsenceofanymaterialcontradictions,Iamoftheview
that prosecution has established that in pursuance of her
disclosure statement Ex PW 39/A, A2 got recovered the
explosivesandfivetimersEx.P2/9andEX18/P2/1to5fromher
residence.Theplacefromwheretheaccusedgotrecoveredthese
explosivesetcwaswithinthespecialknowledgeofA2andDelhi
Police was not aware about the concealment of these articles
96
insidetheearth.ItwasonlyA2atwhoseinstancetheearthwas
dugupandthesearticlesweretakenout.A2hasfailedtoexplain
thepurposeofhavingpossessionoftheseexplosiveswithoutany
legalauthority.Shealsofailedtoexplainastohow,fromwhere
andwhen,shegotpossessionoftheseexplosivesetc.
142 TestimoniesofPW18Insp.PawanKumarandPW19
InspPremBhallabDhayanican'tberejectedsimplybecauseno
independentpublicwitnesscouldbejoinedintheinvestigation.
(7)
ArticlesrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofAIandA2

143 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton25/6/1996DSPShiv
Kumar posted as Insp. Special Operation Group, Srinagar
handed over to SI Banwari Lal of Delhi police the articles
recoveredinthepersonalsearchofAI.Healsohandedoverthe
personal searchmemosandseizurememostoSIBanwariLal.
Theaccusedpersonshavedeniedthisallegation.
144 ProsecutionexaminedPW95 DSPShivKumarwho
97
deposed that on 25/6/1996 he was posted as Insp. Special
OperationGroup,Srinagar.Onthatdayhehandedover articles
recoveredinJamaTalashiofAIincaseFIRNo.162/94,PSSher
Garhi toSIBanwariLalofDelhipolice.PersonalsearchofA2
was also conducted by lady constable whose name he did not
rememberinthesaidcase.Hepreparedpersonalsearchmemo
andthearticlesrecoveredin jamatalashiweredepositedatPS
Sher Garhi. He handed over the articles recovered in the
personal search of AI to SI Banwari Lal of Delhi police. The
articleshandedoverbyhimareEx.PW9/18consistingofoneI
card;onepassport;oneconsumercardandcertainotherarticles
detailsofwhichhedidnotremember.HealsosignedEx.PW9/A
regardingseizingofthedocumentswhichwerehandedoverby
himtoSIBanwariLalofDelhipolice.
145 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessadmittedthathe
didnotarrestAIorA2inFIRNo.162/94.Hedidnotremember
astowhohadarrestedAI.HedidnotknowastowhenAIwas
98
arrested.HewasnotpresentatthePSattherelevanttime.Hedid
notrememberthenameoftheInspectorofPSSherGarhiwho
waspresentatthetimeofjamatalashi.Hedidnotinvestigatethe
case FIR No. 162/94. The personal search memo of A2 was
prepared by him in his office at Cargo Complex. He did not
rememberthenameoftheofficerwhohadseizedthedocuments
handedovertoDelhipoliceinhispresence.
146 FromtheabovetestimonyofPW95DSPShivKumar
itisnotallprovedifthearticleshandedoverbyhimtoDelhipolice
on 25/6/1996 were recovered in the personal search of AI.
AdmittedlythiswitnesswasnotpresentatthetimeofarrestofAI.
Hewasalsonotpresentwhenthearticleswererecoveredinthe
personalsearchofAI.Sothiswitnesshasnodirectinformationto
statethatarticles Ex.PW 9/18wererecoveredinthepersonal
searchofAI.
147 ProsecutionfurtherexaminedPW42SIBanwariLal
onthisaspect,whotestifiedthaton25/6/1996healongwithInsp.
99
RajinderParsadhadgonetoSriNagarfromwhereInsp.Rajinder
Prasadseized8documentsEx.PW9/18fromInsp.ShivKumar
ofSTF,SrinagarvideseizurememoEx.PW9/A.Thiswitnessdid
notpleadthatthedocumentswerehandedovertohimbyInsp.
ShivKumarasdeposedbyhiminhisexaminationinchief.
148 Prosecution examined PW9 Insp. Rajinder Prasad
whoalsostatedthaton25/6/1996Insp.ShivKumarSTF,J&K
hadhandedovertohimpersonalsearchofAIandthearticles
mentionedinthesaidmemo.Thesaidarticleswereseizedvide
seizurememoEx.PW9/A.Inthecrossexaminationheadmitted
thatAIwasnotarrestedinhispresence.Hedidnotknowwhohad
preparedthepersonalsearchmemoandwhotookthepersonal
search of the accused. He did not remember who were the
attestingwitnessesofthesaidpersonalsearchmemo.Hedidnot
record the statements of the said attesting witnesses of the
personalsearchmemo.MemoEx.PW9/Awaspreparedbyhim
in the office of STF, Srinagar at noon time. He expressed his
100
ignoranceifAIwasregularlyattendinghisjobatSrinagartillhis
arreston20/5/1996.
149 Fromthedepositionoftheabovereferredwitnesses,
inmyview,theprosecutionhasfailedtoproveifthearticlesEx.
PW9/18wererecoveredinthepersonalsearchofAIatthetime
of his arrest. No cogent evidence was produced to prove this
aspectby theprosecution.Thewitness whohadconductedthe
personal search of AI or A2 were never examined by the
prosecutionbeforethecourt.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshow
as to when AI or A2 were arrested and if so from where. No
recordfromPSSherGarhihasbeenproducedbeforethecourtto
ascertain as to when the articles purportedly recovered in the
personal search of AI were deposited in the malkhana. No
explanation was given by the prosecution as to how andunder
whatcircumstancesthesearticleslyingdepositedinthemalkhana
of PS Sher Garhi came into possession of PW 95 Insp. Shiv
KumarofSTFJ&K. Thesearticleswerehandedoverbyhim
101
allegedlyon25/6/1996afteraboutonemonthoftheapprehension
ofAIandA2fromSrinagar.Prosecutionhasfailedtoexplainas
towhyallthesearticlesallegedlyrecoveredinthepersonalsearch
ofAIwerenothandedoverbyInsp.ShivKumaronthedayof
apprehensionofAIandA2andwhentheywerebroughttoDelhi.
Prosecutionhasfurtherfailedtodisclosethepurposeofvisitto
Srinagaron25/6/1996justtocollectthearticlesrecoveredinthe
personalsearchoftheaccused.AsreferredaboveDelhiPolice
hadvisitedPSSherGarhionthedateofapprehensionofAIand
A2inpursuanceofNBW'sissuedagainstthem.Hadtherebeen
any articles recoveredinthepersonalsearchofAIorA2,the
policeofPSSherGarhimusthavehandedoverthesametotheIO
atthatverytime.
150 The prosecution has withheld the best evidence
availablewithittoproveifthesearticles wererecoveredinthe
personalsearchofAI.Adverseinferenceistobedrawnagainst
the prosecution for not examining the witnesses who had
102
conducted personal search of AI and also for withholding the
relevantregistercontainingtheentriesregardingmovementofthe
casepropertyseizedincaseFIRNo.162/94.
151 Thearticlesrecoveredinthepersonalsearchmemo
oftheaccusedhavenotbeenconnectedwiththecommissionof
theoffence.ThearticlesEx.PW9/18consistsofdrivinglicence,
passport, one note book slip containing telephone numbers of
variousagenciesetc.Subsequently,theprosecutionattemptedto
connectAIwiththecommissionoftheoffenceallegingthathe
made telephone calls to various news agencies taking
responsibilityofcausingbombblastatDelhiontelephonenumbers
containedintheslip.Theincidenttookplaceon21/5/1996and
allegedly responsibility was takenby makingtelephonecalls to
variousnewsagenciesonthesamenightatabout10.00pm.AI
andA2areallegedtohavebeenapprehendedbythepoliceofPS
SherGarhiandfax/wirelessmessageweresentbyPW78Insp.
FarooqKhantoDelhipoliceon25/5/1996.AIisnotimaginedto
103
carrywithhimpaperslipcontainingtelephonenumbersofvarious
newsagencieswithhimforthesefourdaystoberecoveredbythe
policeofPSSherGarhiinhispersonalsearch.Hadtherebeen
recovery of the slip on 24/2551996 by the police of PS Sher
Garhi,theymusthaveinformedDelhipoliceonthedateoftheir
apprehension just outside PS Sher Garhi. Nothing incriminating
wasrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA2.Theprosecutionhas
thus failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the articles
Ex.PW9/18wererecoveredinthepersonalsearchofAIinthe
mannerdescribedbythemintheirdepositionbeforethecourt.
152 PW95 DSP Shiv Kumar who was not posted in PS
SherGarhiandwasnotconcernedwiththeinvestigationofthe
caseFIRNo.162/94isnotexpectedtocarrywithhimthearticles
allegedly recovered in the personal search of AI. He did not
testifythedatewhenhegotthesearticlesfromPSSherGarhi.He
also did not state as to how and in what manner he got the
custodyofthesearticlesandwhoinformedtheDelhipoliceabout
104
theavailabilityofthesedocumentswithPW95DSPShivKumar.
ThereisnoevidenceifthehandwritingontheslipisthatofAI.
WhyAIwhoisallegedtobechiefspokesmanofJKIFwouldnote
downtelephonenumbersofvariousnewsagenciesonalooseslip.
Thiscircumstanceinspiresnoconfidence.
CallDetails:
(8)
153 Mainemphasisoftheprosecutionisthaton 21.5.96
afterthebombblastA1hadmadetelephonecallstovariousnews
agenciesatDelhiandhadownedresponsibilityofhisorganization,
JKIFforthebombblast.ItisfurtherstressedthatA1hadmade
31 telephone calls to A2 from 22135 on telephone no. 32221
installedatresidenceofA2.Theaccusedpersonshavedenied
thisallegation.
154 On scanning of testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses,Iamofthisviewthattheprosecutionhasfailedtoprove
beyondreasonable doubt thatA1hadmade telephone calls to
105
variousnewsagenciesatDelhiandhadclaimedresponsibilityof
hisorganization,JKIFforthebombblast.Theinvestigationcarried
out by the prosecution on this aspect is highly scanty and
defective.Nosincereefforts weremadeduringinvestigationto
keepsurveillance onthetelephoneconnectionsinstalledatthe
residences of A1 and A2 after their apprehension prior to
25.5.1996,bypoliceofPSSherGarhi incaseFIRNo.162/94.
NocalldetailsofthetelephoneinstalledatresidencesofA1and
A2werecollectedsoonafterapprehensionofA1andA2though
asperstatementgivenbyPW78FarooqKhanboththeseaccused
personshadconfessedtheirinvolvementintheconspiracyinthe
bombblastatCentralMarket,LajpatNagar.PW78FarooqKhan,
inhis depositionstatedthat fax messageEx.PW78/A,wireless
messageEx.PW78/BandanotherwirelessmessageEx.PW78/C
weresenttopoliceon25.5.96.Faxandwirelessmessagedated
25.5.96 did not reveal thetelephone numbers installed at the
residencesofA1andA2.ItwasalsonotrevealedifA1andA2
106
hadmadeanytelephonecallsfromthesaidtelephonenumbersto
mediaagenciesatDelhionanyspecifictelephonenumbers.Itwas
also not revealed if A1 had made telephone calls from 22135
installedathisresidenceto32221installedatresidenceofA2on
21.5.96.InhisdepositionasPW78FarooqKhandidnottestifyif
he had informed Delhi Police on phone or otherwise regarding
telephones installed at the residence of A1 and A2 and the
variouscallsmadebythemfromthesaidtelephonestoeachother
ortomedia/newsagenciesatDelhi.Healsodidnottestifyifatany
timehehad gotanycalldetailofthetelephoneinstalledatthe
residencesofA1andA2fromthetelephoneexchangeandhad
sentanyfaxmessageshowingcalldetailsmarkPW105/P1toP5.
Thisdocumentcontainsvarioustelephonecallsmadeonvarious
dates to different numbers. However, the prosecution has
miserablyfailedtoproveifthisistheoriginalcorrectcalldetailbill
sentbyfaxbyPW78FarooqKhan.Infact,allthesecalldetailsin
thefaxwerenotprovedearlierbytheprosecution.Whenthecase
107
wasfixedforfinalarguments,anapplicationu/s311CrPCwas
movedtocallsomewitnessestoprovethisdocument.
155 PW101Insp.ParasNathinhisexaminationu/s311
CrPCon26.8.09testifiedthaton4.6.96onefaxmessagedated
23.5.96havingcalldetails/billoftelephoneno.22135washanded
overtohimbyACPPPSingh.Hecheckedthecalldetailsand
foundthattelephoneno.22135wasofAnantNagExchange.On
5.8.96healongwithInsp.PawanKumarandSIArvindwenttoSri
Nagar.On10.8.96,hemetShA.K.Jain,GM,Telecom,SriNagar
andshowedthefaxmessagemarkPW105/P1toP5.On12.8.96
he went to Anant Nag and met Sh Sanjay Sharma @ Sanjiv
Sharma,JTO,AnantNagandshowedhimthefaxmessageasking
forduplicatetelephonebillsbutheshowed hisinabilityandtold
thatmemoryoftheexchangewasalreadyfull. Herecordedhis
statementu/s161CrPCandhecertifiedthatfaxmessageandtold
thatoriginalcalldetailsweregeneratedbyhimandhandedoverto
somepoliceofficerofJ&K.
108
156 PW105ACPPPSinghappearedforthefirsttimein
thewitnessboxinthiscaseon29.5.09inpursuanceofapplication
movedu/s311CrPC.Hedeposedthatinvestigationofthiscase
washandedovertoSpecialCellon26.5.96onthedirectionsof
Senior Police Officers. He handed over the file of this case
alongwithcustodyofA1andA2toInsp.ParasNath.Hefurther
statedthatwhilehandingoverthefileandcustodyofA1andA2
hehadkeptmiscellaneouspapersofthecasefilewithhim.Inthe
miscellaneouspapersretainedbyhim,therewasonedocument
beingthefaxcopyofthebillingdetailsofonetelephoneno.22135
ofAnantNag,J&K.ItwaslateronverifiedbytheIOtohavebeen
installed in the name of Gulam Kadir, father of A1. When he
checkedthebillingdetails, henoticedthat5/6telephoneswere
madefromthesaidtelephonenumberafter8.30PMtodifferent
numbersofDelhiwhichweresubsequentlyfoundtobenumberof
differentmediaoffices. HethenverifiedfrompreviousIOInsp.
AnandPrakashandInsp.JasbirMalkikregardingthesourceofthe
109
saidbillingdetailsand hewastoldthatthesamewasreceived
through Fax in the DCP office from BSF Headquarters in Sri
Nagar.Hehandedoverthefaxcopy markPW105/P1toP5to
Insp.ParasNathon4.6.96.
157 Prosecution has further examined PW107 Sanjeev
Kumar, who in his deposition stated that in May 1996, he had
handedovercalldetailsoftelephoneno.22135tothelocalpolice.
Delhi Police came to him in August 1996 and asked him for
originalofthecalldetailsandhetoldtheIOthatAnantNagwas
anoldexchangeandtherewasnomemorysavingandprintsout
could not be taken out. IO had shown him fax copy mark
PW105/P1toP5andhehadapprovedthatthecallsshowntohim
weregeneratedfromhisexchangeandwerehandedovertothe
localpolicebyhim.
158 On scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnessesreferredabove,Iamoftheviewthatprosecutionhas
failedtoprovethecalldetailsdisclosedinmarkPW105/P1toP5
110
asperlaw.Originalofcalldetailsascontainedinthefaxmark
PW105/P1toP5hasnotbeenproduced. Nothinghascomeon
recordtoshowwhentheoriginalcalldetailswerecollectedandif
so,bywhomandfromwhom.Noapplicationhasbeenshownto
havebeenmadebyanypersonbeforeanycompetentauthorityto
obtainthecalldetailsinrespectoftelephoneno.22135onany
particulardate.Noorderonthesaidapplicationforprovidingcall
detailsofthetelephoneno.22135isshowntohavebeenmade.It
isalsonotdisclosedastowhohadcollectedthecalldetailsfor
whichthefax markPW105/P1toP5wasallegedlysenttoDelhi
Police.
159 PW107SanjeevKumarhasstatedtohavegivencall
detailstolocalpolice. However,nosuchwitnessfromthelocal
policehasbeenexaminedbytheprosecutiontoshowiforiginal
calldetailswerecollectedbyhimfromPW107SanjeevKumar.No
memo regarding seizure of the original of call details has been
placedandprovedonrecord. Nosuchcalldetailsweremade
111
availabletoDelhiPolicebylocalpolice;bythepoliceofPSSher
GarhiorbyBSFAuthorities.PW107SanjivK.isnotexpectedto
rememberorallycalldetailsmentionedinthefaxafterlapseof14
years.
160 Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowastowhenthis
faxmessagemarkPW105/P1toP5wassenttoDelhiPoliceand
ifsobywhomitwassent. PW78FarooqKhandidnottestify
in his deposition before the court that any such fax message
containingthecalldetailsoftelephoneno.22135wassentbyhim
toDelhiPoliceandifsowhen. Noneoftheprosecutionwitness
examinedbeforethecourthastestifiedastowhohadreceivedthis
faxmessageandifsowhenandfromwhere. PW105ACPPP
Singhforthefirsttimeinhistestimonyon29.5.09testifiedthatthis
faxcopyofthebillingdetailswasreceivedintheofficeofDCP.
However,noofficialfromtheDCPofficeoranyrecordfromthe
DCPofficehasbeenproducedonrecordtoshowifitwasreceived
byanybodyonanyparticulardatefromJ&K. ACPPPSingh
112
hadvisitedJ&Kon25.5.96itselfandevenafterapprehensionofA
1andA2fromJ&K,nosuchcalldetailsweremadeavailableto
himbylocalpolice.
161 Storyhasbeenpresentedaftermorethan10yearsby
PW105ACPPPSinghthathehadretainedthefaxmessagemark
PW105/P1toP5inthemiscellaneouspaperswhilehandingover
thecasefiletoIO/Insp.ParasNathon26.5.96.Onlyon4.6.96,he
handedoverthecalldetailstotheIO/Insp.ParasNath.Thisplea
ofPW105ACPPPSinghdoesnotappealtomind. Hewasnot
expected to retain with him the important piece of evidence
containingcalldetailsoftelephoneinstalledattheresidenceofA1
whilehandingoverremainingcasefiletoInsp.ParasNath.This
pleahasbeentakenbyACPPPSingh(PW105)afteraboutmore
than 10 years of the date of incident. Prior to that he never
botheredtoappearbefore thecourtasawitnessinthiscaseto
clarify on this aspect. PW101 Insp. Paras Nath in his earlier
depositionalsodidnotdiscloseifhehadevercometoknowabout
113
anysuchfaxcopyofthebillingdetailsoftelephoneno.22135.
162 On4.6.96evenaftercomingtoknowaboutfaxdetails
markPW105/P1toP5,IOdidnotbothertocollecttheoriginalcall
details.
163 Besidesthis,noeffortsweremadebytheinvestigating
agency during investigation as to whom the telephone number
mentionedinthecalldetailsbelonged.Nosuchpersontowhom
thetelephonesweremadewereexaminedduringinvestigationto
unearththeconspiracy. IOdidnotevenbothertoverifyifthe
telephone number mentioned in the call details pertained to
various news agencies. Media people who appeared in the
witnessboxwerenotaskediftelephonenumbermentionedinthis
faxpertainedtotheirofficesorthattheyhadreceivedtelephone
callsonthattelephonenumbers.
164 It has further come on record that A1 was having
govt.accommodationandtelephoneinquestionwasnotinstalled
inhisname.Itwasratherinstalledinthenameofhisfather.No
114
evidencewascollectedbytheprosecutionduringinvestigationif
thehouseatJanglatMandi,SriNagarusedtoremaininexclusive
possession of A1 or that it was only A1 who used to make
telephone calls from the said telephone installed there.
Prosecution has failed to prove as to how calls made from
telephoneno.22135asdetailedinthefaxmarkPW105/P1toP5
were attributed only to A1 and what was its basis. A1 in his
statement u/s 313 CrPC has admitted that this telephone no.
22135hasbeeninstalledinthenameofhisfather.Atthesame
time, he pleaded that this telephone was not having any STD
facilityandthehousewasnotoccupiedbyhim.Itwasimperative
fortheprosecutiontocollectcogentevidenceonrecordtoshowif
itwasonlyA1whohadaccesstothetelephoneno.22135andit
washewhohadmadetelephonecallstonewsagenciesatDelhi.
165 Calldetailsinmark PW105/P1toP5furtherreveal
thatnumberoftelephonecallstookplacebetweenA1andA2.
However,thatitselfisnotenoughtoinferconspiracybetweenA1
115
andA2withcoaccusedpersonsfortheincident.Itisthecaseof
the prosecution that A1 and A2 were active members of the
JKIF. DisclosurestatementofA1Ex.PW39/Bfurtherreveals
that he had even relation with the daughter of A2. In this
situation,possibilityofA1andA2tohaveknowntoeachother
andtoremainintouchontelephonepersecan'tbeconsidered
incriminatingpieceofcircumstance.
166 A1hasadmittedinhisstatementu/s313CrPCthat
telephoneno.22135hasbeeninstalledinthenameofhisfatherat
theresidenceofJanglatMandi,SriNagar,J&K.Heorhisfamily
membersfailedtoplaceonrecordany documentregardingcall
details made from this telephone number. A2 has not denied
installationoftelephoneNo.32221atherresidence.Shealsodid
notspecificallydisputethetelephonecallsexchangedbetweenher
andA1duringrelevantperiod.A1failedtoexplainastowhoelse
hadmadetelephonecallsfrom22135on21.5.96aftertheblastto
various news agencies. A1 has also not denied telephone
116
numbersofvariousnewsagenciesonwhichtelephonecallswere
madeon21.5.96from8.39PMto8.45PM.A1alsodidnotreveal
astowhoelsehadaccesstothetelephoneconnectioninstalledat
residenceofhisfather.NofamilymemberofA1appearedinthe
witnessboxtoclarifyastowhohadmadetelephonecallsduring
thatperiodtovariousnewsagenciesandwhatwasthepurposeof
makingthesaidtelephonecallstomedia.Thissilenceonthepart
ofA1pointsafingerofsuspicionagainsthimabouthisknowledge
aboutbombblastatLajpatNagar.Butthatitselfisnotsufficientto
prove hatching conspiracy between coaccused persons. Mere
knowledge of conspiracy is not enough to prove it. Had the
prosecutionbeenvigilantandobtainedimpeachabledocumentary
evidence on record regarding telephone calls made from the
telephoneinstalledattheresidenceoffatherofA1orithadkept
surveillanceforthesame,itmusthavebeenabletobringA1in
thenet.Meresuspicionisnotenoughtotakeplaceoflegalproof
inthe absence of any other reliable evidence on record. Call
117
detailsthusrelieduponbytheprosecutionhavenotbeenproved
beyondreasonabledoubt.Prosecutionhasfailedtoprovethatit
wasonlyA1whohadmadeallthesecalls. Moreoverallthese
call details pertain to the period when alleged conspiracy had
alreadycometoanend.
167 MoreoverPWInps.PawanKumarandSIArvinddid
notcorroboratethisversionofPW101Insp.ParasNathintheir
depositionbeforethecourt.
168 A1deservesbenefitofdoubtonthisaspectandthe
call details can't be termed to be an incriminating piece of
circumstanceagainstA1orA2.
(9)ArrestofA3andA4:
169 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA3andA4werearrested
onthebasisofsecretinformationon14/6/1996whentheywereto
board Vaishali express to go to Gorakpur. A3 has denied this
allegation and has stated that he was lifted from his house on
28/2951996.
118
170 Prosecution examined PW16 Insp. Rajender
Gautamwhotestifiedthaton14/6/1996healongwithInsp.Paras
Nath,Insp.SureshChander,SISurenderVermaetc.joinedthe
investigationofthiscase.Atabout6.20pmInsp.ParasNathgot
secretinformationthatA3involvedinthecommissionofthiscase
along with his companion, a Kashmiri youth would be going to
GorakpurviaVaishaliexpress.Insp.ParasNathorganizedateam
andtheyallreachedatNewDelhiRailwaystation.ACPPPSingh
alsojoinedthepolicepartyatNewDelhiRailwayStation.Theyall
reachedatplatformno.4oftheNewDelhiRailwayStationand
helda'nakabandi'.Atabout7.30pmonthepointingoutofthe
informer, A3 and A4 were apprehended. Both the accused
persons were interrogated by Insp. Paras Nath and they were
arrested. Their personal search memos Ex. PW16/A and 16/B
wereprepared.
171 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessreassertedthat
theywereinsearchoftheaccusedpersonsintheareaofJama
119
Masjid. On that day they had left their office at 3.00 pm in
connection with the search of accused persons. The secret
informationwasreceivedatabout6.15pmnearthestairsinfront
ofJamaMasjid.Thewitnessadmittedthatnoneoftheaccused
wasknowntohimpriortohisarrest.ACPwasinformedatabout
6.15pmontelephone.ACPmetthematabout7.00pmatNew
DelhiRailwayStationnearparking. Thereafter,theyallreached
platform no.4 from where the train for Gorakpur was about to
leave.Thedeparturetimeofthetrainwas7.30pm.Theyreached
atplatformno.4atabout7.05pm.Thetrainhadalreadyarrivedat
theplatformwhentheyreachedthere.Heexpressedhisignorance
tosayiftwoaccusedpersonswerealreadypresentattheplatform
whentheyreachedthere.ThewitnessfurtherelaboratedthatA3
wasmovingtogeneralcoachwhenhewasapprehended. They
remainedatthespotforaboutonehourafterapprehendingthe
accused.Theentirewritingworkwasdoneattheplatform. One
railwayticketwasrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA3. The
120
witness denied the suggestion thatA3 was picked up from his
house P7, Turkmangate on the night of 28/2951996 in the
presenceoflocalitypersons.
172 Overall testimony of this witness shows that no
majordiscrepancieshavebeenelicitedtodiscardthedepositionof
thiswitnessonthisaspect.Inthecrossexaminationnothingwas
suggestedaboutthepresenceofA4withA3atthetimeofhis
apprehension.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationastowhenandfromwhereA4wasapprehendedby
thepolice.A3didnotdenyrecoveryofticketfromhispossession.
Police was not imagined to detain A3 in illegal custody for so
manydaysparticularlywhenallegedlyfatherofA3hadalready
senttelegramstovariousauthorities.Suggestionhasbeenputto
thewitnessinthecrossexaminationthatA3wasalreadypresent
attheplatformbeforethereachingofDelhipolicethere.A3did
notdenythatnowritingworkwasdoneatthespotbythepolice.
No evidence in defence was produced by A3 that he was not
121
presentatthespotatthetimeofhisapprehensionorthatpolice
hadalreadydetainedhimontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.
173 PW39Insp.HariRamMalikhascorroboratedthe
version given by PW 9 Insp. Rajender. He elaborated that on
14/6/1996hejoinedtheinvestigationofthiscase.Healongwith
Insp. Rajender, Insp. Suresh Chander, SI Surinder Verma, SI
VirenderSingh,SIArvindVerma,Ct.OmkarSinghandIOInsp.
ParasNathhadgonetotheareaofJamaMasjidnearUrduBajar
andwerepresentthere. Atabout6.20pm,asecretinformation
wasreceivedbyInsp.ParasNaththatoneboyA3alongwithone
Kashmiri boy would go to Gorakpur from New Delhi Railway
station in Vaishali Express. From Gorakpur they would go to
Nepal.ACPP.P.SinghwasinformedontelephonebyInsp.Paras
Nath. Withoutwastinganyfurthertime,theyallreachedatNew
DelhiRailwayStationalongwiththeinformer.ACPP.P.Singhalso
joined there. Insp. Paras Nath made inquiries from the inquiry
aboutthedeparturetimeofVaishaliexpressanditwasrevealed
122
that Vaishali express would leave the station at 7.45 pm from
platformno.4.At7.20pmatrapwaslaidonplatformno.4.At
about7.35pmonthepointingoutofinformer,A3andA4present
before the court were apprehended. They admitted their
involvementinthiscase. Boththeaccusedwerearrested.Their
personalsearchwereconductedvidepersonalsearchmemosEx.
PW16/Aand16/B.
174 Inthecrossexaminationonthisaspecthestatedthat
departureentrywasmadeofhisdeparturefortheinvestigation.
Brief interrogation was conducted of both A3 and A4 at the
railwaystationandthedetailinvestigationwasconductedinthe
OperationCellatLodiRoad.Headmittedthatnoassistancewas
takenfromRailwayProtectionForceatNewDelhiRailwayStation.
ADDentryaboutthearrestofthesetwoaccusedpersonswas
recordedintheOperationCell.
175 The deposition of this witness shows that no material
suggestionshavebeenputtothiswitnessinthecrossexamination
123
regardingapprehensionofbothA3andA4onthedate,timeand
placementionedbythewitness. Nosuggestionwasputtothis
witnessinthecrossexaminationifA3hadalreadybeenliftedby
thepolicefromhishouseontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.
A3alsodidnotdenytherecoveryofticketfromhispossession.
Hedidnotclaimhispresenceatanyotherplaceatthetimeofhis
apprehension.A4isconspicuouslysilentabouthisapprehension
inthiscase.Nothingwassuggestedastohowandunderwhat
circumstances,hewasapprehendedbythepolice.
176 PW101 Insp. Paras Nath has supplemented the
prosecutionversion.He hasalso testifiedonsimilarlinesand
alsoprovedtheapprehensionofbothA3andA4atNewDelhi
Railway Station from platform no. 4 at around 7.30 pm. The
witnessstatedthatsecretinformerpointedouttwopersonsnear
general coach and at his pointing out both A3 and A4 were
apprehended.A4informedthathewasinvolvedinLajpatNagar
bomb blast case and was going to Nepal with A3. He also
124
informedthemthathehadtogiveasumofRs.1lakhtoA3for
bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar and they were going to Gorakpur
whereA5andA6werestayingatHotelBudhainGorakpur.A5
andA6weretogiveRs.1lakhtoA3andA4. PW101further
deposedthatheconductedformalsearchofA3andA4.From
thesearchofA3,asumofRs.965/,oneopenticketfromDelhi
toGorakpurofsecondclassandfromthesearchofA4asumof
Rs.770/wererecoveredvidepersonalsearchmemos Ex.PW
16/AandEx.PW16/B.TheticketrecoveredfromA3wasfortwo
persons.ThereafterbothA3&A4werebroughtattheirofficeat
around8.45/9.00p.m.
177 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatthe
information about A3 and A4 about their boarding Vaishali
ExpresstoGorakpurwasreceivedbyhim.NoDDwaswrittenin
thisregard.NohelpwassoughtfromRailwayProtectionForceor
Railwaystaffinapprehendingtheaccusedpersons.Noassistance
orhelpwastakenfromNDLSRailwayStation,RailwayProtection
125
Force or officers of Railway posted at NDLS. There was one
boogie of general compartment next to the engine. They had
entered from Ajmere gate side of Railway Station and they
descendedfromfirststairsoftherailwaybridgeonplatformno.4.
HereachedatNDLSat6.50pmandACPP.P.Singhreachedthere
atabout6.55pm.Headmittedthattheticketrecoveredfromthe
possessionoftheaccusedhadbeenpurchasedfromthecounter
of Ajmere Gate side at 7.14 p.m. The witness denied the
suggestionthatA3wasliftedfromhishouseon29/5/1996.
178 Thedepositionofthiswitnessalsocorroboratesthe
versiongivenbytheotherwitnesseswhowerepresentatthetime
ofapprehensionofA3andA4. Againnothingwassuggested
aboutthepresenceofA4atthetimeofhisapprehension.A4did
notchallengehispresencealongwithA3attheplatformforgoing
toGorakpur.Hedidnotsuggestifonthedayofhisapprehension,
hewaspresentatsomeotherplace.Nowitnessindefencewas
examined by A3 or A4 to prove their presence at any other
126
specificplaceonthedayoftheirarrestinthiscase.
179 All the above witnesses have corroborated the
versionofeachotherinitsentiretyandnomaterialdiscrepancies
have come in their cross examination to discard their version
regarding apprehension of A3 and A4 from platform no.4 of
NDLS. BothA3andA4havefailedtoexplainthepurposeof
their visit to Gorakpur by Vaishali express. A4 did not use to
resideatDelhi.HefailedtoexplainthepurposeofhisvisittoDelhi.
RecoveryofticketfortwopersonsfromthepossessionofA3has
remainedunchallenged.
180 Apprehension of both A3 and A4 on 14/6/1996
while attempting to go to Gorakpur is an incriminating
circumstance against them as they have failed to elaborate the
purposeoftheirvisittoGorakpur.
(10)RecoveryofexplosivesetcattheresidenceofA3:
181 Case of the prosecution is that after his
127
apprehension,A3ledthepoliceteamathishouseon15/6/1996
and from there, he got recovered RDX slabs and other
incriminatingarticles.PleaofA3isthatnosuchrecoverywasgot
effected by him. He was lifted by the police much prior to
15/6/1996andwasfalselyimplicatedinthiscasethereafter.
182 PW31Insp.Surinderinhisevidencebeforethecourt
stated that on 15/6/1996 he joined the investigation with Insp.
ParasNathandotherpoliceofficials.A3ledthepolicepartytohis
house at P7, First Floor, Turkman Gate. There was an
unauthorizedroomonthatDDAFlat.Fromthatroom,A3tookout
one polythene bag from behind a tin box. On opening the
polythenebag, itwasfoundcontainingtwoRDXslabsweighing
about1kg150gms.Thoseslabswerekeptinthesamebagand
sealedwiththesealofPP.Sealafterusewashandedovertohim.
ThiswitnessfurthertestifiedthatthereafterA3tookoutfromthe
showcaseaffixedintheroomoneJaycoAlarmTimepiecefrom
whichtwowireswerecomingoutandwashavingablackplastic
128
bodywithfourarms.Thisalarmwasalsosealedwiththesealof
PPandseized. ThereafterA3tookoutonedetonatorwithwire
whichwasalsosealedwiththesealofPP.A3thereaftertookout
anotherpolythenebagfromaboveanothershowcaseanditwas
foundcontainingoneironsolder,onescrewdriver,oneplas,one
cutter,twoarlditetubes,oneelectrictapeandonewire.Allthese
articleswereput inthesamepolytheneandsealedwiththethe
sealofPPandseized.ThereafterA3broughtoutonegascylinder
of5kgfrombeneaththeslabofthekitchenanditwassealedand
seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 31/A. He also signed the
disclosurestatementoftheA3Ex.PW31/B.OneAbdulSamad
who was joined in the investigation also signed the recovery
memo.
183 Inthe crossexamination by the ld.defence counsel
fortheaccusedpersonsonthisaspect,thewitnessstatedthatthe
incidenttookplaceon21/5/1996whilerecoverywaseffectedon
15/6/1996 at the pointing out of A3. On 15/6/1996, they had
129
reachedatthehouseofA3at4.00amandbeforetakinghimto
hishousehisdisclosurestatementwasrecordedatthePS.They
remainedpresentatthespotforabout45hours.Theflatno.P7
issurroundedbyotherflats.HedidnotrememberifIOhadtriedto
findoutastowhoweretheowneroftheflatsinNorth,South,East
and West. No other neighbour became ready to join the
investigationexceptonlyoneMohd.Samad.Theaccusedhimself
aswellastheneighborershadconfirmedthatA3waslivinginthat
flat.Whentheyreachedattheflat,nobodywaspresentthere.The
witnessdeniedthesuggestionthathehadnotgonetothespot
andneverjoinedtheinvestigation.Thewitnessclarifiedthatthe
flat had a single door and it comprised of two rooms and one
kitchen.Therecoveryofgascylinderwasfrombeneathofslabin
the kitchen and RDX slabs were recovered from the trunk in
unauthorized room and the trunk was lying on four bricks. The
RDXslabswereingreenpolythenebag.ThecolourofRDXwas
black.TheRDXwasweighedatthespotandweighingbalance
130
wasintheIObag.Hedeniedthesuggestionthatnorecoverywas
goteffectedattheinstanceofA3.
184 Perusalofthestatementofthiswitnessrevealsthat
nomaterialcontradictionsanddiscrepancieshavebeenbroughtin
thecrossexaminationtodisbelievehim.Nosuggestionwasputto
this witness in the cross examination as to when A3 was
apprehendedbythepoliceandunderwhatcircumstances,hewas
allegedly lifted from his house. There was no occasion for the
police to visit the house of A3 in pursuance of disclosure
statementatoddhoursat4.00amon15/6/1996andtoplantthe
heavy recovery on him. A3 did not deny that the house P7,
TurkmanGatedidnotbelongtohim.Nothingwassuggestedinthe
crossexaminationasto,towhomthesaidhousebelonged. A3
hasfailedtoexplainastohowhisfamilymembersresidinginthe
saidhousehappenedtofleeaway onthedayheledthepolice
teamtohishouse.Itwasfoundthatnofamilymemberwaspresent
there.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifthispoliceofficial
131
was having enmical terms with the accused to make false
depositionagainsthim.
185 This witness categorically stated that one Abdul
Samadwasjoinedintheinvestigationatthetimeofconductingthe
proceedingsthere.TheprosecutionevenexaminedPW92Abdul
Samad as a witness. In his deposition before the court, this
witnessdidnotsupporttheprosecutioninentiretyandcameup
with the plea that A3 along with his brother was lifted by the
policeontheinterveningnightof2829/5/1996atabout3.30am.
He(PW92)wassleepingatthattimeinhishouseandhadgotup
onhearingloudnoise.He,however,admittedthattheA3andhis
brotherweretakenawaybythepolice.Someofthepolicemen
stayed back and searched his room. 3 or 4days later,he was
calledatthePSandwasmadetosignondocumentEx.PW31/A.
This witness was got declared hostile by ld. Addl PP and was
crossexamined.Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessdeniedthe
contentsofthestatementmarkA92tohavebeenmadebyhimto
132
thepolice.
186 Inthe crossexamination by the ld.defence counsel
thewitnessstatedthathehadcomedownfromhisresidenceto
theplaceofincident.Hewasnotallowedtogoinsidethehouseof
A3.
187 Testimonyofthishostilewitnesssupportstheversion
ofPW31regardingtheraidatthehouseofA3at3.30amor4.00
am.,thoughthiswitnesshasgiventhedateofraidas28/295
1996. This witness has exceeded his brief and has suggested
liftingofA3ontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.WhereasA3
did not claim that he was taken away from his house on the
interveningnightof28/2951996.Nocomplaintwhatsoeverwas
filedby thiswitnessagainstanyofthepoliceofficialsforillegal
detentionofA3forsuchalongperiod.Thiswitnesshasadmitted
hissignaturesonthememoEx.PW31/Awhichratherensureshis
presenceatthespotatthetimeofrecovery.Thiswitnessdidnot
allegeanythreatorpressurefromthepolicetosignEx.PW31/A.
133
TheneighborerofA3wasnotexpectedtoputhissignatureson
thememoEx.PW31/Aonthemereaskingofthepolice.Healso
didnotlodgeanycomplaintagainstanypoliceofficerforforcing
himtoputhissignaturesonEx.PW31/A.Itshowsthatthewitness
is not presenting true facts to the court. This witness has
neverthlessadmittedthatthehousewherethepoliceconducted
raidbelongedtoA3.Againthiswitnesshasfailedtoexplainwho
elsewaspresentatthehouseatthetimeofraidandwhynofamily
memberofA3cameforwardtoprotesttheliftingoftheaccused
ontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.A3didnotexamineany
neighborerinhisdefencetoshowthat hewastakenawayfrom
hishouseontheinterveningnightof28/2951996orthatnothing
wasrecoveredfromhishouse.A3andthiswitnessAbdulSamad
havefailedtoexplainastohowtheotherbrotherofthisaccused
allegedlylivingalongwithhimwasnotinvolvedinthiscase.PW92
AbdulSamadalsofailedtoexplainastohowforthefirsttimein
2005hecameupwiththepleathatA3wasliftedfromhishouse
134
intheinterveningnightof28/2951996.
188 PW41Insp.SureshChanderanothermemberofthe
raidingteamhassupportedtheprosecutionandhascorroborated
theversionofPW31Insp.Surinder. Inhisevidencebeforethe
court,PW41Insp.SureshChanderalsotestifiedthaton15.6.1996,
he joined the raiding party along with Insp. Paras Nath and at
about4.00AMA3ledthepoliceteamatP7,DDAFlats,Turkman
Gate,Delhiandgottheabovereferredrecoverieseffectedfrom
there. Allthesearticlesrecoveredatthespotwereseizedvide
seizurememoEx.PW31/A.A3hadmadeadisclosurestatement
Ex.PW31/Bonthebasisofwhichtherecoveriesweregoteffected
byhim.A3gotrecoveredtwoRDXbricksEx.PW18/64&65ina
green polythene bag Ex. P17; the timer watch Ex. P8, the iron
solder Ex. P9, the wire Ex.P10, screw driver Ex.P11, pliers Ex.
P12,wirecutterEx.P13,twoaralditetubesEx.P14,electricwire
Ex.P15andonegascylinderEx.P16.
189 Inthecrossexaminationonbehalfoftheaccused,
135
thewitnessstatedthatbeforedeparturefromtheSpecialCellon
15/6/1996,A3wasinterrogatedandhisdisclosurestatementwas
recorded.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthathedidnotvisit
flatno.P7,DDAflats,TurkmanGateon15/6/1996.Thewitness
clarified that it was disclosed that day that some family was
residinginP7,TurkmanGatebutnonewasfoundpresentiniton
15/6/1996.OnepublicwitnessAbdulSamadwasaresidentofflat
no.P15.Hewasonlypublicpersonwhohadagreedtojointhe
proceedings. ThewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthatPWAbdul
Samadwasastockwitness.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthatinhis
presenceAbdulSamadhadsignedonlyonedocument.
190 Thetestimonyofthiswitnessregardingthepresence
ofPW92AbdulSamadatthetimeofrecoveryatthehouseofA3
wasnotchallengedinthecrossexamination. Rathersuggestion
wasputbytheld.defencecounseltothiswitnessthatPW92Abdul
Samad was a stock witness. Nothing was explained as to how
PW92AbdulSamadresidingintheneighborhoodofthisaccused
136
was a stock witness of the police. Nothing was suggested if
PW92AbdulSamadhadappearedinanyothercaseasastock
witnessofthepolice.PerusalofthefilerevealsthatPW92Abdul
Samad did not support the prosecution regarding the raid
conductedbythepoliceon15/6/1996inhisdepositionbeforethe
court.HadPW92AbdulSamadbeenthestockwitnesshemust
not have turned hostile in his statement before the court. This
suggestion substantiates the version given by PW31
Insp.Surender that the recoveries were got effected in the
presenceofPW92AbdulSamad.Nothingwassuggestedtothis
witnessalsoastowhomthehouseinquestionbelonged.Nothing
wassuggestedastohowtheotherfamilymembersoftheaccused
earlier residing in the said house had fled away from the spot.
NothingwassuggestedtothiswitnessifA3wasliftedfromhis
houseontheinterveningnightof28/2951996. Noneighboror
was examined by the accused in his defence to challenge the
recoverieseffectedathisinstancefromhishouse.Onlysuggestion
137
was put denying the recoveries which is not sufficient in the
presenceofcogentevidenceonrecord.
191 PW101Insp.ParasNathhasalsotestifiedonsimilar
lines. He also deposed that in pursuance of the disclosure
statement,A3ledthepolicepartytohishouseP7,DDAFlats,
TurkmanGateandfromtherehegotrecoveredRDXweighing1
kg150gmswhichwaslyingunderasteelbox,onebagcontaining
tools,onedetonator,one5kgLPGcylinder.Atthesearticleswere
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW31/A.Inthecrossexamination,
thewitnessfairlyadmittedthatnolocalpolicewasjoinedatthe
timeofrecovery. Thewatchmanoftheareawheretheaccused
was residing at the relevant time was not called. The case
propertywassealedwiththesealofPP.Thesealafterusewas
handedovertoSISurenderKumar.Nohandingovermemoofthe
saidsealwasprepared.
192 Theentirecrossexaminationshowsthattheaccused
did not challenge the raid at the house and recoveries of the
138
articles referred above at his instance. Again nothing was
suggestedtothiswitnessthatthesaidhousedidnotbelongtothe
accused. Suggestion was put that A3 was picked up from his
houseon29/5/1996.Howevertheaccuseddidnotexamineany
witnessinhisdefencetoprovethathewasliftedfromhishouseon
29/5/1996.Somuchso,A3didnotexaminehisbrotherwhowas
allegedlyliftedbypolicealongwithhim. Itisnotrevealedasto
whenbrotherofA3wasreleased.Ratherthefactthatbrotherof
A3 was not implicated shows bonafide of police. Had no such
recoveriesbeeneffected,therewasnooccasiontoimplicateonly
A3andtoletoffhisbrother.
193 From the testimonies of the above witnesses
corroboratingtheversionofeachotheronmaterialaspects,Iam
of the view that the prosecution has established that all these
articlesmentionedinEx.PW31/AweregotrecoveredbyA3from
hishouseinpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement.A3failedto
explainthepurposeofretentionofallthesearticlesathishouse.
139
A3 failed to explain as to from which source he had acquired
these explosives and other articles. The recoveries at the
residenceofA3alsopointsanaccusingfingeragainsthim.
ArrestofA7andRecoveryoftworupeecurrencynote:
(11)
194 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA7wasgotarrested
byA3andA4fromGorakhpuron16/6/1996.OnsearchofA7
one two rupee Indian note Ex. PX was recovered from his
possession.ThistworupeecurrencynotewastobegiventoA4
toenablehimtocollectRs.1lakhfromMangalChandatShalimar
Bagh to give the same to A3. A7 has strongly denied this
allegation.ItisstatedthatA7wasnotarrestedfromGorakhpur.
The police managed the arrest of A7 from Nepal and falsely
implicatedhiminthiscase.
195 To establish arrest of A7 at Gorakhpur prosecution
examinedPW16Insp.RajenderGautam,PW24SIHariSinghand
PW36Insp.RajeshwarKumar.Ihavescrutinizedthetestimonies
of these witnesses and find them full of contradictions and
140
inconsistencies. No independent public witness was joined at
Gorakhpur at the time of apprehension of A7. Again no
independentpublicwitnesswasjoinedorrequestedtojoinatthe
timeofconductingpersonalsearchofA7andrecoveryof two
rupeecurrencynoteEx.PXfromhispossession.
196 PW16Insp.RajenderGautaminhisexaminationin
chiefdidnotutterawordthathehadgonetoGorakhpuronany
particulardateandhadarrestedA7attheinstanceofA3andA
4. Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPonthis
aspect and was cross examined. In the cross examination, the
witness admitted the suggestion of ld. Addl PP that A7 was
arrested on 16/6/1996 and his personal search was taken vide
personal search memo Ex. PW 16/E. He further admitted the
suggestionofld.AddlPPthatatthetimeofarrestofA7tworupee
currency note was recovered from his possession which was
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW16/F.Hefurtheradmittedthe
suggestionofld.AddlPPthatA7haddisclosedthatonthebasis
141
ofsaid tworupeecurrencynote,asumofRs.1lakhwastobe
collectedfromMangalChandatShalimarBagh.Healsoadmitted
thatIOrecordeddisclosurestatementofA7videEx.PW16/H.
197 Inthecrossexaminationofld.defencecounselfor
theaccusedthewitnessstatedthathedidnotrememberastowho
wasarrestedfromGorakhpur.HedidnotknowthenameofPSin
Gorakhpurinwhosejurisdictionanypersonwasarrested.Hedid
not remember the name of locality from where accused was
arrested in Gorakhpur. He however disclosed that it was near
RailwayStation,Gorkhpur.Hedidnotrememberifthatplacewas
ahotelorrestaurant.Heagainstatedthatitwasperhapsahotel
cumrestaurant.ManagerofhotelwasjoinedbytheIOatthetime
of his arrest but he did not remember his name. He did not
rememberifanyextractoftheregisterwasseizedbytheIOand
statementofManagerwasrecordedbytheIOornot.Healsodid
notrememberifanyarrivalordepartureentrywasmadeintheDD
registerofthelocalPSinGorakhpur.Hedeniedthesuggestion
142
thatA7wasarrestedfromNepal.
198 No reliance can be placed on the deposition of this
witness regarding his visit to Gorakhpur apprehending A7 from
there at a specific place. This witness did not give answers to
number of questions put to him in the cross examination and
expressedhisignorance. Hetestifiedabouttheapprehensionof
A7 and the recovery of two rupee currency note when so
suggestedbyld.AddlPPfortheState.Suggestionwasputbyld.
AddlPPfortheStatetothiswitness thathehadnotdeposed
properlyashewaswonoverbytheaccused.
199 Testimonyofthiswitnessiscontrarytothestatement
of PW24 S.I.Hari Singh. He in his examination in chief merely
statedthaton16/6/1996healongwithInsp.Rajeshwarandother
staff had gone to Gorakhpur and from Budha Hotel A7 was
arrestedandhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/Hwasrecorded.
HefurtherstatedthatonetworupeecurrencynoteEx.PXwas
recoveredfromA7whichwasseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW
143
16/F.Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessstatedthathedidnot
knowunderwhichjurisdictionofthePS,BudhaHotelfell.Hedid
notknowthenameoftheroadonwhichBudhaHotelwaslocated.
TheyleftDelhiforGorakhpuron16/6/1996inthemorning. The
distancebetweenDelhiandGorakhpurmightbeabout900kms.
His statement was recorded by Insp. Rajeshwar Prasad on the
samedayinBudhaHotel.Localpolicewasnotwiththem.After
arrest of A7, he did not produce him in any local court at
Gorakhpur. No transit remand was obtained after the arrest of
accused. They reached at Gorakhpur in the evening. After 2/3
hours,theycamebacktoDelhi.TheystartedforDelhi atabout
7.30pmandreachedonthenextmorningatabout8.00/9.00am.
The witness denied the suggestion that he had not visited
Gorakhpur.
200 ThetestimonyofthiswitnessregardingarrestofA7
fromBudhaHotelintheeveninghasnotbeencorroboratedbythe
IOPW36Insp.RajeshwarKumar.Hehasgivenentirelydifferent
144
versionstatingthathealongwithhisteamincludingInsp.Rajender
Gautam and SI Hari Singh had left Delhi to Gorakhpur on
15/6/1996atabout14.30hours. TheyreachedatGorakhpuron
16/6/1996atabout8.00am.TheinformationwasthatA5andA7
would be coming at Budha Hotel opposite Railway Station,
Gorakhpur.NakabandiwasdoneoppositeBudhaHotel.Atabout
10.15am,twopersonscamefromRailwayStationsideandonthe
pointing out of A3 and A4, both were apprehended who
disclosedtheirnamesasA6andA7. Theywerearrestedafter
interrogationandtheirpersonal search was conducted. Among
otherthings,atworupeenotewasalsoseizedwhichwastobe
usedfortakingmoneyfromoneMangalChandatShalimarBagh.
He made DD no. 28 at 12.50pm in Gorakhpur Contt. PS and
startedfromthere.ThiswitnessdidnotspecifyifRs.twocurrency
notePXwasrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA7orthathe
haddisclosedthatthesaidnotewastobeusedbyA4togetRs.
1lakhfromMangalChand.Inthecrossexamination,thewitness
145
admitted that he did not intimate the area PS after reaching
Gorakhpur. He did not seek any assistance from area PS in
Gorakhpur.TheyreachedatGorakhpuratabout8.008.15amon
16/6/1996.NotimewasmentionedinthearrestmemoofA7.In
DDNo.28atGorakhpur,PSnotimewasmentionedastowhen
theaccusedpersonswerearrestedandinterrogated.Hedidnot
joinanypublicpersonatthetimeofarrestorrecovery.Nositeplan
waspreparedabouttheplaceofarrestorrecovery.Accusedwas
apprehendedontheroadoppositetoBudhaHotel.Hedidnotjoin
anyemployeeofBudhaHotelatthetimeofinterrogationofthe
accused.InterrogationwasdoneintheroomoftheHotelManager.
ThedistancebetweenDelhiandGorakhpurmightbe678kms.He
didnotcometoknowabouttheplaceofstayofA7atGorakpur
duringhisinterrogationthere.Hedidnottrytofindoutthedetails
andnamesofthepeoplewhereA7hadstayedatGorakhpur.The
witness denied the suggestion that A7 was arrested from
Kathmanduon10/6/1996.
146
201 Fromthestatementsofthesematerialwitnesses,it
reveals that they have given different versions about the place
fromwhereA7wasapprehended. Somewitnesseshavestated
that A7 was arrested near Budha Hotel where they were to
reach. Some have stated that they were arrested from Budha
Hotel.Thereisvitaldiscrepancyastothetimewhenthepolice
teamreachedatGorakhpurandapprehendedtheaccused.Some
have stated that they left Delhi on 15/6//1996 and reached
Gorakhpuronthenextmorningandapprehendedtheaccusedin
themorning.Somehavestatedthataccusedwasarrestedinthe
evening. TheaccusedafterarrestwasallegedlytakentoBudha
Hotelandwherehewas interrogatedtherebutnowitnessfrom
BudhaHotelwasjoinedintheinvestigation.Norecordwasseized
fromBudhaHotel showingthat A6andA7hadreachedthere
evenaftertheirarrest.Noincriminatingarticleisallegedtohave
beenrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA1.Nothinghascome
on record to show as to from where the accused had come to
147
BudhaHotel.Policedidnotmakeanyinquiriesastowherethe
accusedhadstayedinGorakhpurpriortotheirapprehensionto
recoveranyincriminatingobjectfromtheirpossession.Itishighly
improbable that both A7 and A6 would make themselves
available just outside Budha Hotel to Delhi police who were to
reach there after covering a long distance of 800900 kms. No
specificplaceofarresthasbeenshown.Apprehensionofaccused
inthemorningnarratedbytheseprosecutionwitnessesdoesnot
appealtomind.
202 RecoveryoftworupeecurrencynoteNo.66M571634
Ex. PX in the personal search of A7 to be used by A4 again
inspiresnoconfidence.ThiscurrencynoteEx.PXwashavingno
distinctidentification. A7wasalsohavingothercurrencynotes
recoveredinhispersonalsearch.Therewasnofunfor A7 to
comeatGorakhpuralongwithA6fromKathmandu,Nepaljustto
handoverthecurrencynoteEx.PXtoA3andA4.Thereisno
worthwhile evidence on this aspect except the disclosure
148
statementoftheaccused.
203 NothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifA7hadremained
inconstanttouchwithcoaccusedpersonsatanytimepriortothe
incidentatDelhioraftertheoccurrence.Nothingincriminatingwas
recoveredfromthisaccusedevenatthetimeofallegedarreston
16/6/1996. This accused was not found in possession of any
weapon. After coming to know about the apprehension of co
accusedpersonsthisaccusedisnotexpectedtomeetcoaccused
A3 and A4. Name ofthis accused did not find mention in the
earlierdisclosurestatementofA1andA2.Arrestandrecoveryof
tworupeecurrencynotehasnotbeenprovedbeyondreasonable
doubt bytheprosecutionagainstA7. Nothinghascomeon
record to show if A7 had ever visited Delhi regarding the
commission ofcrimeinthis caseor thathehad participatedor
facilitatedcoaccusedpersonsinthecommissionoftheincident.
Allegedrecoveryoftworupeecurrencynotewhichwastobeused
by this accused for any purpose can't be termed to be an
149
incriminating piece of evidence to establish conspiracy with co
accusedpersonsinthecommissionofincident.
204 ApprehensionofA7andallegedrecoveryoftwo
rupee currency note Ex. PX, in my view is not an incriminating
pieceofcircumstancetoconnectA7withthecommissionofthe
offence.A7hasalsofailedtoproveanyevidencetoshowifhe
wasapprehendedinNepal.DDNo.28purportedlyrecordedbyIO
however shows his visit to Gorakhpur and possibility of his
apprehensionattheinstanceofA3andA4can'tberuledout.
Only the time and manner of arrest of A7 has not been
establishedbeyonddoubt.SinceA7hasnotchallengedhisarrest,
itmakesnomuchdifferenceastoinwhichmannerandtime,A7
wasarrestedinthiscase.
(12)ArrestofA6:
205 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA6alongwithA7
wasarrestedbyDelhipoliceon16/6/1996fromGorakhpuratthe
150
instanceofA3andA4. A6hasdeniedhisapprehensionfrom
Gorakhpurandhasstatedthathewasarrestedmuchpriortothat
fromNepalon9/6/1996.
206 ArrestofA7on16/1761996inthemannerclaimed
by the prosecution has not been believed by the court as
discussedabove.SimilarlyapprehensionofA6alongwithA7in
thesaidcircumstancescan'tbebelieved.Againthestatementsof
the prosecution witnesses regarding apprehension of A6 at a
specific place are full of discrepancies. No independent public
witnesswasjoinedatthetimeofapprehensionofA6alongwith
A7. No incriminating article was also recovered from the
possessionofA6. MeagrecashofRs.498/withsomeletters/
visitingcardsetc.,wererecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA6
whichhavenotbeenconnectedwiththeincident.Statementsof
alltheprosecutionwitnessesapprehendingA6havealreadybeen
discussedindetailatthetimeofdiscussingarrestofA7.Sono
detaildiscussionisbeingmadetoprovethearrestofA6inthis
151
para.
207 A6 has failed to prove his apprehension on
17/6/1996byDelhipolicefromNepal. ThefactremainsthatA6
wasalsoarrestedalongwithA7inthiscaseandalsoremainedin
custody since then. It makes no serious effect if he was not
arrested in the manner claimed by the prosecution or that
prosecution failed to prove the exact time and specific place at
GroakhpurfromwhereA6wasapprehended.DDNo.28Amade
byIOatPSatGorakhpurshowsvisitofDelhipolicetoGorakhpur
andapprehensionofA6alongwithA7fromtherecan'tberuled
out. Since nothing incriminating was recovered at the time of
apprehensionofA6,hisarreston16/1761996fromGorakhpur
isnotanincriminatingpieceofcircumstanceagainsthim.

(13) StayofA3atGuptaHotel,Gorakhpur

208 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA3hadstayedatthe
hotelatGorakhpuron27/5/1996.Accusedhaddeniedthisaspect.
152
209 Prosecutionhas examined PW82DayaShanker Lal
Gupta. In his statement before the court, he stated that on
18/6/1996policehadtakentwophotocopiesofvistor'sbookathis
hotelandtouristlodgeatGorakhpurandhadseizedthesamevide
memo Ex.PW40/D.Thereafterphotocopyoftheentryinwhich
thenameofvisitor/guestMohd.Naushads/oAbdulRashid,P11,
DDAFlats,TurkmanGate,Delhiatserialnumber1285wasshown
ashehadvisitedthehotelandstayedinroomno.14on27/5/1996
wastaken.Thiswitnesswasnotcrossexaminationatallbytheld.
defencecounselfortheaccusedpersons.StayofA3atthesaid
hotelwasnotchallenged.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessin
thecrossexaminationthatA3hadnotstayedinroomno.14on
27/5/1996andentryats.no.1285inthevistor'sbookwasnotin
thehandwritingofA3.
210 PW83 Vijay Kumar Gupta has supported the
prosecution further and has corroborated the version given by
PW82DayaShankerLalGupta.Inhisstatementbeforethecourt
153
onoaththiswitnessstatedthaton27/5/1996,hewasworkingas
HotelManageratGuptaHotelandTouristlodge,OppositeRailway
stationGorakhpurUP.OnthatdayonevisitorMohd.Naushadson
ofAbdulRashidP11,DDAFlats,TurkmanGate,Delhihadvisited
theirhotelandstayedinroomno.14from9/10amto9.30pmand
hehadhimselfmadeentryinthevisitorsregisterats.no.1285in
hisownhandwriting.Thiswitnessfurtherstatedthaton29/6/1996
Delhipoliceseizedvisitors'bookfromtheirhotelvidememoEx.
PW40/E andEx.PW66/A.Hesignedatpoint'B'. Theoriginal
registerEx.PW66/1wasthesameregisterwhichwasseizedby
Delhi police. This witness was also not tested in the cross
examination. The entire testimony of this witness has remained
unchallenged. No motive was imputed to this witness also for
falselyallegingstayofA3inhishotelon27/5/1996.A3didnot
denyhisstayinthehotel.Healsodidnotdenyhishandwritingin
the visitors' book at sl.no. 1285. Thestatementofthis witness
proves beyond doubt that A3 had stayed at Gupta Hotel on
154
27/5/1996inroomno.14from9/10amto9.30pm.Nothingwas
suggestedtothiswitnessiftheentryintheregisterEx.PW66/1
didnotpertaintoA3orthathehadnevervisitedthesaidhotel.
AgainA3failedtojustifyhisstayatthesaidhotelon27/5/1996.
NopurposewasdisclosedbyA3forhisstayatthesaidhotel.
Since A3 was already in Gorakhpur much away from Delhi on
27/5/1996,therewasleastpossibilityofthepolicetoapprehend
himontheinterveningnightof28/2951996asassertedbyPW92
AbdulSamad.
211 TestimonyofPW66Ct.Surinderisrelevantonthis
aspect.HealongwithPWSIBaljeetSinghvisitedGorakhpuron
29/6/1996 and reached at Gupta Hotel and Tourist Lodge near
Railway Station, Gorakhpura. As per his deposition, SI Baljeet
Singhcheckedthevisitorsregisterhavingsheetsno.1to191and
the said sheets contained entries from serial number 1 dated
18/2/1996toentryno.1779dated29/6/1996.Thelastentrywas
onsheetno.154.Entryatsl.no.1283wasfoundinthenameof
155
Mohd. Naushad s/o Abdul Rashid, P11, DDA Flats, Turkman
Gate,Delhiinthesaidregister.Thesaidregisterwasseizedvide
seizurememoEx.PW66/A. Entryatsl.no.1283containedthe
name and signatures of M. Naushad in the second and last
column of the same at point Q18 and Q18/1 respectively.
RegisterEx.PW66/1wasseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW66/A.
212 Inthe cross examinationthewitness stated thatin
columnno.2andinlastcolumnofentryno.1283,M.Naushadwas
writteninthesamemannerandthereforehecouldsaywhichof
them was signature and which of them was the name of
M.Naushad.AgainnosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessthatA3
hadnotstayedinthesaidhotelonthatdayorthatentryinthe
registerEx.PW66/1wasnotinhishandwriting.A3didnotassert
thattheentrydidnotcontainhissignature.
213 PW40 SI Baljeet Singh has also supported the
prosecutiononthisaspect.HealsoprovedhisvisittoGorakhpur
on18/6/1996regardingtheinvestigationofthiscase.Hetestified
156
that he obtained photocopy of the reservation chart of Saheed
Expressdated27/5/1996whereinhefoundthattherewasnameof
A3havingreservationfromGorakhpurtoNewDelhiatwaitinglist
RAC12. He recorded the statement of Mr. Chakarborty from
whomhehadobtainedthephotocopy.Afterthatheobtainedthe
photocopyofthevisitors'bookofGuptaHotelinGorakhpurwhere
entryofA3wasthereintheregister.Herecordedthestatement
of an employee of Gupta Hotel and came back to Delhi. This
witness further stated that on 29/6/1996 he again reached at
Gorakhpur along with PW66 Ct. Surender and they seized two
originalvisitor'sbook.OnewasseizedfromGuptaHotelandother
fromBudhaHotel.Herecordedthestatementsoftheconcerned
witnesses.
214 In the cross examination no material contradictions
havecometodisbelievehim. Againnothingwassuggestedto
thiswitnessinthecrossexamination,thatA3hadnotstayedat
GuptaHotel.A3didnotdenythatthewritingintheregisterwas
157
notinhishand.
215 From the above testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses,itstandsestablishedthatA3hadstayedatGuptaHotel
on27/5/1996.Policecametoknowaboutthisfactinpursuanceof
thedisclosurestatementmadebyA3.AgainstayofA3atGupta
Hotel far away from Delhi on 27/5/1996 without any apparent
reasonsubstantiatestheversionoftheprosecutioncase.
216 A3hasnotdisputedhisnameappearingats.no.7in
ReservationchartEx.PW40/A.NosuggestionwasputtoPW40
SIBaljeetSinghthatA3hadnottravelledbyShaheedExpresson
27/5/1996fromGorakhpurtoDelhi.GenuinessofthechartEx.PW
40/Awasnotchallenged.
(14)ARRESTOFA5atMussorie:
217 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton1761996,A5was
arrested from Minarva Hotel at Mussorie. A5 has denied his
arrestonthedate,timeandplaceasdisclosedbytheprosecution.
158
218 On perusal of the statements of the prosecution
witnessesonthisaspect,Iamoftheviewthattheprosecutionhas
failedtoproveifA5wasarrestedfromMinarvaHotelon17.6.96in
themannerstatedbytheprosecutionwitnesses.Theprosecution
hasexaminedPW23Insp.PuranSinghonthisaspectwhomerely
statedthaton17.6.96healongwithhisstaffhadgonetoMussorie
fromDelhiandarrestedA5fromMinarvaHotelandconductedhis
personalsearchvidememoEx.PW23/A.A5wasbroughttoDelhi
andwasinterrogatedA5andhemadedisclosurestatementEx.
PW23/B.
219 Inthecrossexamination,thiswitnessdisclosedthathe
wasbriefedthatA5washidinghimselfinMinarvaHotelinaroom
at Mussorie withhisbrother'spartner.HereachedMussorieon
thesamedayatmidnightandmadeentriesatMussoriepolice
stationintheinterveningnightof16/1761996atabout1.00AM.
ThewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthatA5wasbroughtviaSonali
BorderfromNepal.ThewitnessadmittedthatownerofMinarva
159
Hoteloritsmanagement/employeeswerenotjoinedaswitnesses
atthetimeofarrestofA5.Theentriesofthehotelregisterwere
alsonotseizedinthiscase.
220 ProsecutionhasalsoexaminedPW43Insp.Virendr
Singh, who testified that on 16.6.96 he alongiwth Insp. Puran
SinghhadgonetoMussorie,HCYaminKhanwaswiththem.On
17.6.96, A5wasarrestedfromMinarvaHotelandhispersonal
search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/A. In the cross
examination,hestatedthatA5wasnotarrestedbyhimbutwas
arrestedbyInsp.PuranSinghinhispresence.Hedidnotknowif
IOhadaskedMallRoad,ChowkiInchargetojoininvestigationor
not.NorecordofMinarvaHotelwasseized.TheyhadleftDelhi
approximately around Noon time on 16.6.96 and reached
Mussorieintheweehoursofmorning.HecouldnotsayifIOhad
recordedanydepartureentryfromDelhioratMussorie.Witness
furtherstatedthatonlyIOInsp.PuranSinghcouldsayifon8.6.96
A5wasarrestedfromNepalandbroughttoDelhiinthelatehours
160
on9.6.96.
221 Nootherwitnesswasexaminedbytheprosecution
on this aspect. On scrutiny of the testimonies of both these
witnesses,Iamoftheviewthatprosecutionhasfailedtoprove
beyonddoubtthatA5wasarrestedonthedate,timeandplaceas
assertedbythem.Prosecutionhasfailedtoexplainastowhythe
hotelstaffofMinarvaHotelwasnotjoinedintheinvestigationat
thetimeofapprehensionofA5. Nodocument/visitor'sregister
wasseizedfromMinarvaHoteltoshowifA5hadstayedinthe
saidhotelonanyparticulardateorforanyparticulardurationina
particular room. Prosecution also failed to place on record the
purposeofvisitofA5toMussorieatMinarvaHotel.Nothinghas
comeonrecordtoshow astosincewhenA5wasstaying at
MinarvaHotel.Prosecutionwitnesseshavegivendifferentversion
regardingtheirdeparturefromDelhito Mussorie andalsoabout
thetimewhentheyreachedat Mussorie.Theprosecutionfailed
toproveonrecordanyDDentrymadebythepolicewitnessesat
161
PS Musoorie regarding apprehension of A5. A5 was not
producedbeforeanycourtatMusoorie. Infactnodocumentary
evidence has been brought on record to show if both these
prosecution witnesses visited Minarva Hotel on that day and
apprehended A5 from there. No incriminating article was
recoveredinthepersonalsearchofA5atthetimeofhisalleged
apprehension.ProsecutiondidnotexamineHCYaminKhanwho
hadaccompaniedthemtoMussorie.Nothinghascomeonrecord
astowhowasthepartnerofbrotheroftheaccused.Noevidence
wascollectedifA5hadstayedatthesaidhotel.
223 Prosecutionhasthusfailedtoestablishthedate,
time and place about apprehensionof A5. The fact, however,
remains that A5 was arrested in this case and was brought to
Delhi.A5hasclaimedthathewasarrestedfromNepalon8.6.96.
However,noevidenceonthataspecthasalsocometoacceptthe
pleaofA5thathewasarrestedfromNepalon8.6.96andwas
keptinillegaldetentiontill17.6.96.
162
(15)RecoveryofStepneyfromthehouseofA8:
224 Case of the prosecution is that stepney Ex. P1
belonging to complainant PW8 Atul Nath was got recovered by
accused A3, A5 and A6 on 17/6/1996 in pursuance of their
disclosure statements from the residence of A8. A8 has
altogetherdeniedanysuchrecovery.
225 InhistestimonybeforethecourtPW17SISanjay
Kumar deposed that on 17/6/1996, A3, A5 and A6 took the
policeatJangpura,Bhogalandpointedoutahouseonthesecond
floorofthebuilding.ThehousebelongedtoA8.Theseaccused
disclosedthatthecarstepneycouldberecoveredfromthere.They
thereaftergotrecoveredthecarstepneEx.P1,whichwaslyingon
the'tand'oftheroombelongingtoA8.Thisstepneywasseized
videseizurememoEx.PW8/B.
226 On scanning the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to
163
provebeyonddoubtthatstepneyEx.P1wasgotrecoveredbyA3,
A5 and A6 from the residence of A8. There are material
contradictionsinthetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesseson
thisaspectwhichmaketherecoveryofstepneyfromtheresidence
ofA8highlydoubtful.PW17SISanjayKumarinhisexamination
inchiefitselfstatedthatatthetimeofrecoveryofthestepneyEx.
P1,onepublicwitnessPW8 AtulNathwaswiththem.Stepney
wasidentifiedbyPWAtulNathandIOpreparedtheidentification
memo Ex. PW 8/C. This fact was controverted by PW8 Atul
Kumar. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,inhisexaminationin
chiefitself,hedidnotdeposeifthesethreeaccusedpersonshad
gotrecoveredthestepneyEx.P1fromthehouseofcoaccusedA
8.Hedidnotasserthispresenceatthetimeofrecoveryofhis
stepneEx.P1.Thiswitnesswasgot declaredhostilebytheld.
Addl PP for State and was cross examined. In the cross
examination,thewitnessidentifiedthetyreEx.P1tobebelonging
tohisMaruticar.However,hedeniedthatthestepneEx.P1was
164
recoveredattheinstanceofA3,A5andA6fromthehouseofA
8.Hedeniedthesuggestionoftheld.AddlPPthaton17/6/1996
allthesethreeaccusedpersonshadledthepolicepartyalongwith
himtohouseNo.11,SecondFloor,Jangpura,Bhogalbelongingto
A8andthereA8tookoutthestepneylyingonthe'tand'ofthe
house.Hefurtherdeniedthesuggestionthatheidentifiedthecar
stepneybelongingtohimattheplaceofrecovery.
227 PW31 Insp.SurinderKumardeposedthatA3,A5
andA6hadgotrecoveredthestepneyEx.P1belongingtocar
ofPW8AtulNathfromthehouseofSyedMaqboolShahandthis
stepneywasidentifiedbyPW8AtulNathandrecoverymemoof
stepneEx.PW8/Bwasprepared.Inthecrossexamination,the
witness gave different version about the presence of PW8 Atul
Nath. He disclosed that PW8 Atul Nath, owner of the car, had
comebychanceatthePSandtheyhadtakenhimtothehouseof
A8. PW8 Atul Nath signed the identification memo and the
recoverymemoofstepneyEx.PW8/CatthehouseofA8.From
165
thehouseofA8,theyallreturnedtoOperationCellanddidnot
gothereafteratanyotherplacefortheinvestigationofthecase.
228 PW 101 Insp. Paras Nath in his examinationinchief
statedthatintheirseparatedisclosurestatementsmadebythese
threeaccusedpersons,theydisclosedthatthestepneyofthecar
inwhichbombblastwascausedwaskeptatthehouseofA8and
thattheycouldgetthesamerecoveredfromthere.Inpursuance
ofthedisclosurestatementstheseaccusedledthepoliceteamto
premisesno.4/11,Secondfloor,Jangpuraandgotrecoveredthe
stepney.Theownerofthesaidcartowhichthestepneybelonged
wasalsocalledandheidentifiedthesaidstepneanditwasseized
videseizurememoEx.PW8/C.Itbearshissignatureatpoint'A'.
229 Contradictory versions given by the witnesses
regardingthepresenceofPW8AtulNathattheresidenceofA8
fromwherethestepneyofthecarisstatedtohavebeenrecovered
makes the story of recovery of the stepney doubtful. No other
independentpublicwitnessfromthelocalitywherethehouseofA
166
8wassituatedwasjoinedatthetimeofrecovery.Therewasno
purposeforthesethreeaccusedpersonstoconcealthestepney
Ex.P1attheresidenceofA8afterthecommissionoftheincident.
Thestepneywasnotofsubstantivevaluetoberetainedforsucha
longperiodafterthecommissionoftheincidentattheresidenceof
A8. Noevidencehascomeonrecordtoshowastohowand
underwhatcircumstancesstepneyEx.P1happenedtobekeptat
theresidenceofA8orthatwhohadkeptitorwhenitwaskeptor
bywhichmodeoftransport,itwaskept.Aftertheapprehensionof
theseaccusedpersonswhowereallegedlyknowntoA8,A8was
notimaginedtokeepthestepneyEx.P1athisresidencetobegot
recoveredbytheseaccusedpersons.SeizurememoEx.PW8/B
describesconditionofstepneyEx.P1asoldandusedone.Why
suchauselessobjectofinsignificantvaluewillbekeptbyA8at
hisresidenceandwhatpurposeitwastoserve.
230 TestimoniesofPW17SISanjayKumar,PW31Insp.
Sureinder Kumar and PW 101 Insp. Paras Nath, however,
167
establishthattheseaccusedpersonshadledthepoliceteamto
theresidenceofA8onthatdayi.e.,17/6/1996.PriortothatDelhi
Police was not aware about the address and residence of A8.
Policecametoknowaboutthefactumofhisresidenceathouse
nd
no. 4/11,2 floor,Bhogal, only inpursuanceof the disclosure
statementsmadebytheaccusedpersonsandwhentheyledthe
policeteamtohisresidence.Theprosecutionhas,however,failed
to establish beyond doubt that the stepney Ex. P1 was
recoveredfromthehouseofA8inthemannerdescribedbythem.
Hencerecoveryofstepney/tyreEx.P1toconnectA8hasnot
beenprovedbeyonddoubt.
RecoveryofarticlesofAIfromtheresidenceofA8:
(16)
231 Nextcircumstancerelieduponbytheprosecutionis
regardingrecoveryofarticlesatthehouseofA8on17/6/1996.
Thereisdenialofthisallegationbytheaccused.
232 On closer scrutiny of the testimonies of the
168
prosecutionwitnessesonthiscircumstance,Iamoftheviewthat
prosecutionhasfailedtoprovetherecoveryofthearticlesseized
vide sizure memo Ex. PW 17/A from the house of A8 beyond
reasonabledoubt. Moreovertheprosecutionhasfailedtoshow
anynexusofthesearticleswiththecommissionoftheincident.
233 PW17 SI Sanjay Kumar in his statement before the
courtrevealedthaton17/6/1996A3,A5&A6tookthepoliceat
the house of A8 and got recovered a car stepney Ex.P1.
ThereaftersearchofthehouseofA8wastakenandonebagof
greycolourwasfoundthere.A8disclosedthatthesaidbagwas
giventohimbyoneA15 about23dayspriortotheincidentof
thiscase. Onsearchofthebag,somedocumentsandclothes
wererecoveredwhichwereseizedvideseizure memoEx.PW
17/A. Hefurthertestifiedthatfromthesamehouse,onekitbag
containingnumberofdocumentswasalsorecovered.Thewitness
could notgive the details of the documents recovered from the
houseoftheaccusedandstatedthathecouldtellthesameonly
169
aftergoingthroughtherecord.
234 In the cross examination by the ld. Addl PP after
gettinghimdeclaredhostile,thewitnessadmittedthesuggestion
thatfromthekitbagatelephonediarywasfoundwhichcontained
telephonenumbersofAI,A2,A11(PO),A12(PO),A7andA
9.Healsoadmittedthesuggestionoftheld.Addl PPthatone
visitingcardofA9bearingJKHandicraftHouse;onecertificate
ofsecondaryschoolexaminationoftheyear1993;areceiptofRs.
30ofJamaitAhliHadisuponwhichJavedAhmedKariwar(A15)
waswritteninUrdu;onedrivinglicenceofA6,onepassportsize
photograph of A5 along with another group photo of three
persons were also found therein. One air ticket of Royal Nepal
AirlinesinthenameofA5fromKathmandu toDelhiwasalso
recovered.AnotherticketinthenameofA5ofthesameairlines
wasalsorecovered.A8triedtodestroytheticketbutthesame
wastakenfromhishandandthepiecesoftheticketwereseized
afterputting thesameinanenvelop. Thewitnessidentifiedthe
170
twobagsExPY12alongwithitscontentsandtheotherbagEx.
PY13 alongwithits contentstohavebeenrecoveredfromthe
houseofA8.
235 PW31Insp.SurinderKumaralsodeposedthatfrom
thehouseofA8someclothesbelongingtoAIandonevisiting
cardetcwererecovered.Onekitbagwasalsorecoveredwhich
containedatelephonediary,acertificateandanairticketofNepal
Airways which was torn by A8 and it was recovered in torn
condition and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 17/A. This
witnessdidnottestifyastohowthearticlesrecoveredfromthe
houseoftheaccusedwererelevant withthecommissionofthe
offence. So much so, this witness did not testify if any of the
articlesrecoveredfromthehouseoftheaccusedbelongedtoAI
orA2.Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatthebag
wasnotsealedbecausetherewasnoincriminatingarticleinthe
bag. On opening the bag in the court no visiting card, driving
licenseoranyotherpaperwasfoundinthesaidbagalthoughit
171
wascarryingsomeclothing. Thiswitnessadmittedpresenceof
PW8AtulNathatthetimeofrecoveryofstepneyatthehouseof
A8.Thiswitnessdidnotstateastowhohadgiventhesearticles
toA8andifsowhen.
236 PW101 Insp. Paras Nath merely deposed that on
search of the house of A8 articles recovered from there were
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW17/A.Oneblackcolourbagwas
recoveredwhichcontainedclothesofaccusedAI,identitycard,
telephonediaryetc.A8washavingoneairticketfromKathmandu
toDelhiandintheirpresencehetriedtodestroythesamebutit
wassnatchedfromhimandwasseizedafterputtingthesamein
anenvelop.
237 Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessadmittedthatthe
accused was arrested in this case on 17/6/1996 and no police
remand was taken. Disclosure statement of this accused was
recordedonlyafterhisarrest.Headmittedthattillthearrestand
afterthearrestofAInostatementordisclosurestatementexcept
172
the disclosure statement ofA8dated17/6/1996was on record
showing that AI had come to Delhi before or after the day of
incident. He further admitted that there was no identification of
clothesbelongingtoAI.NorelativeorfriendorAIwasjoinedto
identifytheclothes.On17/6/1996A8wasarrestedintwocases.
238 Fromthedepositionoftheabovereferredwitnesses,
nothinghasbeenestablishedastohowA8cameintopossession
ofthesearticlesandwhodeliveredthesametohimandifsowhen
and where. Throughout the trial, no evidence came on record
whatsoever to show if AI had ever visited Delhi prior to the
incident. No specific date was alleged or proved by the
prosecutiontoprove visitofAItoDelhianditspurpose.Inthe
cross examination, IO admitted that he did not collect any
evidencefromtheofficeofAIshowinghismovementspriortothe
dateofincident.Prosecutiondidnotexamineanywitnessfromthe
office of AI to show if AI was not regularly attending his duty
during those days. Prosecution did not collect any evidence to
173
showastowhenAIvisitedDelhiandforwhatdurationandby
whichmodeoftransport.
239 AI had already been arrested on 25/5/1996 at
SrinagarandwasbroughttoDelhi.HewasagaintakentoJ&K
forrecoveryofarmsandammunitions. Nothingwasthereinthe
disclosurestatementofAIifhehadvisitedDelhiandhadstayed
atthehouseof A8. A8wasarrestedon17/6/1996. After
comingtoknow arrestofAIabout20dayspriortothealleged
recovery. A8 is not expected to retain all these articles at his
house.
240 Noindependentpublicwitnesswasjoinedatthetime
ofallegedrecoveryofthesearticlesfromthehouseofA8.PW8
Atul Nath is allegedtohavereachedatthe spotatthe timeof
recoveryofstepneyEx.P1whichwasallegedlyidentifiedbyhim.
However,inhisdepositionasPW8,AtulNathdidnotutteraword
ifsearchofhouseofA8wasconductedinhispresenceorthat
any incriminating article like clothes of AI or telephone diary
174
containingthenamesofcoaccusedpersonswasrecoveredfrom
the possession of A8. PW8 Atul Nath did not support the
prosecutionandwasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPandwas
crossexamined.Eveninthecrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPP,
no suggestion was put to him that in his presence the house
searchofA8wasconductedorthatbagExPY12wasrecovered
containingclothesanddocumentsfromthehouseofA8.Nosuch
articleswereshowntotheindependentpublicwitnessPW8Atul
Nathinhiscrossexaminationtoidentifythesametohavebeen
recoveredatthehouseofA8.SeizurememoEx.PW17/Adoes
notbearsignatureofPW8AtulNath.Noproofwascollectedifthe
articles allegedly recovered at the time of house search of A8
belongedtoAI.Thereisnoevidenceifthedocumentsallegedly
recoveredcontainedhandwritingofAI.
241 Moreovernoneofthesearticleshasbeenconnected
with the commission of the offence showing that these articles
were incriminating in nature or having nexus with the incident.
175
NothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifA8usedtoremainintouch
withAIpriortotheincident.EvenafterarrestofAIandA2;A8
wasnotarrestedinpursuanceofanydisclosurestatementofA1
orA2.A8didnottrytoabscondandwasfoundpresentathis
residenceonthevisitofthepolice.
242 Inviewofmyabovediscussion,Iamofthisviewthat
prosecution has failed to establish this circumstance as an
incriminatingpieceofevidenceagainstAIorA8.
(17)RecoveryofRs.1lacbyA4:
243 Caseoftheprosecutionisthat A4 ledthepolice
partyatBJ24,ShalimarBaghandfromthereobtainedRs.1lac
onthestrengthoftworupeecurrencynotefromMangalChand.
244 Contentionoftheld.counselfortheaccusedpersons
isthatnosuchrecoverywasgoteffectedby A4.MangalChand
wasnotexaminedinthiscase.Noindependentpublicwitnesswas
joined at the time of the alleged recovery. PW 35 Raj Kumar
176
examinedbytheprosecutionisastockwitnessandnoreliance
canbeplacedonhistestimony.
245 Statement of PW35 Raj Kumar examined by the
prosecutionismaterialonthisaspect.Inhisdepositionbeforethe
courtPW35RajKumarstatedonoaththaton17/6/1996,hewas
passingthroughShalimarBaghatabout2pm. Atthattimethe
policeofficials methimandjoinedhimintheinvestigation. He
along with A4, SI Sanjay Kumar and another police official
reachedatBJ24,ShalimarBagh.ThereheaccompaniedwithA4
having two rupee currency note and SI Sanjay went inside the
room.A4gavethattworupeecurrencynotetoMangalChand.
MangalChandverifiedtworupeecurrencynoteandgaveRs.1
lac in a packet to A4. SI Sanjay gave predecided signal by
placing his hand on his head to the remaining members of the
raidingparty.Theotherpolicestaffreachedinsideandrecovered
thattworupeecurrencynotefromthepocketofMangalChandand
thecurrencynotesofRs.1lacwerealsosealedwiththesealof
177
RPG.Sealafterusewashandedovertohim.Hesignedhanding
overmemoEx.PW17/B,recoverymemooftworupeecurrency
noteEx.PW17/AandrecoverymemoofRs.1lacEx.PW17/Cat
point 'B'. The witness further identified 10 packets of currency
notesinthedenominationofRs.100/producedbeforethecourt
ExPW17/C1toC10.HealsoidentifiedA4andstatedthathe
wasthesamepersonwhowasalsoknownas'Sabha'.
246 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.defence
counsel.Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthathewas
employed with a transport company DelhiSonipat Transport
CompanyatNayaBazar,Delhi.HeusedtoresideatSonipatand
usedtocometoDelhiathisofficedaily. Hiscompanyhadno
officeinShalimarBagh. Hewasonhisscooterwhenthepolice
methimatShalimarBagh.Onthatday,hestartedfromhisoffice
inNayaBazaratabout1.15pm.ThedistancebetweenShalimar
BaghandhisNayaBazarofficewasabout78kms.Thewitness
further stated that the police met him near BJ Block, Shalimar
178
Bagh.Thedistancebetweenthatpointandtheplacewherehe
reachedwiththepolicewasabout100yards.OneMangalChand
hadmettheminthehouse.Thehousewasonthegroundfloor.
ThiswitnessfairlyadmittedthathewasnotissuedanyIcardby
thecompany. Noneighbourwasrequestedbythepolicetojoin
theinvestigation. HereturnedthesealaftersomedaystoInsp.
Paras Nath. This witness clarified that Mangal Chand was
apprehendedbythepoliceduringtheproceedingsathisflat.His
statement was not recorded by the police. He stayed with the
police till 67 pm at Shalimar Bagh. The witness denied the
suggestionthathewasconcealinghisidentityand wasnot'Raj
Kumar'.Witnessvolunteeredtoaddthathewas'RajKumar'and
wasalsocalledbythenameofRaju.Whenthiswitnesswasasked
ifhewasnothavinganyidentityproof,thewitnessproducedhis
drivinglicense,thephotocopyofwhichmarkPW35/Awaskept
onrecordasperrequestoftheld.defencecounsel.
247 Perusal of the whole testimony of this witness
179
revealsthatnomaterialdiscrepanciesorcontradictionshavebeen
elicitedinthecrossexaminationaboutthepresenceofthiswitness
atthetimeofobtainingRs.1lacbyA4fromMangalChand.No
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthatA
4hadnotledthepoliceteamatthehouseofMangalChandatBJ
24,ShalimarBagh.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthe
crossexaminationthatA4hadnotproducedcurrencynoteoftwo
rupeetoMangalChandorthathehadnothandedoverRs.1lacto
A4.Rs.1lacwereconsideredsubstantialamount intheyear
1996.Thereisleastpossibilityofthepolicetoplantheavyamount
ofRs.1lacuponA4.Thereisnothinginthecrossexaminationof
thewitnessifhouseno.BJ24,ShalimarBaghwasnotinexistence
or that it was not occupied by Mangal Chand. The police had
cometoknowabouttheexistenceofthehouseBJ24,Shalimar
Bagh with its occupier Mangal Chand only in the disclosure
statementoftheA4.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifpriorto
thatthepolicewasawareabouttheoccupationofthesaidhouse
180
by Mangal Chand. In the examinationinchief itself, the witness
asserted that he had put his signatures on every packet of
currencynotesrecovered.Thewitnessidentifiedhissignatureson
every packet Ex. PW 17/C1 to C10. The witness was not
confronted in the cross examination as to how and under what
circumstancesheputhissignaturesonthesecurrencynotes.The
signatures of the witness on the recovered currency notes
establisheshispresenceatthetimeofitsrecovery.
248 Nomotivewasimputedtothiswitnessinthecross
examination for making false deposition against the accused.
ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifthiswitnesswasknowntoA
4 prior to the incident or was having any enmity or strained
relations with him to falsely implicate him in this case. In the
absenceofanyulteriormotive,thisindependentpublicwitnessis
not imagined to make false deposition against an unknown
person.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifthiswitnesswasa
stockwitnessofthepolice.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowif
181
thiswitnesshadappearedinanyothercaseofthepolice.Nothing
hasbeenshownastohowthiswitnesswasastockwitnessofthe
prosecution. Thereisnothingtoshowifthiswitnesswashaving
any nexus with the police prior to the incident. It is general
tendencyofdefencetodubapublicwitnessasstockwitness,ifhe
happenstosupporttheprosecution.Incaseheturnshostile,heis
consideredasatruthfulwitness.
249 PW 101 Insp. Paras Nath has testified in his
deposition before the court that hehadhanded over two rupee
currency note to PW Raj Kumar and handing over memo was
preparedinthatregard. Thiswitnessexplainedthathedidnot
arrestMangalChandinthiscase.Hehadwrittenaboutthatto
FERA.HedidnotconductsearchofthehouseofMangalChand
in respect of recovery as he disclosed that he was dealing in
hawala.HealsopursuedthematterwithFERAandFERAofficials
had come twice or thrice. The witness has thus given cogent
explanationfornotarrestingMangalChandinthiscaseasofficials
182
of FERA were informed about the activities of Mangal Chand.
Moreover for remissness of the IO the otherwise reliable
testimonyofindependentpublicwitnessPW35RajKumarcan'tbe
brushedaside.
153 PW17SISanjay has alsosupportedtheprosecutionon
this aspect and has testified that two rupee currency note was
handedovervidehandingovermemoEx.PW17/B.Hefurther
testifiedthatfromBhogaltheyallreachedatShalimarBaghalong
with A4. After reaching at Shalimar Bagh one public person
namelyRajKumarwasassociatedbytheIOintheraidingparty.
HewasinstructedbytheIOandasperhisinstructions,healong
withA4reachedatthe houseno.BJ24,ShalimarBagh. He
alongwithA4enteredthehousewhereMangalChandmetthem.
A4 handed over two rupee currency note. After checking the
currencynoteofRs.2,MangalChandwentinsideandbroughtout
Rs. 1 lac in the denomination of Rs. 100/. While A4 was
countingthenotes,hegavesignaltoothermembersoftheraiding
183
party who entered inside the house. Rs. 1 lac was seized vide
seizurememoEx.PW17/C.Sealafterusewashandedoverto
publicwitnessRajKumar.Hehadputhisinitialsontopandbottom
ofeachbundleofcurrency notes beforeits seizure.Tworupee
currencynotewasalsoseizedaftertakingthesamefromA4vide
memoEx.PW17/D.ThewitnessidentifiedthecurrencynoteEx.
PW17/C1toC10tobethesamewhichwereseizedfromthe
accused.
250 In the crossexamination the witness stated that
Mangal Chand was brought up to special cell office but no
proceedingswereconductedorinitiatedagainsthimbytheIOin
hispresence.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationthatRs.1lacwerenotobtainedbyA4fromMangal
ChandatBJ24,ShalimarBagh.Thefactsassertedbythiswitness
intheexaminationinchiefregardingrecovery ofRs.1lachave
remainedunchallenged.
251 Fromthetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesses
184
referredaboveitstandsestablishedthatA4inpursuanceofhis
disclosure statement obtained Rs. 1 lac from Mangal Chand
residing at BJ24, Shalimar Bagh on the strength of two rupee
currencynoteshowntohim.Thepolicewasnotawareaboutall
thesefactspriorto A4leadingthepoliceteamatthatspecific
place. A4 has failed to explain as to how and under what
circumstances,hewastogetRs.1lacfromMangalChand.He
alsofailedtoexplainastoforwhatpurpose,hehadcollectedthe
heavyamountfromMangalChand.MemoEx.PW17/Ccontains
signatureofMangalChandwhichshowsthatMangalChandwas
residingatthegivenaddress.ObtainingofRs.1lacbyA4from
Mangal Chand substantiates the story presented by the
prosecution that Rs. 1 lac collected from Mangal Chand were
meanttobereceivedbyA3forhisroleintheincident.
(18)Pointingoutshopfromwhereduplicatenumberplate
prepared:
185
252 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3
alongwithA6pointedshopofM/sRajaCarNumberPlates
from where they had got prepared duplicate/fake car
numberplateofDL4C1895on16.5.96.
253 ProsecutionexaminedPW101Insp.ParasNath
whodeposedthaton18.6.96A3pointedoutshopofM/s
Raja Car Number Plate situated at 11/12B situated at
YusufZaiMarket,ConnaughtPlace,NewDelhiownedby
AsgarAliandinformedthaton16.5.96hegotprepareda
numberplatebearingNo.DL4C1895forRs.125/which
wasaffixedontheMaruticarstolenfromNizamuddinand
whoseactualnumberofthecarwasDL2CF5854.Inthis
regardpointingoutcumidentificationmemoEx.PW31/R
wasprepared.
254 PW31 Insp. Surender Kumar also supported
186
PW101Insp.ParasNathonthisaspectanddeposedthat
on 18.6.96 A3, A5 and A6 were taken by them to
ConnaughtPlacewhereattheirinstance,shopofM/sRaja
CarNumberPlatewasdiscovered.PW39Insp.HariRam
MalikdeposedthatA3,A5andA6pointedoutshopof
M/s Raja Car Number Plate from there they had got
prepared two number plates of No. DL 4C 1895 and
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Rwasprepared.
255 From the deposition of the prosecution
witnessesreferredabove,Iamoftheconsideredviewthat
the prosecution has failed to establish this circumstance
beyondreasonabledoubt.Therearecontradictionsinthe
testimoniesoftheseprosecutionwitnessesastowhichof
theaccusedhadledthepoliceteamtothe shopofM/s
RajaCarNumberPlate.Nodocumentaryproofregarding
187
preparationofthenumberplatesforRs.125/on16.5.96
wascollectedfromthesaidshopbythepolice. Noproof
regardingexistenceoftheshopanditsownerwascollected
bythepoliceatthetimeofpreparationofthememoEx.
PW31/R.
256 One Asgar Ali is alleged to have been found
present at the said shop No. 11/12B Yusuf Zai Market,
ConnaughtPlace,NewDelhiatthetimeofpointingoutof
thesaidplacebytheaccusedpersons.Nameofthesaid
person with its signatures appears on the memo Ex.
PW31/R. However, this witness was never produced for
examinationbeforethecourtbytheprosecutionduringtrial.
Adverseinferenceistobedrawnagainsttheprosecution
fornotexaminingthiswitnesstoproveifanyoftheaccused
personshadvisitedhisshopon16.5.96togetprepareany
188
numberplateofcarNo.DL4C1895forasumofRs.125/.
No such number plate allegedly recovered during
investigation of the case was shown at any time to any
witness.NoTIPofthecasepropertyorthatoftheaccused
personsweregotconductedduringinvestigationfromthis
witness. No other independent public witness from the
adjoiningshopwasjoinedatthetimeofpointingoutcum
identification memo Ex. PW31/R. Prosecution has thus
failed to establish this circumstance beyond reasonable
doubt.
(19)PointingOutShopOfM/s.DeluxStoreFromWhere
AralditeTubePurchased:
257 Next circumstance relied upon by the
prosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3andA5 ledthepolice
teamattheshopofM/sDeluxStore,shopNo.230,Bazar
189
Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi from where they had
purchasedaralditetubeon13.5.96.
whodeposedthat on 18/6/1996A3 andA5pointed out
M/sDeluxeStore,230MatiaMhal,JamaMasjid,Delhiand
toldthaton13.5.96theyhadpurchasedonearalditetube
fromMohd.Alam,whowaspresentattheshopatthetime
of pointing out. Pointing out memo Ex. PW31/Q was
prepared.SimilaristhetestimonyofPW31Insp.Surender
Kumar who stated that they reached at Jama Masjid at
DeluxeStore,MeenaBazarfromwhereA3andA5had
purchasedaralditetube.
259 From the deposition of these prosecution
witnesses,Iamoftheviewthattheprosecutionhasfailed
toprovepurchaseofaralditetubebybothA3andA5from
190
theshopofPWMohd.Alam.PWMohd.Alamappearedin
thewitnessboxasPW52.Inhisexaminationinchief, he
admitted that he was running his shop of General Store
underthenameofDeluxeStore,230MatiaMahal,Jama
Masjid,DelhiHedidnotutterawordifanyoftheaccused
persons present in the court had purchased any aroldite
tubefromhisshoponanyparticulardate.Thewitnesses
statedthat8/9yearsbacksomepersonsincivildresscame
athisshopandtheyaskedhimifsomeonehadpurchased
aralditetubefromhimandhetoldthemthat hedidnot
rememberanyspecificinstanceasseveralcustomersused
tocomeathisshoptomakepurchases. Policeprepared
somedocumentsandhesignedthesameattheirasking.
This witness was got declared hostile and was cross
examined by the ld. Add. P.P for the State. In cross
191
examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. For the State, the
witnessdenied contentsofstatementmarkedPW52/Ato
havebeenmadebyhimtothepolice.Hedeniedthaton
18.6.96A3andA5cameathisshopwithpoliceandthey
disclosed that they had purchased araldite tube from his
shop.
260 Nootherindependentpublicwitnesswasjoined
by the police at the time of preparation of pointingout
memo Ex. PW31/Q. Again no documentary proof was
collectedregardingpurchaseofanyaralditetubefromshop
ofPW52Mohd.Alam. TIPoftheaccusedpersonswere
notgotconductedfromPW52.Priortotheiridentificationon
18.6.96.AralditetubesrecoveredfromtheresidenceofA3
inpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementwasnotshownto
PW52ifitwasthesamearalditetubewhichwaspurchased
192
fromhisshop.
261 The evidence led by the prosecution on this
aspectishighlyscantytoprovethiscircumstance.After8
9yearsofincident,itishighlyimprobableforashopkeeper
torememberbyfaceofhiscustomerwhohadpurchased
articleofordinaryuseofinsignificantvalue.
(20)PURCHASEOFWIREPOINTINGOUTSHOP:
262 Next circumstance relied upon by the
prosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3andA5ledthepolice
team at the shop of M/s Vakil Cable Store, New Meena
Bazar, Delhi from where they had purchased two meter
yellowcolourwireforRs.4/on13.5.96.
whodeposedthatA3andA5pointedoutM/sVakilCable
Store, New Meena Bazar, Jama Masjid where Mohd.
193
Naseemwaspresentatthecounterandboththeaccused
identified Mohd Naseem and informed the police that on
13.5.96theyhadpurchasedtwometeryellowcolourwire
forRs.4/fromhim.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Owas
preparedinthisregard.PW31Insp.SurenderKumaralso
supported PW101 Inps. Paras Nath on this aspect and
statedthatonecablestoreshopM/sUniStarCableswas
pointedoutbyA3andA5atMeenaBazarMarket.
268 Prosecution also examined PW32 Mohd.
NaseemwhostatedthathewashavingshopNo.40,Uni
StarCables.Onepolicemanvisitedhisshopandinquired
fromhimbyshowingapersonwhowassittinginavehicle
astowhetherhegotawirepurchasedfromhimtowhich
herefused.ThiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebytheLd.
SpecialPPfortheStateandwascrossexamined.Inthe
194
crossexaminationthiswitnessdenied thecontentsofthe
statement made by him to the police. He, however,
admitted that police obtained his thumb impression on
somepapersbuthewasnotawareaboutitscontents.
269 Fromthetestimonyoftheseprosecutionwitness
again,theprosecutionhasfailedtoprovepurchaseoftwo
meteryellowwirefromtheshopofPW32Mohd.Naseem.
No oral or documentary evidence has come on record
aboutpurchaseoftwometerwirefromtheshopofPW32
Mohd.Naseemon13.5.96byanyoftheaccusedpersons.
Testimony of this prosecution witness PW 32 Mohd
Naseem reveals that on some day police had taken one
personsittinginthevehicleanditmadeinquiriesfromhimif
the said person had got purchased wire from him. The
prosecution was not aware about the existence of the
195
address of PW32 Mohd. Naseem. Police reached there
only in pursuance of disclosure statements made by the
accusedpersons.Thiscircumstancehasnotbeenproved
beyondreasonabledoubt.
(21)DrillMachinePointingOutFromWhereItWasTaken:
270 Case of the prosecution is that on 18.6.1996 A3
pointed out M/s Uni Star Fans Refrigerators, Shop No. K126,
Meena Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi where in the said shop, one
Mohd.Aslamwasfoundpresent.A3identifiedhimandinformed
thepolicethaton14.5.96,hehadtakenonedrillmachinetomake
holeinthecylinderfromhim(MohdAslam).PointingmemoEx.
PW31/Pwaspreparedinthisregard.Mohd.Aslamproducedone
drillmachineExP6andthesamewasseizedvideseizurememo
Ex.PW31/C.A3hasdeniedthisallegation.
271 PW101Insp.ParasNathprovedthepreparationofthe
pointing out memo Ex. PW31/P and seizure memo of the drill
196
machineasEx.PW31/Cinhisdepositionbeforethecourt.PW31
InspSurenderKumaralsosupportedPW101Insp.ParasNathand
statedthatfromonefanshop,onedrillmachinewasrecovered
fromtheshopownerattheinstanceoftheaccusedpersonswhich
wasseizedbytheIOvidememoEx.PW31/C.
272 From the testimonies of these two prosecution
witnesses,itrevealsthattherearematerialdiscrepanciesintheir
statementsbeforethecourt.PW31Insp.SurederKumardidnot
testifyastowhichspecificaccusedhadledthepolicepartyatthe
shopofPW33Mahd.Aslam.PW33Mohd.Aslaminhisdeposition
beforethecourtdidnotsupporttheprosecutiononthisaspectand
categoricallystatedthatA3hadnevermadeanypurchasefrom
him.PolicehadvisitedhimonceandhadinquiredaboutA3who
usedtoworkinhisneighborhood.Thiswitnesswasgotdeclared
hostilebytheLd.Spl.PPfortheState.Inthecrossexamination,
thiswitnessdeniedthatA3wasbroughtathisshopon18.6.96.
Thewitnessfurtherstatedthatheneverhadanydrillmachine.A
197
3hadnottakenanydrillmachinefromhimtoreturnitlateron.He
deniedthatdrillmachineEx.P6wasseizedbythepolicefromhis
shop vidememoEx.PW31/C.Witness,however,admittedthat
thismemocontainedhissignaturesthoughheaddedthathewas
not aware of the contents of the memo and the police had
obtainedhissignaturesonblankpapers.
273 Recovery of the drill machine Ex. P6 from the
possessionofPW33Mohd.AslamattheinstanceofA3hasnot
beenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.SinceA3wasresidingin
theneighborhoodofPW33Mohd.Aslam,his acquaintancewith
himwasquitenatural.Inthecrossexamination,nospecificdate
wasmentionedastowhenA3hadtakenthedrillmachineEx.P6
fromPW33Mohd.Aslam. Moreover,prosecutionfailedtoshow
thatdrillmachineEx.P6waseverusedbyA3formakinganyhole
inthecylinder.Thereisnoevidenceonrecordtothiseffect.Mere
recovery of drill machine Ex. P6 without any specific mark of
identification from the shop of PW33 Mohd. Aslam, is not an
198
incriminating piece of circumstance to connect A3 with the
commissionofoffence.
274 Memo Ex. PW33/C and Ex. PW31/P contain the
signaturesofPW33Mohd.Aslam.Thesememoswereprepared
on18.6.96.ThesememosalsobearthesignaturesofA3.PW33
Mohd. Aslam did not lodge any complaint against the police
officials for getting his signatures on blank papers. The police
officialswerehavingnoknowledgeaboutthepresenceofPW33
Mohd.AslamrunningtheshopinthenameandstyleofM/sUni
StarFansRefrigeratorsatMeenaBazar,JamaMasjid,Delhi.The
policeofficialswerenotexpectedsuddenlytovisithisshopwithout
anyspecificpurposeandtogethissignaturesonblankpapers.
PW33Mohd.Aslamwasalsonotexpectedtoputhissignatures
blindlyontheblankpapersjustattheaskingofthepoliceofficials
particularly when A3 was known to him being working in his
neighborhood. Since A3 was already known to PW33 Mohd.
Aslam,itseemsthathehasoptednottosupporttheprosecution
199
regardinguseofdrillmachineEx.P6 belongingtohimbyA3.
Thefact,however,remainsthatA3hadledthepolicepartyatthe
shopofPW33Mohd.Aslamon18.6.96andpolicewasnotaware
abouttheexistenceofthisshoppriortothat.
275 PW11Nafizexaminedbytheprosecutionalsodidnot
supportifA3wasseenbyhimmakingholeinagascylinderof5
Kg.,on14.5.96,orthathehadmadeinquiriesfromA3aboutthe
purposeofdrillinginthecylinder.
276 Thiswitness,however,admittedincrossexamination
ofLd.Addl.PPfortheStatethatafter1012days,afterhisarrest,
A3wasbroughtbythepolicenearhisshop.
PointingOutOfThePlaceNearHouseNo.134,GaliNo.
(22)
21JakirNagar,Delhi:
277 Furthercaseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3,
A5andA6hadledthepolicepartyinfrontofhouse No.134,
GaliNo.21,JakirNagar,DelhiwheretheyhadparkedcarNo.DL
200
2C5854bearingfakeNo.DL2C1895formanydaysbeforebomb
blast.PointingoutmemoEx.PW33/ShasbeenprovedbyPW31
Insp.SurenderKumar,PW39Insp.HariRamandPW101Insp.
ParasNath.Thereisdenialbytheaccusedpersons.
278 Again, the pointing out memo Ex. PW33/S is not
incriminating piece of circumstance against the accused
personsasthisopenplaceaccessibletopublicwasalsoknown
tothepolicepriorto18.6.96.Moreover,noindependentpublic
witnesswasjoinedatthetimeofpreparationofthepointingout
memoEx.PW33/S.Theplaceisstatedtobeneartheresidence
oftenantMirzaMaqboolHussain.However,hewasnotjoined
in the investigation. No person from the neighborhood was
examined by the prosecution to show if the car in which the
cylinderbombwasplantedforcausing bombblastatCentral
Market,LajpatNagar,NewDelhihadremainedparkedinfront
ofhouseNo.134,GaliNo.21,JakirNagar,Delhiandifsofor
howmanydays.ThereisnomentioninthememoEx.PW33/S
201
astowhohadparkedthesaidmaruticaratthatplaceandon
whatparticulardate.Nocomplaintwasreceivedbythepolice
at any time that the said maruti car with fake number was
allegedlyparkedfornumberofdaysatthatplace.
(23)PointingoutDulhanDupattashopbyA3,A5andA6:
279 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18/6/2008A3,A5
andA6ledthepolicepartytotheshopofSumitKumarat2D
35,LajpatNagarwhereon19/5/1996ataround6pmtheyhad
parkedthestolenMaruti800car,thegenuinenumberofwhichis
DL2CF5854 andafakenumberplatefixedonthesaidcarwas
DL4AC1895.Theld.defencecounselhascontrovertedthisplea
oftheprosecution.
280 PW31Insp.SurinderKumarinhisstatementbefore
thecourtdeposedthaton18/6/1996,A3,A5andA6hadtaken
thepolicepartyatLajpatNagarwheretheyidentifiedtheshopof
'DulhanRangrej'wheretheyhadparkedthecarloadedwithRDX
202
i.e.,cylinderbombin1996butitcouldnotexplodeduetoweak
battery.Thesaidcarwasparkedbythematabout6.15pminthe
area.Whentheblastdidnottakeplacetheyagainremovedthe
carandtookittoZakirNagar.Thestatementofshopownerof
DulhanDupattawasrecorded.Inthecrossexamination,nothing
wassuggestedtothiswitnessifalltheseaccusedpersonshadnot
takenthepoliceteamattheshopofPW61SumitKumarorthathe
had not met them at that time. No suggestion was put to this
witnessinthecrossexaminationthattheseaccusedpersonshad
not parked any such car on 19/5/1996 in front of the shop of
DulhanDupatta.Thetestimonyofthiswitnessonthisaspecthas
entirelyremainedunchallenged.
281 PW39 Insp. Hari Ram Malik also supported the
prosecutiononthisaspectanddeposedthaton18/6/1996these
accused persons while in police custody pointed out the place
opposite shop no. DII/35 Central Market Lajpat Nagar and the
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Rwasprepared.Againthiswitness
203
wasnotcrossexaminedonthisaspect.Thewitnessadmittedthat
thelocalpolicewasnotjoinedintheinvestigationandnositeplan
was prepared. No suggestion was put to this witness also that
theseaccusedpersonshadnottakenthepoliceteamtotheplace
inquestionandnopointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Rwasprepared.
282 Material testimony on this aspect is that ofPW61
SumitKumarowneroftheshop'DulhanDupatta'.Inhisdeposition
beforethecourtPW61SumitKumar,statedthathewasrunninga
shopinCentralMarket,LajpatNagarwiththenameandstyleof
'DulhanDupatta'situatedinthepremisesofDII/35LajpatNagar.
Oneday,onSaturdayandatabout2/2.30pmhewaspresentat
hisshop.Atthattime34personsparkedaMaruti800ofwhite
colour in front of his shop despite his objecting to the same.
Ultimately,theyremovedthecarfromthereandagaintheyparked
thesaidvehiclefourshopsawayonrightsideinfrontofaDoctor's
shop.Sofarheremembered,theregistrationnumberofthesaid
carwas1895.TwodayslateronTuesday,hecametoknowthata
204
bombblasthadtakenplaceatLajpatNagarinamaruticar.After
aboutamonthlater, policevisitedhisshopwhenhewasaway
and his younger brother Sanjiv was available at his shop. His
brothertoldhimthat34policeofficialshadcomeathisshopalong
with34otherpersons.Hedidnotknowanythingelseaboutthat
case.
283 Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebytheld.Addl
PPandwascrossexamined.Inthecrossexamination,thewitness
admittedthatthepolicehadpreparedthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/Randthesamecontainedhissignaturesatpoint'C'.The
witnessvolunteeredtoaddthatthesamewasnotpreparedinhis
presenceasitwasalreadypreparedbythepoliceandhedidnot
gothroughitminutely. Inhissubsequentcrossexaminationthe
witness categorically admitted that he had identified the above
namedthreeaccusedpersonson18/6/1996whentheypointedout
theplaceinfrontofhisshopandhe(PW61Sumit)toldthepolice
that they were the same persons who had parked the above
205
mentionedMaruti800infrontofhisshopon19/5/1996andwhen
heraisedobjection,thesaidpersonshadquarreledwithhim.The
witness further admitted in the cross examination that on
19/5/1996whenheclosedhisshopatabout8.30pmtheabove
mentionedcarwasseenparkednearhisshopandnootherperson
waspresentnearthesaidcar. Thewitnessfurtheradmittedthat
whenon20/5/1996heopenedhisshop,theabovementionedcar
wasnotparkedthere.Thewitnessclarifiedthatinitiallyhecould
not clarify some of the things which he disclosed lateron in
testifying before the court but the same had taken place on
accountofconfusion. Thewitnessfurtherclaimedthathecould
identifythesaidthreeaccusedpersonsifshowntohim.Thereafter
thewitnesswaspermittedtolookattheaccusedpersonspresent
in custody before the court and to identify the said accused
persons. The witness rightly identified A3 with certainty. The
witnessfurtheridentifiedA5withsomedegreeofdoubtfulinthe
same.Thewitnesshowevercouldnotidentifythethirdaccusedat
206
all.
284 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbythelddefence
counselfortheaccusedpersons.Hedeniedthesuggestionthat
theIOofthecaseInsp.ParasNathhadpointedouttowardsthe
accused persons to him. He further admitted in the cross
examination that he had put his signatures on the pointing out
memoEx.PW31/RinthePS.HehadgonetothePSonthesaid
occasion on receipt of message from his brother. The witness
denied the suggestion that these three accused persons were
seenbyhimforthefirsttimeatPSLodiColony.Nositeplanwas
drawnattheplacewheretheaccusedhadparkedthecarfirstin
hispresence.
285 Appreciating the evidence of this independent
witness,itstandsestablishedthatmaterialfactsassertedbythis
witnessinhisexaminationhaveremaineduncontrovertedinthe
crossexamination. Noenmitywasattributedtothiswitnessfor
falselyidentifyingA3withcertaintyandidentifyingA5withsome
207
degreeofdoubt.Nothing was suggestedtothis witnessinthe
crossexaminationthatalltheseaccusedpersonshadnotparked
any Maruti 800 in front of his shop. This witness categorically
identifiedA3tobeoneoftheaccusedpersonswhohadparked
Maruti 800 in front of his shop and a quarrel had taken place
betweenthemforparkingthevehiclethere.Simplybecausethis
witnessdidnotsupporttheprosecutioninitiallyinhisexamination
inchiefhisstatementasawholecan'tberejected.Thiswitness
explainedthatduetoconfusionhecouldnotclarifyallthesefacts
wherebymaruti800wasparkedbythreeaccusedpersonsinfront
of the shop and one of them was A3. The very fact that this
witnessevenduringcrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPdidnot
identifythethirdaccusedshowsthathewaspresentingtruefacts
beforethecourt.Hadthiswitnessnurturinganygrievanceagainst
theaccusedpersonshemusthaveidentifiedthethirdaccusedas
well.ThiswitnessadmitshissignaturesonEx.PW31/Rprepared
on18/6/1996whichlendscredencetothestatementmadebyhim
208
beforethecourt.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowastowhen
allthesethreeaccusedpersonswereshowntothiswitnessinthe
PS.Againtheaccusedpersons didnotclaimthemselves to be
presentatsomeotherplaceon18/6/1996.Accusedpersonsfailed
toexplainthepurposeofparkingmaruti800infrontoftheshopof
thewitnesson19/5/1996.Theyalsofailedtoexplainastohow
andunderwhatcircumstancestheyhadgotpossessionofthesaid
car. The cogent testimony of this independent witness
corroboratestheversionoftheprosecutionthaton19/5/1996,the
Maruti800usedinthebombblastwasparkedearlierinfrontofthe
shopofthiswitnessanditwasremovedsubsequentlyfromthere
as the blast could not take place due to weak battery. The
testimonyofthiswitnessestablisheswithoutdoubtthepresenceof
A3atthespot infrontoftheshopofthewitnessof19/5/1996.
SincethiswitnesshasidentifiedA5withsomedegreeofdoubt,
thetestimonyofotherprosecutionwitnessismaterialtofillthegap
andtoestablishtheidentityoftheothertwoaccusedpersonswith
209
him at the time of parking of the car. Again this is material
incriminating circumstance against these accused persons
showingtheirparticipationinthecommissionoftheoffence.The
witnessfurtheradmittedinthecrossexaminationthatallthethree
accusedpersonsalsosignedmemoEx.PW31/Rinhispresence.
Accused persons have not denied their signatures on Ex. PW
31/R.Itfurthershowstheirpresenceatthespot.
(25) Recovery Of Front And Rear Number Plates At The
InstanceofA3,A5&A6Pointingouttheplace:
286 Case of the prosecution is that all these accused
persons ledthepoliceparty toGalib Road and pointedoutthe
placenearthedesertsofLalMehalwheretheyhadchangedthe
original number plates and replaced the same with duplicate
number plates. The front number plate Ex. P4 was seized vide
pointingoutcumseizurememoEx.PW31/D.
287 PW101 Insp.Paras Nath in his statement beforethe
210
courttestifiedthaton18.6.1996,alltheseaccusedpersonspointed
outtheplaceinthenorthdirectionofGalibRoadandpointedout
theplacenearLalMehalKhandarandfromtheirgotrecovered
front originalnumberplatebearingregistrationnumberDL2CF
5854.PointingoutcumrecoverymemoofthesameEx.PW31/D
wasprepared.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthatthereafteraccused
personspointedouttheplaceunderLodhiFlyOverandfromtheir
gotrecoveredrearoriginalnumberplateofmaruticarwhichwas
lying near a tree and other bushes. Pointing outcumrecovery
memo Ex. PW31/E was prepared. Prosecution also examined
PW31 SI Surender Kumar and PW39 Insp. Hari Ram on this
aspect.Accusedpersonshavedeniedrecoveryofthesenumber
platesattheirinstance.
288 On perusal of the statements of the prosecution
witnessesonthisaspect,Iamoftheviewthattheprosecutionhas
failedtoprovethisfactbeyondreasonabledoubt. Theincident
wherebytheoriginalnumberplateswerechangedandreplaced
211
withduplicatenumberplatestookplaceontheinterveningnightof
17/1851996.Therecoveriesareallegedtohavebeen effected
on18.6.996. No independentpublic witness was joinedby the
police at the time of alleged recoveries of the front and rear
numberplates. Itisalsonotmentionedin Ex.PW31/DandEx.
PW31/Eastoatwhichtimeandfromwhichparticularplace,these
recoveriesweregoteffectedbytheaccusedpersons.Thereisno
specificmentionastowhichoftheseaccusedhadgotrecovered
these number plates. Moreover, these number plates were
allegedlyrecoveredfromanopenspacewhichwasaccessibleto
thepublic.Thereisnothingonthefileifthesenumberplateswere
lyingconcealedataparticularplaceandwerewithinthespecial
knowledgeoftheseaccusedpersons.
289 Besidesthis,prosecutiondidnotestablishonrecord
thatthesenumberplatesEx.P4andP5weretheoriginalnumber
platesofthevehicleinquestion.NoTIP proceedings of these
number plates were got conducted from PW8 Atul Nath. Even
212
duringhisexaminationbeforethecourt,boththesenumberplates
Ex.P4andEx.P5werenotshowntohimtoproveifthesewere
thenumberplateswhichwerethereonthevehicleinquestionprior
to the incident. No question was put to PW8 Atul Nath if the
numberplatesEx.P4andEx.P5allegedlygotrecoveredbythe
accusedpersonswerepartandparcelofthevehicleatthetimeof
itstheft.
290 PW31 SI Surender Kumar merely testified that the
front number plate and rear number plate of the car were got
recoveredbytheaccusedpersons.Hedidnotgivedetailsastoin
pursuanceofdisclosurestatementofwhichaccusedthenumber
platesweregotrecovered.Thesenumberplateswererecovered
inintactconditionafteraboutonemonthoftheincidentfroman
openplace.Inmyviewthis,thisallegedrecoveriesarenotan
incriminating circumstances to connect the accused with
commissionoftheoffence.
213
(26)RecoveryOfKeyAtTheInstanceOfA3,A5&A6:
291 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.1996allthese
accused persons led the police team behind bus stand,
NizamuddinITI,ArabKiSaraiandfromtheregotrecoveredone
keywhichtheyhadgotpreparedatJamaMasjid,ChawariBazar
andthesaidkeywasseizedvidememoEx.PW31/F.
292 PW101 Insp. Paras Nath deposed that accused
personspointedoutbushes,behindbusstandNizamiddin,ArabKi
Sarai and from there they got recovered duplicate key and the
samewasseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW31/Faftersealingthe
samewiththesealofPP.ProsecutionhasalsoexaminedPW31
SI Surender Kumar and PW39 Insp. Hari Ram on this aspect.
There is complete denial by the accused persons if any such
duplicatekeywasgotrecoveredbythem.
293 On scanning the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses on this aspect, again, I am of the view that the
214
prosecution has failed to prove if duplicate key Ex.P7 was got
recoveredbytheaccusedpersonsinpursuanceoftheirdisclosure
statementsorthatitwasthekeywhichwasusedatthetimeof
commissionoftheftofMarutiCarbelongingtoPW8AtulNath.No
independent public witness was joined at the time of alleged
recoveryoftheduplicatekeyEx.P7.Again,thiskeyEx.P7was
allegedly got recovered from an open space accessible to the
publicatlarge.RecoveryoftheduplicatekeyEx.P7afterabout
onemonthoftheincidentalsocreatesdoubtabouttheversionof
thepolice.
294 Moreover,asperprosecution thisduplicatekeywas
gotpreparedfromPW64Mohd.RizwanatJamaMasjid. PW64
Mohd. Rizwan Appeared in the witness box He turned hostile
regardingpreparationoftheduplicatekey. ThekeyEx.P7was
notshowntoPW64Mohd.Rizwantoprovethatitwasthesame
keywhichwasgotpreparedbytheaccusedpersonsfromhim.
295 SomereallegedrecoveryofduplicatekeyEx.P7from
215
anopenpublicplaceafterexpiryofonemonthfromthedateof
incidentintheabsenceofcorroborationbyanyindependentpublic
witness and without its identification from the key maker and
withoutconnectingitwiththevehicleinquestion,inmyviewthis
circumstanceisnotenoughtoconnecttheaccusedpersonswith
thecommissionoftheincident.
(26)PointingOfPlaceOfIncident:
296 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.96A5andA6
pointedouttheplaceof occurance,i.e.Parkingplaceinfrontof
park,PushpaMarket,LajpatNagar,NewDelhianddisclosedthat
on21.5.96atabout6/6.15PM,theybothhadparkedthestolen
maruticartherewithfakenumberplatebearingno.DL4C1895
afterfittingthecylinderbombthereinandafter15/20minutes,the
blasthadtakenplace.
297 PW31Insp.SurenderKumar,PW39Insp.HariRam
andPW101Insp.ParasNathhaveprovedthepointingoutmemo
216
Ex.PW31/Tonthisaspect.Accusedpersonshavedeniedtohave
ledthepoliceteamtotheplaceofincident.
298 PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Tdoesnotcontainthe
signature of any independent public witness. Moreover, this
pointingofplaceofincidentbyA5andA6isnotanincriminating
piece of circumstance as the police had already come to know
about the place of incident on 21.5.96. Pointing out memo Ex.
PW33/Tisthusnotapieceofincriminatingcircumstanceagainst
theaccusedpersons.
(27) Pointing out shop from where 9 Volt Battery was
purchasedA5ANDA6:
299 Case of the prosecution is that on 19/6/1996 in
pursuanceoftheirdisclosurestatementsboth A5andA6 led
thepoliceteamtotheshopofPW60RajeshKumar,ownerof
GaneshElectronicsandidentifiedtheshopfromwheretheyhad
purchased9voltbatteryusedintheblast.Theaccusedpersons
217
havedeniedthisallegation.
thecourtstatedthaton19/6/1996 A5andA6 weretakento
Jangpura,BhogalwheretheypointedoutM/s.GaneshElectronics
fromwheretheyhadpurchased9voltbatteryusedintheblast.
Owneroftheshopidentifiedtheaccusedpersonsasthepersons
whohadcomealongwithJavedKariwar(A15)(sinceP.O)and
Mulla(A13)(sincedead)tobuythebattery.
301 This witness was cross examinedonthis aspectby
the ld. defence counsel for the accused persons. In the cross
examination, the witness stated that the statement of Rajesh
Kumar,ownerofGaneshElectronicswasrecordedbytheIO.No
suggestionwasputtothiswitness thaton19/6/1996boththese
accusedhadnotpointedouttheshopofM/sGaneshElectronics
orthattheaccusedpersonshadnotpurchasedanysuch9volt
battery.
302 TestimonyofPW60RajeshKumarisverymaterialon
218
thisaspect.Inhisstatementbeforethecourtonoath,he stated
that he was running electrical shop with the name and style
'GaneshElectronics'situatedatshopno.21,Jangpura,NewDelhi
forthelast10years.
303 On 21/5/1996, two persons had purchased 9 volt
batterymake'Entiser'forRs.95/.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthat
on19/6/1996twoaccusedpersonsalongwithpolicecameathis
shopandoneofthesaidpersonsidentifiedhisshopandtoldthat
hehadpurchasedtheabovementionedbatteryfromhisshop.He
did not come to know the names of those accused persons,
however,onewashavingamarkof'massa'onhisface.
304 Afterhavingalookattheaccusedpersonspresentin
custody before the court, PW60 Rajesh Kumar pointed out
towardsA5 andstatedthathemightbeoneofthetwopersons
whohadbeenbroughttohisshopbypoliceandwhohadtoldthe
police that he had purchased the battery from his shop. This
witnessdidnotidentifytheotheraccusedpersonwhohadcome
219
alongwithA5.
PP and was cross examined. In the crossexamination, the
witnessdeniedthaton19/6/19996A5andA6whosenameshe
cametoknowoninquiryhadledthepoliceteamtohisshopand
hadpointedouthisshopandA5andA6identifiedhimtobe
the person from whom they had purchased 9 volt battery on
21/5/1996alongwiththeirassociatesaccusedJavedKariwar(A
15)(PO)andRiaz@Mulla(A13)(sincedeceased).Thewitness
volunteeredtoaddthatthetwoaccusedpersonshadbeenbrought
nearhisshopinamarutivanandtheaccusedpersonskeptsitting
inthevaninmuffledfaces.Fromhisshophewascalledandmade
to sit in the van and thereafter the faces of the two accused
personswereunmuffledandhewasaskedwhetherthesaidtwo
accusedpersonshadpurchasedthesaidbatteryfromhisshop.He
replied that when they were saying that they had purchased
batteryfromhisshop,theymightbecorrectbutitwasnotpossible
220
forhimtorememberbyfaceeachandeverycustomer. Witness
furtherstatedthathe,however,toldthepolicethatoneofthose
accused persons namely A5 who was present in the court
mighthadpurchasedthebatteryfromhim.
306 Inthefurthercrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPthe
witnessadmittedthathehadtoldthepolicethatbatterypurchased
fromhisshopwasusedinthebombblastatLajpatNagar,Central
Market. He further admitted that when the above named two
accusedpersonspointedouthisshopandidentifiedhim, police
preparedmemoEx.PW31/Landhesignedthesameatpoint'B'.
Thesaid memowas alsosigned by the above named accused
persons.Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.defencecounselfor
the accused persons, the witness disclosed that after he was
pickedupfromhisshop,thevanwasdriventoCentralRoadto
MasjidRoadfromwhere,amanfromVijayElectronicswaspicked
upandinthesamevanhewastakentothePSsituatedinLodi
Roadarea.Hewaskeptthereforabout1or1hour.Hehadno
221
personal knowledge if the battery purchased from him by the
accused persons was used in bomb blast at any place. The
witnessstatedthathewastoldbythepoliceonlyinthePSLodi
Roadthatbatterypurchasedfromhimwasusedinbombblastat
Lajpat Nagar after getting the same soldered from the shop of
VijayElectronics.
307 Overall testimony of this witness reveals that no
materialdiscrepancieshavebeenelicitedinthecrossexamination
of this witness to discard his version given before the court.
Nothing has come on recordto showthatthisindependent
publicwitnessdidnotrunhisshopunderthenameandstyleof
Ganesh Electronics at shop no. 21 Jangpura. This witness
categorically testified that on 21/5/1996 two persons had
purchased9voltbatteryfromhimforasumofRs.95/Noenmity
hasbeenimputedtothiswitnessforfalselyclaimingsaleof9volt
batteryfromhimforRs.95/.Againthiswitnessiscategoricalthat
on19/6/1996policehadbroughttwopersonsathisshopandone
222
of them had identified his shop from where 9 volt battery was
purchased.ThiswitnesspointedouttowardsA5tobeoneofthe
saidaccusedpersonsanddidnotidentifytheotheraccusedwho
had accompanied him. This witness has no ulterior motive to
falsely identify A5 to be the person who had purchased 9 volt
battery from him. This witness elaborated his version and
voluntarilystatedthatthetwopersonswerebroughtinthemaruti
vanathisshopandthesaidpersonswereinmuffledfaces.When
thesaidtwopersonswereunmuffled,hewasaskedwhetherthey
hadpurchasedthebatteryfromhisshopandherepliedthatwhen
thesaidpersonsweresayingthattheyhadpurchasedthebattery
fromhisshop,theymightbecorrect.Hefurtheradmittedthat
outofthosetwopersons,A5mighthadpurchasedthebattery
fromhim.Thiswitnesshadsomedoubtabouttheexactidentity
of A5. However, in the subsequent cross examination, the
witnessclearedthedoubtandassertedthathehadtoldthepolice
thattheabovenamedtwoaccusedpersonspointedouthisshop
223
andidentifiedhim. ThepolicepreparedthememoEx.PW31/L
andhehadsignedthesameatpoint'B'andtheabovenamedtwo
accusedpersonshadalsosignedthesaidmemo.Nosuggestion
hasbeenputinthecrossexaminationthatmemoEx.PW31/L
wasnotpreparedathisshoporthattheaccusedpersonsdidnot
signthesame.Accusedpersonshavefailedtostateastohowand
under what circumstances, their signatures appeared on the
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/L.Thesesignaturesofboththese
accusedpersonsonthepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Linthe
presenceofPW60RajeshKumarcategoricallyestablishesthat
bothofthemhadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW60Rajesh
Kumar and had pointed out the shop from where they had
purchased9voltbattery.Againthisfactwasnotintheknowledge
ofthepolicepriortotheaccusedpersonstakingthepolicepartyto
theshopofPW60RajeshKumarinpursuanceoftheirdisclosure
statements. Noexplanationwasofferedbytheaccusedpersons
asto whyandforwhatpurposetheyhadpurchasedthe9volt
224
battery from teh shop of PW60 Rahesh Kumar on 21/5/1996.
Caseoftheprosecutionisthatthisbatterywasusedinthebomb
blast. Hence this circumstance is an incriminating piece of
circumstanceagainstA5andA6.
prosecution on this aspect and deposed that on 19/6/1996,
investigationofthiscasewasassignedtohim. Healongwith
Insp.Rajeshwar, SISurinderVermaandotherstaffand four
accusedA3,A4,A5andA6joinedtheinvestigation.A5and
A6 pointed out shop of Ganesh Electronics at shop no. 31,
CentralRoad,Jangpura,BhogalandthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW 31/L was prepared. Again in the cross examination, this
statementofthewitnesswasnotchallengedexceptputtingmere
suggestiondenyingthefact.Nothingwassuggestedtothiswitness
thatonthatdayPW60RajeshKumarhadnotmetandhehadnot
identifiedA5.
225
(28)CircumstancesofgettingsolderingofthebatteryA5&
A6:
309 The prosecution has relied upon another
circumstancetopointanaccusingfingeragainstA5andA6that
theyhadgottwowiresfixedontheterminalsof9voltbatteryfrom
theshopofVijayKumar.Thereiscompletedenialofthisfactby
theaccusedpersons.
thecourthasstatedthaton19/6/1996afterpointingtheshopof
M/sGaneshElectronicsbothA5andA6tookthepolicepartyto
VijayElectronicsfromwheretheyhadgotthewiresfixedonthe
batteryusedintheblast.Statementoftheowneroftheshopwas
recorded.
311 Inthecrossexaminationthisstatementofthewitness
reamined unchallenged. The witness reasserted that IO had
recordedthestatementofVijayKapoorownerofVijayElectronics.
226
Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessthaton19/6/1996boththe
accuseddidnotleadthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW38Vijay
Kapoororthattheaccusedpersonshadnotpointedouthisshop
fromwheretheyhadgotthewiresfixedonthe9voltbattery.
312 MaterialtestimonyonthisaspectisthatofPW38Vijay
Kapoor. In his deposition before the court PW38 Vijay Kapoor
statedthathewasrunninganelectronicshopat39,MasjidRoad,
Jangpura, Bhogal. His residence was also there in the same
premises.InMay,1996twopersonscameathisshopwith9volts
battery. They wanted him to fix the two wires on terminals by
solderingwhichhegotdonebyhisemployeeandtookRs.5/on
thejob.Thosetwopersonswerepresentbeforethecourt. The
witnesspointedouttowardsA5asbeingoneofthem.Thewitness
alsopointedouttowardsA6andstatedthathewasthesecond
personbuthewasnotsureaboutit.Thesetwoaccusedpersons
left his shop after getting soldering job complete. PW38 further
testifiedthatafteramonththereafter,boththeseaccusedpersons
227
cameathisshopleadingthepoliceteam.Theypointedoutthe
shopandpointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Nwaspreparedwhich
containedhissignatureatpointB.
313 Thiswitnesswastestedinthecrossexamination. In
the cross examination, thewitness statedthathehad madea
statementtothepoliceofthiscaseandhissignatureswerealso
obtained onwrittenpaperatLodiRoadoffice.Hefairlyadmitted
thathewasnotcalledbythepoliceanytimeinthePStoidentify
thetwoboys.Hedeniedthesuggestionthattheaccusednamed
byhimhadnotledthepolicepartytohisshopanyday.
314 Overalltestimonyofthiswitnessrevealsthatmaterial
facts disclosed by this witness in his examination in chief have
remained unchallenged and uncontroverted in the cross
examination. There is nothing on record to show if this
independentpublicwitnesshavingnoulteriormotiveandenmity
againsttheaccusedpersonswasnotrunninghisshopunderthe
name and style of Ganesh Electronics at shop no. 39, Mazjid
228
Road, Jangpura. This witness had categorically claimed that in
May1996boththeseaccusedpersonsA5andA6hadcomeat
theshopat39,Jangpura,Bhogalandtheywantedhimtofixtwo
wires on terminals of 9 volt battery by soldering. The witness
categoricallyidentifiedA5asoneofthesaidtwopersons.This
witnessalsoidentifiedA6thoughhestatedthathewasnotsure
about him.Thewitness further proved thatafteraboutamonth
boththeseaccusedpersonshadcomeathisshopwiththepolice
in custody and they had pointed out his shop and pointing out
memoEx.PW31/Nwasprepared.Nosuggestionwasputtothis
witnessinthecrossexaminationthatboththeseaccusedpersons
had not got two wires fixed on the terminals of 9 volt battery.
Nothingwassuggestedtothiswitnessinthecrossexamination
thatinMay1996boththeseaccusedpersonswerenotpresentin
Delhi or that they were present at some other place making it
impossibleforthemtovisithisshopforgettinganywiresfixedon
theterminalsof9voltbattery.Nothingwasimputedtothiswitness
229
to make false statement against the accused persons and to
falselyidentifythembeforethecourt.Againnoexplanationwas
offeredbytheaccusedpersonsastoforwhatpurposetheyhad
gotthetwowiresfixedontheterminalsof9voltbattery. PW60
RajeshKumarhasalreadyprovedpurchaseof9voltbatteryand
the statement of this witness corroborates his version and
establishestheidentityofboththeaccusedpersonsbeyonddoubt.
PW60RajeshKumarinhisdepositionbeforethecourthasstated
thatfromhisshoptheaccusedpersonswiththepolicehadgone
totheshopofPWVijayKapoor.Thereisnothingtodisbelievethe
positivetestimonyofthisindependentwitness. Againthepolice
was not aware about this fact of getting the wires fixed on the
terminals of 9 volt battery from the shop keeper Vijay Kapoor
before the accused persons in pursuance of the disclosure
statementledthepoliceteamtohisshop.
prosecutiononthisaspectanddeposedthaton19/6/1996 A5
230
and A6 pointed out theshop of Vijay Electronics,39 Maszid
Road, Jangpura and pointing out memo Ex. PW 31/N was
prepared.Inthecrossexamination,nothingmaterialwaselicited
todiscardthestatementofthiswitness.Nothingwassuggestedto
thiswitnessthatPW38VijayKapoorhadnotmetatthetimethe
accusedpersonshadledthepoliceteamtohisshoporthatPW38
Vijay Kapoor had not identified the accused persons. Again
nothing was suggested to this witness in the cross examination
that they had not got the wires fixed on the terminals of 9 volt
batteryattheshopofPWVijayKapoor.Meresuggestionwasput
to this witness in the cross examination that no disclosure
statementsweremadebytheaccusedpersonsorthattheydidnot
point out the shop. Again nothing was suggested as to where
boththeseaccusedpersonswerewhenPW38VijayKapoorhad
assertedthatboththeaccusedpersonsinMay,1996gotthewires
fixedontheterminalsof9voltbattery. Accusedpersonsdidnot
denytheir signaturesonthepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/N.It
231
wasnotrevealedastowhen,howandinwhatcircumstancesthey
puttheirsignaturesonthepointingoutmemo.
316 The prosecution has established beyond doubt that
boththeseaccusedpersonsinMay,1996gotthewiresfixedon
theterminals of9voltbatteryandtheypointedouttheshopof
PW38VijayKapooron19/6/1996wheretheywereidentifiedby
PW38VijayKapoor.
(29) Pointing out shop from where Jayco Wall Clock was
purchasedA5andA6:
317 Case of the prosecution is that on 19/6/1996 in
pursuance of their disclosure statements A5 and A6 led the
police team to M/s. Imperial Gramaphone Company at 1388,
ChandiniChowkanddisclosedthatfromthesaidshop,theyhad
purchasedoneJaycowallclockon14/5/1996.Accusedpersons
havedeniedthisallegationoftheprosecution.
232
thecourtstatedthaton19/6/1996 A5andA6 took themto
Chandini Chowk to Imperial Gramaphone Company, 1388,
ChandiniChowkfromwheretheyhadboughtaJaycoalarmpiece
and the salesman identified them. Pointing out memo was
prepared and the statement of the shop keeper was recorded.
Salesmanalsoproducedbillbookcontainingtherelevantcopyof
thebillofsellingoftimeclock.TherecoverymemoofbillbookEx.
PW31/Gwasprepared.Thepointingoutandidentificationmemo
Ex.PW31/Hwerealsoprepared.
319 Thiswitnesswasnottestedin crossexaminationon
theseaspects.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationifbothA5andA6hadnotledthepoliceattheshop
ofPW50YogeshKumarGuptaorthattheyhadnotpurchased
anyJaycoWallClockfromthere.Againnosuggestionwasputto
this witness inthecross examination if PW50YogeshKumar
GuptahadnotmetthemthereandhadnotidentifiedbothA5and
A6tobethesamepersonswhohadpurchasedJaycowallclock
233
fromhim.
320 PW39Insp.HariRamMalikhasalsocorroboratedthe
versiongivenbyPW31andtestifiedthatA5andA6pointedout
theshopImperialGramaphoneCo(India)regd.,shopno.1388
nearCentralBankvidepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Handone
YogeshKumarGupta,proprietorofthesaidshopproducedcarbon
copyofbillbookEx.G1whichwasseizedvideseizurememoEx.
PW31/G. Nomaterialcrossexaminationofthiswitnessonthis
aspectwasdonebytheld.defencecounsel.Meresuggestionwas
puttothewitnessthatthe accuseddidnotpointoutanysuch
place. Nothingwassuggestedifboth A5andA6 werenot
identifiedbyPW50YogeshKumarGupta.
321 Material testimony on this aspect is that of PW50
YogeshKumarGupta,ownerofM/s.ImperialGramaphone,shop
no.1388,ChandiniChowk. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,he
statedthaton14/5/1996twoboyshadtakenJaycowallclockof
roundshapefromhissalesmanPramod.After20/22daysi.e.,on
234
19/6/1996twopolicemenwithtwopersonscameathisshopand
talkedwithPramodwhotoldthepolicethatthesaidtwopersons
hadtakenwallclockfromhim.Thebillbookbelongedtohisshop.
FromthatbillbookinthatcarboncopyofthebillExPW48/Awas
issuedbyhissalesmanPramod.BillbookEx.G1wasseizedvide
seizure memo Ex. PW 31/G which contained his signatures at
point 'A'. Pointing outmemo Ex. PW 31/H also contained his
signaturesatpoint'B'.Regardingidentificationofthetwopersons
presentalongwiththepolice,thewitnessstatedthathecouldnot
identifythemasitwasamatterofmanyyears.Heonlyknewthat
the said two persons were Kashmiri looking, well built and well
dressedboys.
322 Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPP
andwascrossexamined. Inthecrossexaminationthewitness
admittedthatEx.PW31/Hwassignedbyhimonlyafteritwas
completely written. He further admitted that names of two boys
appearedinthesaidmemoandhehadsignedthatmemoafter
235
readingthesame.Thewitnessexpressedhisinabilitytoadmitor
denyifA5andA6werethesameboyswhohadledthepolice
teamtohisshopon19/6/1996.
323 In the crossexamination on behalf of accused
persons thewitnessstatedthathisstatementwasrecordedby
thepoliceonthedaywhentheycametohisshopon19/6/1996.
Name of the customer was not mentioned on the receipt. The
witnessfurtheradmittedthatthepolicehadpreparedEx.PW31/H
andgothissignaturesonit.On19/6/1996thepolicehadrecorded
hisstatementandstatementofhissalesman.Thewitnessdenied
the suggestion that no clock was purchased from him on
14/5/1996byanyoftheaccused.
324 Entire testimony of this witness nonetheless
establishesthefactthatfromhisshop, twoboyshadpurchased
Jaycowallclockon14/5/1996forwhichreceiptEx.PW48/Awas
issued from the bill book Ex. G1. This independent public
witnesshasnoaxetogrindtofalselypleadsellingofJaycowall
236
clock on14/5/1996.This witnesshadnoenmity tomakefalse
depositionagainsttheaccusedinthisregard.Thereisnothingto
disbelievethepositivetestimonyofthiswitnessregardingsaleof
Jaycowallclockathisshop on14/5/1996tothetwo boys to
whomthiswitnessstatedtobeKashmiri looking,wellbuilt and
welldressed.Hadthiswitnessbeenhavinganygrievanceagainst
the accused, in the examination in chief itself, he must have
identifiedthosetwopersonscategoricallybeforethecourtinhis
deposition.
325 This witness has nevertheless proved that on
19/6/1996thepolicehadbroughttwopersonsathisshopandthey
had told about the purchase of wall clock from his shop. This
witnessalsoprovedhissignaturesontherecoverymemoExPW
31/G.HehasadmittedhissignaturesonthepointingoutmemoEx
PW31/H.Thiswitnessfurtheradmittedthatthenamesofthose
twoboyswhohadcomeathisshopon19/6/1996werementioned
inthememoandhehadsignedthatmemoafterreadingthesame.
237
ThiswitnessexpressedhisinabilitytoadmitordenywhetherA5
andA6werethesamepersonswholeadthepoliceteamtohis
shop on 19/6/1996. However, perusal of the pointingoutmemo
reveals that both these accused persons whose name find
mentioned therein had led the police team to the said shop in
pursuance of their disclosure statements. The existence of the
shop belonging to PW50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta is not disputed.
Thefactumaboutthepurchaseofthewallclockfromtheshopas
disclosed by the accused was further proved by documentary
evidencewherebyreceiptEx.PW48/A,wasseizedfrombillbook
Ex. G1.Thisfactwasnotintheknowledgeoftheprosecution
priortothereachingattheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.
Boththeseaccusedpersonshavefailedtoexplainthepurposeof
purchase of the Jayco Wall clock from the shop of PW50. No
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthat
boththese accusedpersons had not led the policeteam at his
shop.Identityoftheaccusedpersonshasbeenestablishedfrom
238
othercircumstancesprovedbytheprosecution.
326 Another material witness on this aspect is PW48
Pramod.Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,PW48PramodKumar
statedthaton14/5/1996whileundertheemploymentatImperial
GramaphoneCompany,ChandiniChowk,hehadsoldoneJayco
alarmclockforRs.182/toacustomeragedabout1920years.
The said customer appeared to be accused Latif (A7) present
beforethecourt.Areceiptwasissuedforthesamebyhim,the
carboncopyofwhichisEx.PW48/A.Thewitnessfurthertestified
thaton19/6/1996policehadcomeathisshopwhichwasledby
thecustomerwhohadpurchasedthatwallclock.Hisshopwas
pointed out by the accused as the shop from where he had
purchasedthewallclock.He(PW48)producedthereceiptbook
Ex.G1attheaskingofhisemployertothepolicecontainingthe
carboncopyofthesalereceiptEx.PW48/Awhichwasseizedby
thepolicevideseizurememoEx.PW31/G.
239
PPandwascrossexamined.Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.
AddlPPthewitnessadmittedthattwopersonshadledthepolice
teamtohisshopon19/6/1996.Hefurtheradmittedthatthenames
ofthesaidtwopersonsweredisclosedtohimbythepoliceasA5
andA6.
328 Inthecross examinationby theld.counselforthe
accusedpersons,thewitnessadmittedthatatthetimeofissuing
receiptfromthereceiptbookExG1,theouterreceiptwouldbe
issuedfirstandtheinnerreceiptthereafter.Healsoadmittedthat
receiptbookEx.G1didnotindicateanywherethatitpertainedto
theirshop.
329 FromtheabovetestimonyofPW48Pramod,itstands
establishedthatwallclock makeJaycowaspurchasedfromhis
shopon14/5/1996.Itfurtherstandsestablishedthaton19/6/1996
twopersonswhosenamesweredisclosedas A5andA6 had
ledthepoliceteamtotheshopofthewitnessandhadpointedout
thatitwasthesameshopfromwheretheyhadpurchasedthewall
240
clock. Thestatementofthewitnesswascorroboratedfromthe
documentary evidence whereby sale receipt Ex. PW 48/A was
issued out of the receipt book Ex. G1 which was seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW 31/G. This testimony of this witness
substantiatestheversionoftheprosecutionthaton19/6/1996both
A5andA6hadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW48Pramod
KumarfromwheretheyhadpurchasedtheJaycowallclock.The
policewasnotawareaboutthefactumofpurchaseofwallclockby
these accused persons from the shop of PW48. No suggestion
wasputtothis witness inthecrossexaminationthatthesetwo
accusedpersonshadnotledthepoliceteamtotheshopofthe
witnessorthattheyhadnotpurchasedanyJaycowallclockfrom
him. The prosecution had thus established that the Jayco wall
clockwaspurchasedfromtheshopofPW48PramodKumarand
PW50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta on 14/5/1996 for which proper
receiptwasissuedforpaymentofRs.182/.Inpursuanceofthe
disclosurestatements,bothA5andA6 ledthepoliceteamon
241
19/6/1996totheshopofPW48PramodKumarandPW50Yogesh
KumarGupta and pointedout thatshopfromwheretheyhad
purchased wall clock used in the commission of offence. The
recoveryof'new'factbypointingouttheshopof PW48Pramod
KumarandPW50Yogesh KumarGupta fromwheretheJayco
WallClockwaspurchasedwasnotintheknowledgeofthepolice
priortotheaccusedpersonsleadingthepolicetothesaidshop.
Both these public witnesses did not give clean chit in their
depositiontoA5andA6.Onlytheyfailedtoidentifythemtobe
the same persons who had purchased the wall clock from the
shop.However,theyspecificallymentionedthatthenamesofthe
accused persons who were brought at their shop on 19/6/1996
werementionedanddisclosedtothemasA5andA6.Thusthis
circumstancepointsanaccusingfingeragainstA5andA6.
(30)PointingoutshopofM/s.UniqueAgenciesbyA3andA
242
5:
330 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton19/6/1996bothA3
and A5 led the police party at the shop from where they had
purchased the gas cylinders used in the incident. The accused
personshavedeniedthisallegation.
thecourtdeposedthatbothA3andA5tookthem attheshop
M/s Unique Agencies at Churiwalan from whom they had
purchased gascylinders.Pointingoutmemocum identification
memowaspreparedinthatregard.Thisstatementofthewitness
wasnotchallengedinthecrossexamination.Nosuggestionwas
put to this witness in the cross examination that both these
accusedpersonshadnotledthepolicepartyattheshopofM/s.
UniqueAgencies.
332 PW39 Insp. Hari Ram Malik has corroborated the
versiongivenbyPW31Insp.SurinderKumarand has deposed
243
thatA3andA5pointedoutashopM/sUniqueAgencies,Shop
no.2610,Churiwalan,videpointingoutmemoEx.PW31/M, on
19/6/1996.Againnomaterialcontradictionhascomeinthecross
examinationofthiswitnesstodisbelievehisversion.
333 PW36 Insp. Rajeshwar Kumar also testified on
similarlinesandstatedthaton19/6/1996boththeseaccusedled
the police to M/s. Unique Agencies where its owner, Kamal
Ahmed,wassittingatthecounter.Accusedpersonsdisclosedthat
theyhadpurchasedtwogascylindersfromthesaidshop.Heput
hissignaturesonthememopreparedbyInsp.HariRamMalik.In
thecross examination,meresuggestionwasputtothis witness
thattheproceedingson19/6/1996weremanipulated.Theaccused
didnotdenythattheyhadnotpurchasedthegascylindersfrom
theshopofKamalAhmedorthattheyhadnotpointedoutthesaid
shopon19/6/1996.
334 Prosecution has further examined PW54 Mehmood
Kamalasaprosecutionwitness.Thiswitnesswasalsojoinedin
244
theinvestigationon19/6/1996.Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,
thewitnessadmittedthathewasrunninggasagencyunderthe
name of M/s. Unique Agencies at 2610, Churiwalan, Delhi. He
usedtosellgascylinders,otherhomeappliancesandburnersetc.,
in 1996. The witness further supported the prosecution and
deposedthatinMay,1996twopersonshadcomeathisshopfor
purchasingagascylinder.Thegascylinderwasnotavailablewith
himonthatday.Heaskedthesaidtwopersons todepositthe
priceofthegascylinderandtocomeonthenextdaytocollectthe
same.ThosetwopersonsdepositedwithhimRs.290/andlefton
thatday.Nextdateagaintheycameathisshopandhedelivered
themoneemptygascylinder.
335 Thiswitnessfurthersubstantiatedthepoliceversion
thaton19/6/1996somepolicepersonnelcameathisofficeand
tookhimattheirofficeatLodhiColony.Thewitnesshoweverfailed
tosupporttheprosecutionregardingidentificationoftwopersons
who had come at his shop and who had purchased the gas
245
cylinders.Thewitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPfor
theStateandwascrossexamined.
336 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessadmittedthathis
statementwasrecordedbythepolice.Hefurtheradmittedthathis
signaturesappearedonthe pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Mat
point'B'. Thewitnesshoweveradded thatthismemowas an
alreadywrittendocument.Thewitnessadmittedthathehadtold
thenamesofthesaidtwopersonstothepoliceasMohd.Naushad
(A3) and Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza (A5). He further
disclosedinhisdepositionthatonthatday(dateofhisexamination
before the court) he remembered only the name of Mohd.
Naushad(A3).
337 This witness was not cross examined by the ld.
defencecounsel.Sothefactsonwhichthecaseoftheprosecution
was supported by this witness have remained unrebutted. The
presence of this witness running his shop under the name and
styleofM/s.UniqueAgencieswasnotdenied.Nosuggestionwas
246
put to this witness in the crossexamination that both these
accusedpersonshadnotledthepolicepartytohisshop.Names
ofboththeseaccusedpersonsfindsmentioninthepointingout
memo / identification memo Ex. PW31/M which contains the
signatureofthiswitness.Thiswitnessdidnotallegeifhehadput
hissignatureunderanypressurebythepoliceonthememoEx.
PW31/M.Namesofboththeseaccusedpersonsweredisclosed
by the police to this witness on 19/6/1996. Had these accused
persons not taken the police to the shop of PW54 Mehmood
Kamal,thepolicemustnothavecometoknowaboutthenamesof
thesetwopersonsasmentionedinthememoEx.PW31/M.The
nameandaddressofthiswitnesswasnotknowntothepoliceprior
tothedisclosurestatementsoftheseaccusedpersons.Thepolice
discoveredthefactumofthiswitnessrunning gasagencyinthe
name of M/s. Unique Agencies at 2610, Churiwalan only in
pursuanceofthedisclosurestatementsmadebytheseaccused
persons. It is true that this witness opted not to support the
247
prosecution on material circumstance to have purchased two
cylindersfromhisshopbyA3andA5inMay,1996.It,however,
stands established that both A3 and A5 in pursuance of their
disclosurestatements ledthepoliceteamattheshopofPW54
MehmoodKamal.
338 This circumstance also points an accusing finger
againstA3andA5forpurchasinggascylindersfromhisshopin
theabsenceofanyspecificpurpose.A3&A5didnotofferany
explanation for visiting the shop of PW Mehmood Kamal for
purchasinggascylinder.Theydidnotjustifypurchaseofanysuch
cylinder for any particular purpose. They did not claim their
presenceonanyotherplaceonthedayofvisittoPW54Mehmood
Kamal.
(31)PointingoutofshopbyA3&A5fromwhereduplicate
keywasgotprepared:
339 PW31Insp.Surinderinhisdepositionbeforethecourt
248
testified that on 19/6/1996 both A3 and A5 showed the key
maker in Jama Masjid from where they had got duplicate key
prepared with the help of petrol tank cap of the stolen car.
Pointingoutcumidentificationmemowaspreparedinthisregard.
This witness was not put any material question in the cross
examinationtofalsifyhisstatement.
340 PW39 Insp. Hari Ram Malik also corroborated the
versionofPW31Insp.Surinderanddeposedthaton19/6/1996A
3,A4A5&A6 pointedoutaplaceinfrontofNimiArtsand
Handicrafts,Shopno.813,ChabariBazar,DelhiwhereoneMohd.
Rizwan@Gudduwasfoundsittinganddoingthejobofpreparing
keys on the footpath pointingout memo Ex. PW 31/J was
prepared. Nothing except suggestion denying the assertion was
putinthecrossexaminationofthiswitness.
341 Prosecution also examined PW64 Mohd Rizwan
beforethecourt whoadmittedthatabout8or9yearsago,the
exactdatehedidnotremembersomepersonshadcometohim
249
forgettingcarkeymadeandhemadekeyforthem.Thiswitness
however failed to identify those persons who had come to get
preparetheduplicatekeybecauseitwasaveryoldmatter.Inthe
crossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPafterhewasgot declared
hostile, the witness admitted that he put signatures on one
document. PW64 Mohd. Rizwan identified his signatures on
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Jatpoint'A'.Thiswitnesswasnot
crossexaminedbytheaccusedpersons.Nothingwassuggested
tothiswitnessastohowandunderwhatcircumstances,hehad
puthissignaturesontheidentificationmemo/pointingoutmemo
Ex.PW31/J.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessifboththese
accusedpersonshadnotledthepoliceteamathisshoporthathis
signatureonEx.PW31/Jwereobtainedunderpressure.
342 The testimonies of the witnesses referred above
establishthatboththeseaccusedpersonshadledthepoliceteam
totheshopkeeperPW64Mohd.Rizwanwhousedtoprepare
keysandfromtheretheyhaddisclosedtohavegotpreparedthe
250
duplicatekey.Theaccusedpersonshavefailedtoexplainasto
why they had led the police in pursuance of their disclosure
statementtotheshopofPW64Mohd.Rizwan.Againthefactof
presenceofPWMohd.Rizwan atafootpathwasdiscoveredby
Delhipoliceonlyinpursuanceofdisclosurestatementsofthese
accusedpersons.
(32) Pointingoutshopfromwheresolderwaspurchased

byA3andA5:
343 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton13/5/1996accused
A5 and A3 purchased soldering iron and solder from PW58
Jitender Pal Singh. There is complete denial by the accused
personsinthisregard.
344 PW31Insp.Surindertestifiedthaton19/6/1996onthe
pointingoutof theplaceby theaccusedpersons pointingout/
identificationmemoEx.PW31/Kwasprepared.Thisstatementof
the witness was not challenged. No suggestion was put to this
251
witness as to how and underwhatcircumstances Ex.PW31/K
wasprepared.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examination that both these accused persons had not led the
policeteamattheplacetowhichmemoEx.PW31/Kpertains.
345 PW39Insp.HariMalikalsodeposedthaton19/6/1996
A3andA5pointedoutImperialSoundandService,StallNo.8A,
LajpatRaiMarketvidepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/K.Hehad
recordedthestatementofthewitnesses.Againthiswitnesswas
notconfrontedregardingthepreparationofpointingoutmemoEx.
PW 31/K. Again the facts asserted by this witness were not
challengedinthecrossexamination.
346 Material testimony on this aspect is that of PW 58
Jitender Pal Singh. In his deposition before the court, PW58
Jitender Pal Singh deposed that he was running an electronic
sparepartshopinOldLajpatRaiMarket,stallno.8AasImperial
SoundandService.On19/6/1996somepolicepeople,alongwith
oneortwopublicpersonscameathisshopandhewastoldthat
252
onesolderingironandsolderwerepurchasedfromhisshopbythe
saidoneortwopersons.Hehadseenthosetwopersonsasthose
personshadsaid,thattheyhadpurchasedthesolderingironand
solder.Sohesaidthattheymighthadpurchasedthesolderingiron
andsolderfromhisshop.Thiswitnessfurtherstatedthathehad
sold the soldering iron and solder for Rs. 35/. Regarding
identification,thewitness statedthatsinceitwasmatterof8/9
years back, he was not in a position to say whether those two
persons brought by the police at his shop were amongst the
accusedpersonspresentbeforethecourt.
347Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.AddlPPfor
Stateafterdeclaringhimhostile.Inhiscrossexaminationbythe
ld.AddlPP,thewitnessadmittedthatthepolicehadrecordedhis
statement. He further admitted that in his statement, he had
statedthatthetwopersonswhosenamesweredisclosedbefore
himbythepoliceasA3andA5hadaccompaniedthepoliceand
had pointed out his shop as the place from where they had
253
purchased the soldering iron and solder on 13/5/1996. The
witnessfurtheradmittedthatthesaidtwopersonshadcomewith
muffledfacesandtheywereseenbyhimwhentheirfaceswere
unmuffledinhispresencebythepolice.Hefurtheradmittedthat
hehadtoldthepolicethatthesaidtwopersonshadcomeathis
shop and purchased a soldering iron and solder wire from his
shop.ThewitnessfurtherstatedthatA3presentbeforethecourt
todaymightbeoneofthetwopersons.Howeverhecouldnotsay
anythingabouttheotheraccusedA5ashavingcometotheshop
fortheabovesaidpurchase.Thewitnessfurtheradmittedthatthe
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Kwaspreparedonwhichhesigned
atpoint'B'.Thewitnessstatedthathecouldidentifythesoldering
iron purchased from his shop if shown to him. The witness
identifiedthesolderingironEx.Z1afteritwasshowntohimbefore
thecourt.
348 Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.defencecounselfor
theaccusedpersons,thewitnessexplainedthathisstatementwas
254
recordedbythepoliceon19/6/1996inthepolicestation.Memo
Ex.PW31/KwasalsosignedbyhimintheSpecialCellof at
around12noon.Thetwopersonswereshowntohimbythepolice
whentheyweresittinginthepolicevehicleathisshopandhehad
accompaniedthepolicetotheSpecialCell inthesamevehicle.
HewasnotshownthesolderingironbythepoliceintheSpecial
Cell.
349 Scanningtheoveralltestimonyofthiswitnessreveals
thatsolderingironEx.Z1recoveredbythepoliceinthiscasefrom
theresidenceofA3wasidentifiedbythiswitnesstobethesame
whichwaspurchasedfromhisshopforasumofRs.35/Thereis
nodenialthatthisindependentpublicwitnesswasnotrunninghis
electronicssparepartsshopatstallno.8Ainthenameandstyle
ofImperialSoundandService.Thiswitnesscategoricallyasserted
thaton19/6/1996thepolicehadbroughttwopersonsinmuffled
facesathisshopandtheirnameswereasserted/disclosedtohim
asA3andA5.Boththeseaccusedpersonsadmittedaboutthe
255
purchaseofsolderingironandsolderfromhisshopon13/5/1996.
Statement of the witness is also categorical that both these
accusedpersonswerebroughtbythepoliceinmuffledfacesathis
shopinapolicevehicle. Theirfaceswereunmuffled andthe
accusedpersonswereshowntothewitness. Hehadinformed
the police that the said two persons brought at his shop on
19/6/1996hadpurchasedthesolderingironandsolderfromhis
shop.Thenamesofthesetwoaccusedpersonsfindmentionin
thepointingout/identificationmemoEx.PW31/K.Thiswitness
hascategoricallyidentifiedhissignaturesonEx.PW31/Kwhich
hasnotbeenchallengedbytheaccusedpersons.Nosuggestion
wasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthatboththese
accusedpersonshadnotcomeathisshopon13/5/1996andhad
notpurchasedanysolderingironandsolderfromhisshopforRs.
35/Nomotivewasimputedtothiswitnesstofalselypleadthat
boththeseaccusedpersonswhosenamesweredisclosedasA3
andA5hadaccompaniedthepoliceathisshop.
256
350 Accused persons did not explain how and for what
purposetheyhappenedtopurchasesolderingironandsolderfrom
the shop of this witness. There is no denial by the accused
personsthatsolderingironEx.Z1wasnotrecoveredfromtheir
possessionorthatitwasneverpurchasedfromPW58Jitender
PalSingh.
351 Policewasnotawareabouttheshopofthewitness
priortothetwo accusedpersonsleadingthepoliceparty athis
shop.Onlyafterboththeseaccusedpersonsledthepoliceparty
totheshopofthiswitness,thepolicecametoknowthattheyhad
purchased the soldering iron and solder from his shop. The
existence of the shop at that specific place has not been
controvertedbytheaccusedpersons.Againpurchaseofsoldering
ironandsolderwireon13/5/1996fromtheshopofPW58Jitender
PalSinghisanotherincriminatingpieceofcircumstancetopoint
anaccusingfingeragainstA3andA5.
257
(33)HouseSearchofA9,A14andA15on3/6/1996.
352 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton3/6/1996PWInsp.
RajinderPrasadalongwithPWSIHarinderSinghhadgonetoJ&
KandwiththeSTFstaffhadsearchedthehouseofA9,A14and
A15.PW34SIHarinderSinghhastestifiedthatfromthehouse
ofA9onepassbookEx.PW34/A1wasseizedvideseizurememo
Ex.PW34/A. FromthehouseofA14,fourdocumentsEx.PW
34/C1toC4wereseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW34/C.From
the house of A15, 18 documents Ex. PW 34/P1 to P18 were
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW34/B.
353 A14 and A15 are already P.O. A9 has denied
recoveryofanysuchdocumentfromhishouse.Onperusalofthe
testimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessesonthisaspect,Iamofthis
viewthatprosecutionhasfailedtoproveifhousesearchofA9
was conducted on 3/6/1996 or any incriminating document was
recovered at his house. Nothing has come if any independent
258
publicwitnesswasjoinedatthetimeofhousesearchofA9on
3/6/1996.NothinghasbeenrevealedifanyfamilymemberofA9
waspresentthereinthehouseandifsowhatwashisrelationwith
A9. SeizurememoEx.PW34/Adoesnotdiscloseastofrom
wherethepassbookEx.PW34/A1wasrecovered.PW34didnot
testifyhowthisdocumentwasrelevantfortheinvestigationofthis
caseandwhatwasitsnexuswithA9.
354 Nootherwitnesswasexaminedonthisaspectbythe
prosecution. Even PW Insp. Rajinder Prasad in his deposition
beforethecourtdidnottestifyregardinganysuchrecoveryfrom
thehouseofA9.Sincethedocumentallegedlyrecoveredfromthe
house of A9 has not been connected with the commission of
offence in this case mere recovery of the passbook can't be
termedtobeanincriminatingcircumstanceagainstA9.
(34)ConfessionalStatementofA9:
355 Thenextcircumstancetoconnect A9toprovehis
259
complicity relied upon by the prosecution is that A9 made
confessional statement before PW100 Shri Bhagwan Dass, the
thenld.AddlCJMinCourtNo.4Jaipur.Pleaoftheld.Counselfor
A9isthatthisconfessionalstatementisofnorelevanceasitwas
notmadebyA9inthepresentcaseandconfessionalstatement
allegedlymadeinsomeothercasehasnorelevance.
356 OnperusalofthetestimonyofPW100ShriBhagwan
Dass, itstandsestablishedthattheconfessionalstatementEx.
PW100/AwasmadebyA9beforehim.Inhistestimonybefore
thecourt,PW100ShriBhagwanDasdeposedthaton17/7/1996
and19/7/1996,hewaspostedasAddlCJM,CourtNo.4,Jaipur
City.UndertheinstructionsofthenCJM,Jaipurherecordedthe
confessionalstatementofA9.On17/7/1996, A9wasproduced
beforehimincaseFIRNo.39/96,PSGandhiNagar,Jaipuru/s
307/427/120B IPC for recording his confessional statement.
Beforerecordinghisconfessionalstatement,hesatisfiedhimself
that A9 was making the statement absolutely freely and
260
voluntarily. HemadecertainqueriesfromA9andexplainedto
himthathewasnotboundtomakeanyconfessionalstatement
andifhemadeanysuchconfessionalstatement,itmightbeused
againsthim.Heput15questionstoA9tosatisfyhimselfthatA9
was willingto make the statementvoluntarily and therewas no
threat,fear,inducementorpromiseA9wasinformedthathewas
not bound to make any statement and his reply was recorded.
Afterexamininghim,he(PW100)feltthatsomemoretimeshould
begiventoA9tothinktomakeconfessionalstatement.Hesent
backA9toCentralJailandadjournedrecordingofthestatement
for19/7/1996.
357 Furtherdepositionofthewitnessisthaton19/7/1996,
heagainsatisfiedhimselfthatA9wasmakinghisstatementu/s
164Cr.P.Cvoluntarily.HequestionedA9andexplainedtohim
thathewasnotboundtomakestatementbeforehimandifhe
gave the statement, it might be used against him in evidence.
FromthereplyofA9,hewassatisfiedthatA9wasmakinghis
261
statement voluntarily, freely without any fear or threat. He
recorded the statement whatever was said before him in toto,
freely.Afterrecordingthestatement,hereadoverthestatement
and explained to A9. A9 accepted the same to be true and
correct.Hemadehisendorsementonthestatementrecordedu/s
164Cr.P.C.Ex.PW100/Awasthecertifiedcopyofthestatement
recordedbyhiminhishandwriting.
358 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.Defence
counselfortheaccusedpersons.Inthecrossexamination, the
witnessstatedthatA9producedbeforehimwasidentifiedbythe
police officer by whom he was arrested and lodged in the jail.
Delhipoliceneverapproachedhimforthecopyofthestatement
Ex.PW100/A.HewasnotawareifA9alongwithotheraccused
weredischargedin caseFIRNo.39/96PSGandhiNagar.The
witnessdeniedthesuggestionthatthestatementmadebyA9was
underduress.
359 OnscanningthestatementofPW100ShriBaghwan
262
Dassonoath,Ifindthatthestatementu/s164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW
100/A was made by A9 voluntarily, of his own free will. The
accusedattributednomotiveinthecrossexaminationeithertothis
witnessortoanypoliceofficerforforcinghimtomakestatement
u/s164Cr.P.Cunderduress.A9neverretractedtheconfession
madebyhimbeforethecourt.PW100 ShriBaghwanDas was
JudicialOfficerandhadsatisfiedhimselftwicebeforerecordingthe
confessional statement that A9 was making the confessional
statementvoluntarily.Theconfessionalstatementwasrecordedby
PW100ShriBhagwanDasswhenhewaspostedasAddlCJMat
JaipurinRajasthanandwasnotconcernedaboutthependencyof
thepresentFIRagainstA9.Nomaterialdiscrepancieshavecome
in the cross examination of this witness to find out that the
statementmadebyA9wasunderduress.DelhiPolicewasnotin
pictureatthetimeofrecordingofthestatementoftheaccusedin
caseFIR No.39/96. Therewas noquestionofDelhi Policeto
have exerted any pressure upon A9 to make any confessional
263
statementregardingtheincidenthappenedinthiscase.Thereis
nothingonrecordtoinferifDelhiPolicehadevermetA9priorto
thatorhadremainedintouchwithRajasthanPolice.A9duringhis
presencebefore Ld.AddlCJMnevercomplainedaboutanyfear
or duress or coercion. I am satisfied that the confessional
statement Ex. PW 100/A made by A9 was perfectly voluntary
without any fear or duress. The ld. Judge had taken all
precautionstorecordthestatementoftheaccusedasrequiredu/s
164Cr.P.C.HebroughthomebyallpossiblemeansthatA9was
afreepersonandmayormaynotmakeanystatementwithoutany
prejudicetohiscase.A9wasgivensufficienttimetoreflect.A9
wassenttojudicialcustodybeforerecordinghisconfession. He
wasgivenfreeatmospheretoallayhisfear,suspicion(ifany).
360 In the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW
100/A A9 stated that they were in the business of carpets at
Kathmandu.He(Javed),hiselderJavedSenior,Latif(A7)usedto
do the business. They used to reside at Naya Bazar at
264
Kathmandu.InApril,1996,priortoId,hehadseenonebagand
oneattachi intheroomwheretheyusedtoreside. Therewas
'ammunition' (Barood) in the bag. In the attachi, there were
wirelessset,detonator, timepencil,andremotecontrol. Bilal
Beg,bossofJavedSeniorusedtoresideinPakistanandhehad
notseenhim.A9furtherstatedthaton29/4/1996onId,Zulfikar
@AyubcameatKathmandufromPakistan.He(A9)andLatif(A
7)hadreachedairporttoreceivehim.Bilal(A11)hadtoldLatif
(A7)thatthesaidboywaswearingpantofblackcolourandshirt
ofyellowcolour.Theybroughthimfromtheairport.Heinquired
fromZulfikarifheusedtoresideatPakistan.Onthat,Zulfikartold
himthathewasresidentofKashmirandhadgonetoPakistanfor
training.He(A9)showedhimthebagandattachiandinquired
fromhimastowhatwascontainedtherein.Zulfikartoldhimthat
theyweredetonator,timepencilandremotecontrol.He(A9)had
alreadyidentifiedthewirelessset.On6/5/1996twomorepersons
came from Pakistan and they also came at their room at
265
Kathmandu where they were staying. Latif (A7) had gone to
receivethematairport.ThesaidtwopersonshadaskedLatif(A7)
not to allow any other person to enter inside their room. A9
furtherstatedthaton8/5/1996JavedSenior,MehmoodKilley(A
6), Naza (A5), Riyaz Maula (A13) (since dead) came at
Kathmandu.HeandLatif(A7)usedtoworkwithJavedSenior.
th
JavedSeniorhadaskedhimon8 Mayitselfintheeveningtogo
toDelhiwiththebagcontaining'ammunition'andtwodetonators.
th
Thereafter,JavedSeniorsentNaza(A5)toDelhion10 Mayas
hewastoexecutesettingforblastatDelhi.Thereafter,he,Javed
Senior, Mehmood Killey (A6), Riaz Maula (A13) started from
th th
KathmandutoDelhiintheeveningof11 May.However,on12
Mayinthemorningonreachingattheborder,hestayedthereand
th
theremainingpersonsleft. On 13 May from border,heleft
th
forDelhiandreachedDelhiinthemorningof14 May.He
hadbeeninstructedbyJavedSeniorandNaza(A5)toleavethe
bagattheresidenceofWazidKasai,friendofNaza(A5).A9
266
furtherconfessedthathereachedattheresidenceofWazidKasai.
There WazidKasaiorNazadidnotmeethim.Someladiesand
childrenwerepresentthere.Hetoldthemtohandoverthesaid
bagtoNaza(A5).Hefurtherstatedthathetoldtheladiesthat
therewereclothes ofNaza(A5)inthesaidbag.Hestayedat
th th
Delhi on 14 May and returned to Kathmandu on 15 May. He
th
reached at kathmandu on 17 May. Prior to his reaching at
Kathmandu,JavedSenior,MehmoodKilley(A6),RiazMaula(A
13)hadreachedatKathmandu.Heinquiredfromthemastowhat
had happened to their work at Delhi. They told him that Riaz
Mauza was the only trained mechanic (some portion of the
th
sentenceinHindiisnotdecipherable). On19 May,A6&A13
camebacktoDelhi.Whenhe(A9)inquiredfromJavedSenioras
towhytheyhadgonebacktoDelhi,heinformedhimthatthework
couldnotbedoneduetosomedefect.A9furtherstatedthathe
cametoknownamesoftwopersonswhohadcomefromPakistan
on 6/5/1996 subsequently as Rashid and Assadulla (A10). A9
267
further gave details about his subsequent movements after
20/5/1996toPatnaalongwithRashid,Zulfikar&Assadulla(A10)
andelaborated circumstancesinwhichhealongwithassociates
wasarrestedatAhmadabad.Hefurtherstatedthathehadonly
deliveredthebagatDelhi.Hewasinformedregardingtheblastby
JavedSeniorandhehadmadeplanforblastattheinstigationof
BilalBeg.A9wasnothavinganyknowledgeofanyotherblast.
361 This confessionmadebyA9wasneverchallenged
by him in any proceedings. Perusal of the contents of this
confessionestablishthatA9wasawareaboutthebombblastat
Delhiandhadhelpedthecoaccusedpersonsinexecutingtheir
planbydeliveringbagcontaining'ammunitions'attheresidenceof
WazidKasai,friendofaccusedNaza(A5)atDelhi.
362 The confession statement made by the A9 is a
materialpieceofcircumstancetoconnecthimwiththecommission
oftheoffence.
363 Idonotsubscribetothecontentionoftheld.Counsel
268
fortheaccusedthattheconfessionstatementmadebyA9isnot
relevant.
364 This confessional statement made by A9 inspires
confidenceasitisinconsonancewiththecaseoftheprosecution.
A9unearthedtheconspiracyhatchedatthebehestofA11and
gavevividdescriptionastohowtheconspiracywasexecuted.A9
in the confessional statement Ex. PW 100/A also implicated
himselfconfessingthathehaddeliveredtheammunitionsatthe
residence of Wazid Kasai, friend of A5 at Delhi on 14/5/1996.
FromtheconfessionalstatementofA9Delhipolicesucceededin
tracing Wazid Kasai at Delhi. Wazid Kasai was joined in the
investigationandhisrelationwasalsojoinedintheinvestigation
andtheirstatementswererecordedinthiscase.Prosecutioneven
daredtoexaminebothofthemasPW13andPW14.Itisaltogether
different that both these witnesses did not opt to support the
prosecutionandbothdeniedtohaveanyacquaintancewithA9.
HadtherebeennomentionofWazidintheconfessionalstatement
269
ofA9,theresidentialaddressofPW13Wazid could nothave
cometotheknowledgeofDelhipolice.ApparentlyPW13Wazid
hasnotoptedtosupporttheprosecutionforulteriorpurposesas
hewastoldtobefriendofA5. A9whileincustodyatJaipuris
not imagined to fabricate a false story presented by him in his
confessionalstatement.
365 Contents of the confessional statement prove
beyond doubt that A9 was aware of the conspiracy of co
accused persons to cause bomb blast at Delhi.He was also
awareastowhowasthepersonswhoweretoexecutetheplan.
NotonlyA9hadtheknowledgeofconspiracyforbombblastat
LajpatNagarheparticipatedinthecommissionoftheincident
and facilitated delivery of ammunition while travelling from
Kathmandu to Delhi and on instructions of his coaccused
persons he delivered the 'ammunitions' at the residence of
PW13Wazid.
366 I do not subscribe to the contention of the ld.
270
defencecounselfortheaccusedthattheconfessionalstatement
madebyA9inanothercaseFIRNo.39/96isofnorelevance
asitwasnotmadeinthepresentcase.Nolawonthisaspect
has been cited by the ld. defence counsel. Confessional
statementmadebyA9inanothercasemuchawayfromDelhi
rather inspires confidence as he was under no pressure /
influenceofDelhipolicetomakeconfessionofthefactsstated
therein.
367 Confessional statement Ex. PW 100/A is thus an
incriminating piece of circumstance against A9 and against
otheraccusedpersonsnamedbyhiminit.
(35)StayofA9atSatyamHotel,Delhi
368 Anothercircumstancerelieduponbytheprosecution
toconnectA9withthecommissionoftheoffenceisthathestayed
atSatyamHotel,Delhion14/5/1996.
369 To establish the circumstance, prosecution has
271
examinedPW46RajanArorawhotestifiedthathewasrunninga
guest house under the name and style of Satyam Hotel in
Paharganj.On14/5/1996A9camealongwithoneNepalboyand
stayedinhishotelforonedayandcheckedoutnextdaybefore
noon.TheaccusedandthesaidNepalboyoccupiedeitherRoom
No.104or106onfirstfloor.ThewitnessidentifiedA9correctly,
presentbeforethecourt,tobethepersonwhohadstayedathis
hotelon14/5/1996.
370 In the crossexamination, PW46 Ranjan Arora
admittedthatentriesusedtobemadeintheregisterasandwhen
some one came to stay at the hotel. The witness denied the
suggestionthatA9nevervisitedorstayedinhishotelorthathe
had given false statement at the instance of the police. The
witnesshavefairlyadmittedthatA9hadnotcheckedinthehotel
inhispresence.However,PW46assertedthathehadseenhim
nextdaywhenA9checkedoutfromthehotelandpaidthebill.
Thewitnessvolunteeredtoaddthatthebillamountwastakenby
272
him.Hefairlyadmittedthathehadnotbroughtthereceiptbookas
thesamewasnotsummonedfromhim.
371 OveralltestimonyofthisindependentwitnessPW46
Ranjan Arora reveals that no material contradictions have been
elicited in his cross examination to discard his testimony. No
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthatA
9waspresentatanyotherspecificplaceon14/5/1996.Noulterior
motive was imputed to this witness in the cross examination to
falselyallegepresenceofA9athishotelon14/5/1996.Nothing
hascomeonrecordtoshowifPW46washaving anyenimical
termswithA9tofalselyidentifyhimtohavebeenstayedathis
hotel on 14/5/1996. This witness gave cogent reasons to
identifytheaccusedashehimselfhadtakenthebillamountfrom
A9.
372 Merenoncollectionoftherelevantregistershowing
stayofA9inthehotelbytheIOisnotfataltothecaseofthe
prosecution. Theaccuseddidnotdaretosummonanyrelevant
273
recordfromthiswitnesstoputinthecrossexaminationtofalsify
his plea. This public witness had no concern with the case in
question.Heisnotimagined tomakefalsedepositiontofalsely
implicateA9withwhomhehadnoprioracquaintance.Accused
didnotexamineanywitnessindefencetoestablishhispresence
atsomeotherplaceon14/5/1996.
373 PW101 Insp. Paras Nath supported the prosecution
onthisaspectandtestifiedthaton26/7/1996A9andA10were
broughttoDelhibyInsp.PooranSinghandInsp.RajinderGautam
onthebasisofproductionwarrants.BothA99andA10 made
theirdisclosurestatementsEx.PW18/Fand101/A.Thiswitness
further stated that on 4/8/1996, A9 pointed out Satyam Hotel,
5135,MainBazar,PaharGanj,NewDelhi, RoomNo.106and
informed that on 14/5/1996 he along with his associate Sonu
Nepalihadstayedinthesaidroomandhadkepttheexplosivebag
withthemthereandintheevening,thesaidbagwashandedover
toWazid.PointingoutmemoEx.PW24/Bwaspreparedinthis
274
regard. A9 was also identified by Rajan Arora sitting at the
reception counter to whom the roomrent was paid and PW46
RajanArorahadalsosignedpointingoutmemoEx.PW24/B.
374 AllthesefactsassertedbyPW101Insp.ParasNath
remained unchallenged and un controverted in the cross
examination.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationthaton4/8/1996,A9hadnotledthepolicepartyat
SatyamHotelorthatA9wasnotidentifiedbyPWRajanAroroa
sitting at the reception and disclosing that A9 had stayed on
14/5/1996inRoomNo.106athishotel.
375 PW24SIHariSinghalsodeposedthaton4/8/1996,A
9hadtakenthemtoSatyamHotelwheretheentryregisterwas
checked. The photocopy of the entry was taken by Insp.
Parasnath. This fact has remained unchallenged in the cross
examinationofthiswitness.(Thephotocopyoftheentryinthe
registerisonrecordbutthesamehasnotbeengotexhibitedby
theprosecution.)
275
376 ThefactumofA9tohavestayedinRoomNo.106
SatyamHotel,PaharGanjon14/5/1996wasnotintheknowledge
ofthepolicepriortothedisclosurestatementmadebyA9.Itwas
A9whohadledthepolicepartytoSatyamHotelandhadpointed
outRoomNo.106wherehehadstayedthereon14/5/1996along
with his associate Sonu Nepali. This discovery of material fact
whichwashithertounknowntotheprosecutionisquiterelevantto
proveandcorroboratetheversiongivenbyPW46RajanArora.It
washeavilyforA9toexplainthepurposeofhisvisittoDelhion
14/5/1996.A9howeverfailedtodisclosethepurposeofhisvisit
andstayatSatyamHotelon14/5/1996.A9hasnotexplainedas
towherehehadleftaftercheckingoutfromSatyamHotelonthe
nextdate.ThissilenceonthepartofA9inputtinguphisstayon
14/5/1996showshisunnaturalconductandisamaterialpieceof
incriminatingcircumstanceagainsthim.
377 StayofA9atSatyamHotel,Delhion14/5/1996finds
mentioninhisconfessionalstatementalso.
276
378 StayofSatyamHotelatDelhifullyprovesthatthe
contentsofconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/Aaretrue.Stayof
A9atDelhion14/5/1996pointsanaccusingfingerathim.
(36)TravelfromKathmandutoDelhiA5
379 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/Brecordedon
17/6/1996 A5 informed the police that on 10/5/1996 he had
travelledtoDelhiby RoyalNepalAirlinesinthenameofMirza
NissarHussaininconnectionwithprocuringarticlesforbombblast
and had met A3. PW101 Insp. Paras Nath has proved the
recordingofthedisclosurestatementofA5.
380 Onthebasisof disclosurestatementofA5,Delhi
police came to know that A5 had travelled to India from
Kathmanduon10/5/1996.TestimonyofPW67KesarSinghisvery
relevant on this aspect. PW67 Kesar Singh was working as
AssistantinRoyalNepalAirlines.Hetestifiedthaton9/7/1996,IO
ofthiscasehadmethiminhisofficeandhehadhandedover
277
photocopy of passenger list dated 10/5/1996 in respect of flight
fromKathmandutoIndiaofRoyal Nepal Airlines.Thesaidlist
containedthenameofHussainatpageno.3.Photocopyofthe
saidlistismark67/A.
381 In the crossexamination, no suggestion was put to
thiswitnessbyA5thathedidnottravelinthenameofHussainon
10/5/1996fromKathmandutoDelhiorthatthenameappearingat
pageno.3ofthelistmark67/Adidnotpertaintohim.Thisofficial
witnesshasnoulteriormotivetoprepareforgedlistmark67/Ato
depict the name of A5 in the passenger list. It thus stands
established that A5 travelled from Kathmandu to Delhi on
10/5/1996.A5failedtoexplainthepurposeofhisvisittoDelhi.
He also failed to state as to when he left Delhi and for what
durationhestayedatDelhiandifsowhere. FactumofA5to
havetravelledfromKathmandutoDelhion10/5/1996wasnotin
the knowledge of the investigating agencies and they came to
knowaboutthisfactonlyinpursuanceofthedisclosurestatement
278
Ex.PW23/Bmadebytheaccusedwhichwassubstantiatedbythe
deposition of PW67 Kesar Singh. Again this is one of the
incriminatingcircumstancepointinganaccusingfingeragainstA5.
CFSLReports:
(37)
382 Thearmsandammunitionsrecoveredfromthe
accusedpersonsweresenttoCFSLduringinvestigationof
thecase.
383 PW86 Sh. Roop Singh, the then Principal
ScientificOfficer,CBI,NewDelhiinhisdepositionbefore
thecourtprovedthereportsadmissibleu/s293CrPCEx.
PW86/A,Ex.PW86/BandEx.PW86/Cregardingpullandas
received by him on 12.6.1996.. He deposed that on
12.6.96hehadreceivedfoursealedpullandasofthiscase
from ACP, Special Branch, Delhi in respect of FIR No.
517/96PSLajpatNagar.Parcelsweresealedwiththeseal
of'PKB'.Thesealsontheparcelswereintactandtallied
279
withthespecimensealsreceivedinthiscase. Hefurther
deposedthatheconducteddetailedlaboratoryexamination
includingtestsfireandmicrochemicaltestsandsubmitted
hisreportEx.PW86/Adated26.6.96.
384 Witness further deposed that in other sealed
pullandssealedwiththesealofJS,hehadreceivedfive
parcels. Their seals were intact and tallied with the
specimen seal. After conducting detailed laboratory
examination,hesubmittedhisdetailedreportEx.PW86/B.
385 Anothersealedparcelsealedwiththethethree
seals of JS was received on 27.8.96. After conducting
detailed laboratory tests he submitted his detailed report
Ex.PW86/C.
386 PerusaloftheCFSLreportEx.PW86/Areveals
that parcel No. 1 contained one 7.62 mm Type 56I
280
AssaultRifle(MarkedW/1)withoutmagazinebearingserial
No. 15181373. Parcel No. 2 contained two magazines
(markedM1andM2)of7.62mmAssaultRifle. Parcel
No.3containedFiftynine7.6mmcartridgesofAssaultRifle
andparcelNo.4containedtworectangularshapedblack
putty type material slabs weighing 1kg70 gm
(approximately.).AssaultRiflemarkedW/1ofparcelno.1
was opined as 'FireArm' as defined under the Arms Act
andwasfoundinworkingorder.Twomagazines(marked
M/1andM/2)ofparcelno.2werefoundinworkingorder
and were opined parts of 7.62mm Assault Rifle (marked
W/1). Fiftynine 7.62mm cartridges of parcel no. 3 were
opined 'ammunition', as defined under the Arms Act and
were opined 'live' cartridges. These cartridges could be
loaded in and fired from 7.62mm Assault Rifle (marked
281
W/1).Thecontentsofparcelno.4wereopinedRDXbased
HighExplosiveandweretherefore'ExplosiveSubstance'as
definedunderExplosiveSubstanceAct.
387 IntheCFSLreportEx.PW86/Badmissibleu/s
293 CrPC one stick Grenade was opined Explosive
SubstanceasdefinedunderExplosiveSubstanceAct.
388 AsperCFSLreportEx.PW86/Cadmissibleu/s
293CrPC,twodefusedARGESHandGrenades(Marked
G/1andG/2)wereopinedasExplosiveSubstances. The
two metallic containers marked No. 1 and No. 2 were
opined to be the components of Improvised Explosive
Devices and were therefore 'Explosive Substances' as
definedintheExplosiveSubstanceAct.
389 Inthe crossexamination regarding his opinion
thewitnessadmittedthatreportEx.PW86/Cdidnotcontain
282
weight and volume of the contents tested. The witness,
however,voluntarilyaddedthatthesamemustbeentered
in the notesheet prepared during analysis. The witness
furtherclarifiedthatweatherhaseffectonthefirearmsand
explosivesoveraperiodoftime.However,headdedthat
there was not a major deterioration and it was only a
marginalextent.Hecouldnot tellwithoutlookingintohis
notesheetsiftheassaultriflewasrusted.Afterlookinginto
the note sheets and the file brought by him, the witness
furtherstatedthattheAssaultRiflewasnotrustyandwasa
properlycleanweapon.
390 Thiswitnessdeniedthesuggestionthathehad
givendesiredopinionattheinstanceofpolice.
391 Fromthedepositionofthiswitnesses,itstands
establishedthatthearmsandexplosivesexaminedbyhim
283
wereopined'arms','ammunitions'and'explosive'underthe
respectiveActs.Thisexpertwitnesshadnoulteriormotive
tosubmitfalsereports.
392 Prosecution further proved on record CFSL
reportEx.PW101/Badmissibleu/s293CrPC.Asperthis
reportEx.PW101/B,twoslabsofpaleyellowcolourputty
likesubstanceweighingabout1.325Kgcontainedinparcel
No.1wereopinedPETbasedHighExplosive.Inparcel
No. 2 five electronic devices were opined to be Timing
Devicesandwerefoundinworkingorder. Itwasfurther
opinedthatthehighexplosivecontainedinparcelNo.1and
fivetimingdevicescontainedinparcelNo.2couldbethe
componentsofImprovisedExplosiveDevices(IEDs)..The
IEDs were opined as 'Explosive Substances' as defined
undertheExplosiveSubstanceAct.
284
393 These articles mentioned in the CFSL Report
Ex.PW101/BwererecoveredattheinstanceofA2from
herresidence.
394 AsperCFSLreportEx.PW101/Cdated29.8.96
admissibleu/s293CrPC,RDXbasedHighExplosivewas
detectedinthecontentsof17parcelsmarked3to15and
17to30.Thedamagedmetallicpieces/partscontainedin
16parcelsmarkedNo.3to15and17to19wereopinedto
beofwhitecolourvehiclesdamagedduetoexplosion.
395 Inthesereports,variousarticlesrecoveredfrom
thespotweresentforCFSLexamination.
396 AsperCFSLreportExPW101/Dadmissibleu/s
293 CrPC, parcel No. 1 contained one unsealed metallic
numberplate(markedexbt.1)andparcelNo.2 contained
unsealedmetallicnumberplate(markedexbt2)wassentto
285
Finger Print & Ballistics Division for determination of its
number.AsperCFSLreportEx.PW101/DExbt.No.1no
number/alphabetwerereadablebeforeorafterdeciphering.
As per CFSL report Ex. PW101/D, Exbt. 2 was having
numberplateDL3CB1791beforeandafterdeciphering.
397 As per CFSL Report Ex. PW101/E, No
identifiable prints could be developed from the metallic
number plates marked Exbt. No.1 and 2 in spite of best
efforts.AsperCFSLreportEx.PW101/Fdated21.11.1996
admissible u/s 293 CrPC, it was opined that RDX based
HighExplosivesweredetectedinthecontentsofthetwo
parcels,markedIVcontainingonesmallshiningandtwisted
metallicpiecestatedtohavebeenrecoveredfromthebody
ofdeceasedMrsInderMohiniAhujaandmarkedNo.2i.e.
One twisted metallic sheet piece stated to have been
286
recovered from the body of deceased Rohit Ahuja. No
opinioncouldbegivenregardingoriginofthesetwometallic
piecesinthesaidparcels.
398 AsperCFSLReportEx.PW101/G,RDXbased
HighExplosivewasdetectedintheparcelNo.1,i.e.two
rectangularslabsofblackcolour'puttylikesubstance'.The
High Explosive was therefore opined to be Explosive
SubstanceundertheExplosiveSubstanceAct.Asperthis
report,theclockmechanismi.e.,one QuartztableClock
containedinparcelNo.2wasfoundinworkingorderand
could formacomponentofImprovisedExplosiveDevice
(IED).ArticlesmentionedinEx.PW101/Gwererecovered
from the possession of accused A3 from his house in
pursuanceofdisclosurestatementmadebyhim.
399 Prosecution further examined PW44 NB
287
Bardhan,Sr.ScientificOfficer,CFSL,whoprovedhisreport
Ex.PW44/AThiswitnesswasnotcrossexaminedbythe
accusedpersons.AsperthisreportExhibitNo.1,i.e.one
rectangularmetallicplate andExbibitNo.2, i.e.another
rectangularmetallicplatewerereceivedanddecomposition
product of High Explosive was detected on both two
metallicplates,marked1and2respectivelyInthereport
Ex.PW44/A.
400 FromtheCFSLreportsprovedabove,itstands
establishedthatRDXwasusedinthebombblastatCentral
Market, Lajpat Nagar. The above CFSL reports
substantiate the prosecution case that explosives were
usedincausingbombblastatLajpatNagaron21.5.1996.
Itfurtherprovesthatarticlesrecoveredfromthehousesof
A1, A2 and A3 in pursuance of their disclosure
288
statements were arms / ammunitions / explosives as
definedundertherelevantActs.
(38)
SpecimenHandwritingReportA1&A3:

401 Case of the prosecution is that during investigation
specimen handwriting of A1 and A3 was obtained by the IO
PW101ParasNath.PW91InspRamChanderalsotestifiedthat
during investigation specimen handwriting on 15 pages Ex.
PW91/A1to15ofA3wastakenbyPW101Insp.ParasNathin
his presence. It has further come on record that questioned
documentsandthespecimenhandwritingobtainedfromA1and
A3 were sent to CFSL for comparison. Prosecution also
examined PW94 Deepa Verma who proved CFSL report Ex.
PW94/Apreparedbyher.
402 IhavegonethroughthisreportEx.PW94/AandIfind
thatasperthisreport,redenclosedhandwritingmarkedQ1on
slipdatedNil;writingsondifferentsheetsofpockettelephonediary
289
markedQ2,Q2/1,Q3,W3/1,Q4,Q5,Q5/1,Q5/2,Q6,Q6/1,Q7,
Q8,Q8/1,Q9,Q9/1,Q10,Q101,Q11,Q12,Q12/1,Q13,toQ17,
Q17/1,Q17/2andQ17/3;writingsandsignaturepurportedtobeof
A3onpageNo.112ofVisitorsBookofGuptaHotelandTourist
Lodge, Gorakhpur, marked Q18 and Q18/1 dated 27.5.96 were
sent. Blue enclosed specimen writings and signatures of A1
markedS1toS11;S1/1toS11/1andS12toS16;andspecimen
writingsandsignaturesofA3,markedS17toS31andS17/1to
S31/1 were also sent for comparison. Expert witness PW94
DeepaVermawasoftheviewthatredenclosedwritingsstamped
and marked Q2 to Q10, Q10/1, Q12, Q16 and blue enclosed
writingsandsignaturessimilarlystampedandmarkedS1toS11,
S1/1toS11/1andS12toS16wereallwrittenbyoneandsame
person for the reasons mentioned therein. This expert witness
wasalsooftheviewthatforwantofstandardmaterialaskedfor,it
wasnotpossibletofixauthorshipofredenclosedwritingsstamped
andmarkedQ18andQ18/1incomparisonwiththeblueenclosed
290
writingssimilarlystampedmarkedS17toS31andS17/1toS31/1.
403 Fromthestatementofthisexpertwitness,itreveals
thatnofindingswererecordedbyherregardingtheauthorshipof
thewritingsmarkedQ1onthesliprecoveredfromA1tobein
handwriting of A1. Slip recovered from A1 was pertaining to
telephonenumbersofNewsagencies.Sothisexpertwitnesshas
failed to state if the telephone numbers mentioned in the slip
allegedlyrecoveredfromA1wereinthehandwritingofA1.
404 Similarly,theprosecutionfailedtoproveifhandwriting
onthevisitorsbookatSl.No.112ofGuptaHotel&TouristLodge,
Gorakhpur dated 27.5.96 was in the handwriting of A3. Hand
writingofA1ontheotherwritingsondifferentsheetsofpocket
telephonediaryhavebeenopinedtobehiswritings. However,
prosecutionhasfailedtoestablishhowthecontentsoftelephone
diary which have been found in handwriting of A1 are
incriminating piece of evidence and how they are relevant to
connectA1withthecommissionoftheincident.
291
405 No evidence was collected by the police during
investigationas to whom thecontents ofin the telephone diary
belonged.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifthetelephone
numbers recorded in the telephone diary in the writing of A1
pertain to the accused apprehended in this case or those who
have been declared proclaimed offenders. No evidence was
collectedbythepoliceifA1hadmadeany telephonetothese
personsonthetelephonenumbersmentionedinthediaryatany
timeandifshowonwhatdateandforwhatpurpose.
406 Nomuchreliancecanbeplacedonthereportofthis
expert witness as during investigation no permission was taken
fromtheconcernedLd.MetropolitanMagistratetoseekspecimen
handwritingofA1andA3. Nosuchhandwritingandsignatures
wereobtainedbytheIObeforetheLd.MetropolitanMagistrate.
No independent public witness was joined atthe timeobtaining
specimenhandwritingandsignaturesofA1andA3.
292
(39)UseofCar:
407 On perusal of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution it stands established that car no. DL2CF5854
belongingtoPW8AtulNathwasusedinthebombblastatLajpat
Nagart.
408 PW76ShriBishanKumarinhisdepositionbeforethe
courtstatedthatintheyear1996,hewasworkingassweeper.
ShriAtulNath,ownerofthecompanyinwhichhewasemployed,
usedtoresideatA51,EastNizamuddin.Inthemorninghours,he
usedtowashhiscars.Hefurtherdisclosedthaton17/5/1996at
about6.15amhereachedatthehouseofShriAtulNathtowash
hiscars.PW8AtulNathwashaving4/5carsincludingMaruti800
bearingNo.DL2CF5854.Hesawthatthecoverofthepetroltank
ofthesaidMaruticarwasmissing.Heinformedtheownerofthe
carandwentawayafterwashingthecars.Whenhereachedat
thehouseofPW8AtulNathonthenextdayhefoundthesaid
293
carmissing.Heinformedtheowneraboutthemissingofthesaid
car.Thiswitnesswasnotcrossexaminedbytheaccusedpersons.
Thetestimonyofthiswitnesshasremainedunchallenged.Thereis
nothing to disbelieve the positive evidence of this witness
regardingmissingofthecarandthecoverof petroltankofthe
Maruticarasdetailedbyhim.
409 PW8 Atul Nath has testified that he was registered
owner of car no. DL2CF5854. He was informed by Bishan
Kumar,whousedtocleanhiscaraboutthemissingofthesaidcar
infrontofhishouse.Hesearchedthecarandthereafterreported
thematteratPSHauzKhasvidehiscomplaintEx.PW8/A.Later
onhewasinformedbythepolicethathiscarwasusedintheblast
atLajpatNagar.Theyconfirmedfromhimabouttheregistration
numberofthecarandotherparticulars.Hefurtherdisclosedthat
hiscarwasstolenontheinterveningnightof17/1851996. He
furtherdisclosedthatpriortothatPWBishanKumarhadtoldhim
thatthecoverofthepetroltankwasmissing.Thewitnessfurther
294
disclosedthatduringinvestigation,hehadidentifiedthestepneyof
thecaron17/6/1996.OnseeingthestepneyofcarEx.P1,the
witnessstatedthatthetyreExP1belongedtohim. Thesefacts
assertedbythewitnesshaveremainedunchallengedinthecross
examination. The testimony of this witness establishes beyond
doubtthatthecarbearingno.DL2CF5854wasbelongingtohim
andthatwasstolenontheinterveningnightof17/1851996and
that subsequently tyre/stepney Ex. P1 belonging to his car was
identifiedbyhim.
410 StatementofPW8AtulNathhasbeencorroboratedby
PW27 W.Ct.Meena who deposed that on 18/5/1996, she was
postedinPCRwhenaninformationwasreceivedontelephoneat
about12.11pmfromAtulNathofA51,NizamuddinEast,New
Delhiabouttheftofhiscar.ThisinformationwasrecordedatPS
HazratNizamuddinvideDDNo.27A.Thiswitnesswasalsonot
crossexamined.
411 PW28SIRajbeerSinghpostedatPSNizamuddinon
295
18/5/1996 statedthatonreceiptofinformationaboutthetheftof
thecar,hevisitedthespot,tookthecomplaintEx.PW8/Aofthe
complainantandgotthecaseregistered.Heprepared siteplan
Ex. PW 28/B. He recorded statements of the concerned
witnesses.Effortsweremadetotracethecarbutthatcouldnot
betraced.
412 After the explosion on 21/5/1996, police contacted
transportofficeandcollecteddetailparticularsofthecarusedin
theblast.PW101Insp.ParasNathmovedanapplicationinthis
regard which is Ex. PW 79/D. As per record, this car was
registeredinthenameofM/s.DelhiSafeDepositCompany.Its
enginenumberwas923225andchasisnumberwas632905. It
wasMaruti800car.PW79RandhirSinghprovedsalecertificate
Ex.PW79/AandcomputerizedregistrationformEx.PW79/Cand
pollutioncertificateEx.PW79/D.
413 Further case of the prosecution is that fake car no.
1895identifiedbyPW61sumitKumarsubsequentlywasusedat
296
the time of explosion. Accused did not prove if there was any
MaruticarwithnumberDL4C1895inexistenceandwhowasits
registeredowner.
414 From the above statements of the prosecution
witnesses it stand established that car bearing no. DL2CF
5854belonged toPW8AtulNath and itwasstolenonthe
interveningnightof17/1851996anditwasthecarwhichwas
usedintheexplosion.
(40)ArrestofA9:
415 A9 was arrested along with A10 and two others
referredaboveon1/6/1996nearRupalicinema,Ahmadabad.A9
hasalsobeenacquittedalongwithA10andothersfacingtrialin
SCNo.220/98and89/08.ProsecutionfailedtoconnectA9along
withothersthereinforthecommissionoftheoffencepunishable
u/s120BIPCetcinthatcase.
416 SofarasarrestofA9on1/6/1996atAhmadabadis
297
concerned, the court at Ahmadabad in the said cases found
enough evidence of the prosecution therein to prove that on
24/5/1996 four persons who were shown to be arrested on
1/6/1996subsequentlyhadstayedatAnukulHotelon25/5/1996.
ThereaccusedRashidhadmadeanentryatS.no.4310 inthe
registerofthehotelandtheprosecution examinedPW99Insp.
B.M.Rajvanshitoprovethesaidentry.A9didnotdenyhisarrest
bythepoliceofAhmadabadinthesaidcase. A9didnotclaim
himself to be present at any other place during the intervening
periodof24/5/1996and1/6/1996.Hedidnotputanysuggestion
to the prosecution witnesses PW98 and PW99 if he was not
arrestedon1/6/1996orthatonthatdatehewaspresentatsome
other place. No incriminating material was recovered from the
possession of A9 also connecting him with the commission of
offenceofthiscase.However,A9failedtoshowastowhatwas
thepurposeofhisvisittoAhmadabadandwhyhealongwithhis
associates had stayed on 24/5/1996 at Anukul hotel at
298
Ahmadabad.A9toshowhisinnocencewasexpectedtoexplain
astohowandforwhatpurpose,hehadcometoAhmadabad.A9
didnotexplainallthesefactsinhisstatementrecordedu/s313
Cr.P.C. PresenceofA9insuspiciouscircumstance inbetween
24/5/1996 to 1/6/1996 at Ahmadabad is an incriminating
circumstanceagainsthim.
417 The prosecution has collected other evidence
against A9 showing his involvement in the commission of the
offence. The prosecution has proved on record confessional
statement of A9 in which he confessed about the delivery of
explosives to be used in the present case at the residence of
WazidKasaitobehandedovertocoaccusedNaza(A5). The
prosecution has further proved the circumstance of his stay at
SatyamHotelon14/5/1996atDelhi. Theprosecutionhasthus
proved overt act on the part of A9 pointing an accusing finger
againsthim. PresenceofaccusedatAhmadabadthusbecomes
anincriminatingpieceofcircumstanceagainsthim. Delhipolice
299
was not aware about the involvement of A9 in the incident at
Delhi.Onlyongettinginformationabouthisconfessionalstatement
made before PW100 Shri Bhagwan Dass, Delhi police arrested
himinthiscase.
ArrestofA10:
(41)
418 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA10wasarrestedon
1/6/1996alongwithRashidAhmed,A9andMaqboolZuber at
RupaliCinema,Ahmadabad.Theyallwereinterrogatedandtheir
disclosurestatementswererecorded. CasevideFIRNo.12/96
u/s120B/121/122IPCetcwasgotregisteredatDetectionofCrime
Branch,AhmadabadCity(DCB)PoliceStation.
419 ProsecutionexaminedPW98Shri B.R.Patil thethen
DSP, ATS, Ahmedabad who in his testimony before the court
statedthatinMay,1996hehadreceivedoneTPmessagefrom
DGPGujrat,State,Ahmadabad.Theinformationwasthatone
person namely Asudullah (A10) along with one Rashid had
300
crossedborderatNepalandhadenteredintoIndiaandwouldgo
toAhmadabad,GujratforexplosioninAhmadabad.OnthatPW99
Insp. Rajvanshi along with his team started searching the said
persons.
420 PW99Insp.B.M.Rajvanshi,thethenInchargeofUnit
2inAntiTerroristSquadAhmadabad(Gujrat) deposedthaton
gettinginformationaboutthepersonsmentionedinTPmessage,
among various other places, one guest house namely Anukul
Guest House was checked on 25/6/1996 by the team of SI
Wagela.Theyfoundoneentryinthesaidregisterofthehotelin
whichfourpersonshadcomeinthathotelon24/6/1996andhad
leftthehotelon25/6/1996.AftergettingdetailfromSIWagela,he
himselfwentandsawtheregister. NameofRashidwasfound
mentioned therein. Thereafter, they searched the said four
suspiciouspersons.Whentheywereinprocessofsearchinthe
area of Khanpur side at noon time, they found four suspicious
personsnearRupaliCinema.Theywerestoppedandpreliminary
301
inquiriesweremadefromthemwhichwerenotfoundsatisfactory.
TheywerebroughttotheofficeofATS.Theywerehavingsome
suspiciousmaterialslikeadigitaldiaryetcandsomesuspicious
literaturesetc. Hemade a'panchnama'forthosematerialand
seizedthearticlesfromthepossessionofthesaidfourpersons.
HearrestedthesepersonsnamedA9,A10,RashidandMaqbool
Bhatt. He lodged complaint against them in the DCB, Police
Station, Ahmadabad City in FIR / ICR 12/96, u/s 120B / 121/
121A/122IPCetc.
421 PW 98 B.R.Patil took over the investigation on
2/6/1996. He interrogated the said four persons. During the
courseofinvestigationA10disclosedabouthisassociationwith
coaccused Bilal Beg (since P.O), Chairman of Jammu and
KashmirIslamikFront(JKIF)andothers.Theyalsodisclosedthat
theywereassignedtheworktostopelectionsinKashmir.Healso
disclosed his involvement in Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case. He
preparedthedisclosurestatementofA10whichisEx.PW99/A.
302
422 PW98 B.R.Patil proved the photocopy of the rukka
markEx.PW98/A;PhotocopyofthepanchnamamarkPW91/C;
PhotocopyofdecodedlanguageofthedigitaldiaryasgivenbyA
10 as mark PW 91/A. All the documents mark PW 98/A, mark
PW91/C and mark PW91/A were in Gujrati Language. The
translateddocumentofthesamearemarkPW98/A(T);markPW
91/C(T)andmarkPW91/A(T)respectively.Thephotocopyofa
booktitledas'ATaleofExtortion'ismarkPW98/B.Thephotocopy
of the currency notes of Nepal and Bangladesh collectively are
markPW98/CandPW98/D.ThephotocopyofbillismarkPW
98/E. Thephotocopiesofallthesearticleswerehandedoverto
DelhiPolice.
423 Boththesewitnesseswerecrossexaminedatlength
bytheld.defencecounselfortheaccusedpersons.Inthecross
examination PW98 Shri B.R.Patil admitted that he did not seek
permission of the court before opening the sealed envelop
containingthedigitaldiary.Hedidnotavailservicesofexpertto
303
decodeordecipherthedigitaldiary. ThecontentsofmarkPW
91/Aie.,thedecodedversionofdigitaldiarywasnotwrittenbyhim
inthelanguagespokenbytheaccused.Thewitnessvolunteered
toaddthataccusedhadspokeninHindiwhichhehadtakendown
inGujarti.Hefurtheradmittedthatthedigitaldiarywasdecoded
byInsp.B.M.Rajvanshi.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthat
accusedwerearrestedon24/5/1996.
424 InthecrossexaminationPW99Insp. B.M.Rajvanshi
statedthathehadgonetothecontentsofthedigitaldiarywhenit
wasoperatedbyShriB.R.Patil,DSP.Hewasalsopresentthere.
ItwasoperatedbyhimunderthesupervisionofMr.Patil.A10had
madehisstatementinHindianditwastranslatedintoGujratiby
explainingthesametohim.
425 From the testimonies of the above two witnesses
PW98 Shri B.R. Patil and PW99 Insp. Rajvanshi it stands
establishedthatA10wasarrestedon1/6/1996bythepoliceof
ATSatAhmadabad.JudgmentoftheCourtofShri S.H.Vora,ld.
304
ASJAhmadabadinSCNo.220/98isveryrelevant.Thecertified
copyofthejudgmentwasfiledonrecordbytheld.counselforthe
accusedpersons. JudgmentwasagainstaccusedAbdulRashid,
Aiyub@Tanjamal@Zulfikar,Gyasuddinand Ismail Ahmedali
Gogha who were arrested and produced in the said case.
AccusedAbdulGaniwhowasfacingtrialinthiscaseatDelhicould
not be produced before the said court during trial. A10 was
described as'absent'accusedno.1inthesaidjudgment. On
goingthroughthesaidjudgment,itrevealsthattheld.ASJdidnot
believe the case of the prosecution there against the accused
personssentfortrialthereincludingA10. Thechargesagainst
the accused persons for commission of offence punishable u/s
120B/121/121A/122/123 of IPC were held not proved beyond
reasonabledoubtbythecourtandalltheaccusedpersonsinthe
saidcasewereorderedtobeacquitted.
426 Theld.ASJ inthesaidjudgmentobservedthat the
prosecutionthereinhadcometoknowaboutthepresenceoffour
305
accusedpersonsincludingA10arrestedon1/6/1996nearRupali
cinema on 24/5/1996. However the accused persons were
arrestedon1/6/1996.Duringtheinterveningperiod,therewasno
investigationastowhethertheaccusedstayedatAhmadabador
else where. There was no investigation about their activities
duringthesaidperiodandalsoabouttheirhideoutatAhmadabad
oranyotherplace.Thereisnothingonrecordtofindoutasto
whataccusedpersonsweredoingduringthatperiod.Therewas
no overt act by any of the accused in any manner whatsoever
except finding out telephone numbers in the diary and seeing
gatheredatPresidentHotelatBharuchoroccupyingoneroomat
AnukulHotel.Whateverrecoveredduringthepersonalsearchof
theaccusedincludingdigitaldiaryorcurrencynotesorsomeused
papersdidnotleadtoinferastowhatexactlytheaccusedwanted
todoandhowtheyintended todotheoffence.Thereislotof
lacunainoral evidence led by the prosecution andmostofthe
witnesses hadnotsupportedtheprosecutioncase.Theld.ASJ
306
opinedthattheprosecutionhadmiserablyfailedtoestablishthe
charges against all the accused about the offences mentioned
above.Theld.courtfurtherobservedthattheprosecutiontherein
failedtoprovetheTPmessageandalsothemannerinwhichthe
accusedpersonswereapprehended.
427 Fromthecontentsofthejudgmentreferredabove,it
howeverstandsestablishedthattheprosecutionwasabletoprove
stayofallthefouraccusedpersonsincludingA10arrestednear
RupalicinemaatAnukulHotel,Ahmadabad.
428 A10wasoneofthesaidfouraccusedpersonswho
had alsostayed atAnukul Hotel.The court, however, observed
thatmereevidenceofassemblingofaccusedatoneplacewasnot
materialtoconstituteanoffenceu/s121/121A/122/123IPC.The
truecriteriawasthepurposeorintentionforwhichtheaccused
gathered or assembled. The object of gathering must be to
attemptbyforceorviolenceorobjectofageneralpublicnature
thereby striking directly against the government authority. On
307
perusaloftheevidenceadducedbeforethecourtregardingstayof
theaccusedatAnukulHotelandregardingthearticlesrecovered
fromtheirpossession,theld.ASJobservedthattheevidencewas
mereevidenceofassociation.Suchevidenceofassociationwas
notsufficienttodrawaninferenceofconspiracyu/s120BIPC.In
casesofconspiracytheagreementbetweentheconspiratorcan't
bedirectlyprovedbutcanbeinferredfromtheestablishedfactsin
thecase.Theinvestigatingagencyvisitedvariousplacesasper
theinformationdecodedfromthedigitaldiarybuttheinvestigating
agency could not get any sought of evidence connecting the
accusedeitherwithcrimeorwitheachother.
429 ShriB.R.PatilappearingasPW26thereindeposed
thathecouldnotgetanyassistanceeitherfromtheADInterpole,
CBINewDelhiorfrompolicepersonnelofNepal.So,insumand
substance, the prosecution relied on 'some sort of association'
with the accused interse including the absent and absconding
accused. Thecourtfurtherobserved inthesaidcasethatthe
308
hatchingofconspiracyamongtheaccusedpersonswassoughtto
beprovedwiththehelpoftelephonenumbersfoundinthediaryof
the absentee accused no. 1 (A10) and accused no. 6 Ismail
Gogha therein. Such evidence might be an important clue for
investigation for finding out their relation and motive before
crossing of the border without valid travelling document. But in
ordertoprovetheconvictiononthechargetheprosecutionhasto
provetherequiredingredientsofoffenceaslaiddownu/s120B,
121,121A,122&123IPC.
430 AnotherjudgmentinSCNo.89/08dated8/9/2008is
alsorelevant.A10alongwithA9andA7facingtrialbeforethis
court were produced for trial before the court at Ahmadabad.
Theseaccusedpersonscouldnotearlierbeproducedatthetime
of trial of SC No. 220/98. Prosecution therein produced 16
witnesses against these accused persons and the court of Shri
G.R.Udhwani,ld.ASJcourtno.6,acquittedalltheseaccusedfor
thecommissionofoffencesforwhichtheywerechargedtherein.
309
The prosecution was however able to prove stay of the four
persons at Aukul Hotel on 24/5/1996 and entry made in the
registeratserialnumber4310dated25/5/1996.Theprosecution
thereinhoweverfailedtoproveothercircumstancestoconnectA
7,A9andA10withthecommissionoftheoffence.
431 On scanning the contents of the judgment qua the
apprehensionandarrestoftheA10 andalsogoingthroughthe
testimonies of PW 98 Shri B.R.Patil and PW99 Insp.
B.M.Rajvanshi before this court, it stands established that A10
along with his associates was apprehended by the police of
Ahmadabadon1/6/1996.Theprosecutionhasfurtherprovedthat
A10 along with his associates had stayed on 24.5.1996 /
25.5.1996 at Anukul Hotel , Ahmadabad. It further stands
established that some articles including digital diary were
recoveredfromA10atthetimeofhisarrest.
432 Allthesefactorsweretakenintoconsiderationbythe
ld. courts at Ahmadabad in their judgments and nothing
310
incriminatingon thatcountwas foundagainstA10.Evenifthe
factsprovedbytheprosecutionthereinregardingstayofA10at
AnukulHotelwithhisassociatesistakenintoconsideration,itfails
toconnecthimwiththecommissionoftheoffenceinthiscase.The
contentsofthedigitaldiaryrecoveredfromthepossessionofA10
werenotconsideredincriminating.Ld.SPPhasfailedtoshowthat
thecontentsofthedigitaldiaryarematerialtoinferinvolvementof
A10inthecommissionoftheoffenceorhisassociationwiththe
coaccusedpersons.Noovertacthasbeenattributedbyanyof
theprosecutionwitnessesagainstA10.AfterhisarrestbyDelhi
Policenothingincriminatingwasrecoveredfromthepossessionof
A10 or at his instance. Even at the time of his arrest at
Ahmadabad,A10wasnotfoundinpossessionofanyexplosive
materialorlikeobjectionableobject.PoliceofAhmadabadfailed
torecoveranyincriminatingmaterialattheinstanceofA10during
hisdetentionperiodthere.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowif
A10 hatched criminal conspiracy to commit the offence in the
311
presentcase.ThereisnoevidenceonrecordtoshowifA10had
anyconversationwiththecoaccusedpersonsfacingtrialbefore
this court or that he had rendered any assistance to them in
fulfillingtheirobject.TheparticipationofA10inthecommissionof
offencehasnotbeenallegedorproved.Nothingisonrecordto
showthatifA10remainedinconstanttouchwiththecoaccused
orthathewasawareoftheconspiracyofthecoaccusedpersons
tocommitthecrime.MereapprehensionofA10on1/6/1996and
hisstayatAnukulHotelwithoutanyfurtherincriminatingevidence
is not enough to connect him with the commission of offence
particularly when he has already been acquitted in the case
registeredagainsthimatAhmadabad. NameofA10does find
mention in the confessional statement of A9. But he does not
assign any role to A10 for the incident in Delhi. After the
accused was brought to Delhi he was interrogated and his
disclosure statement Ex. PW 18/F was recorded. However,
nothing was recovered or discovered in pursuance of the
312
disclosurestatementofA10.
433 PW101Insp.ParasNathalsodidnottestifyifafterhis
arrestA10gotrecoveredanyincriminatingevidencetoestablish
hisinvolvementinthecommissionoftheoffence. Theevidence
led by the prosecution against A10 for hatching conspiracy is
highlyscantyandisnotenoughtoprovehisguilt.Thereisgreat
practical difficulty to fix up the premise that A10 shared any
intentionwithcoaccusedpersonstocausebombblastatDelhi.
Mereassociationwithoneoftheconspiratorsorevenknowledge
ofconspiracyisnotenough.StateVs.Nalini(1999)5SCC253.
(42)SANCTION:
434 Prosecution examined PW102 C V Verma, Dy.
Secretary(Home),whohasprovedthesanctionu/s196CrPCin
case FIR No. 517/96 u/s 120B/122/124 IPC, PS Lajpat Nagar
againstaccusedpersons. Hefurthertestifiedthat thefilewas
submitted before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor through
313
PrincipalSecretary(Home)andtheorderinthatrespectsignedby
theHon'bleLieutenantGovernorisdated18.2.1997.Onthebasis
oftheorder,sanctiondated20.2.97waspreparedandsignedby
him. The witness further testified that the sanction was also
granted u/s 7 of the Explosive Substance Act which is Ex.
PW102/A.ThefilecollectivelyisEx.PW102/B.
435 Duringthecourseofargumentsld.DefenceCounsel
fortheaccusedpersonsdidnotchallengethesanctiongrantedby
theHon'bleLieutenantGovernor.Noargumentswereaddressed
onbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsthatthesanctiongrantedbythe
Hon'ble L.G. was notin accordance with the law or thatit was
mechanicalinnature.Soinmyview,theprosecutionhasproved
therequiredsanctionEx.PW102/Agrantedu/s196CrPCandu/s
7oftheExplosiveSubstanceAct.
(43)RecoveriesattheinstanceofA5.A6&A7on27.6.96at

SriNagar:
314
436 Caseoftheprosecutionisthatinpursuanceoftheir
disclosure statements, A5, A6 and A7 led the police team to
Srinagarandgotrecoveredarmsandexplosives.Theld.defence
counselhasdeniedanysuchrecoveriesattheinstanceofthese
accusedpersons.
437 PW101Insp.ParasNathdisclosedinhisevidence
thaton26/6/1996Insp.JagmalSinghalongwithhisteamtookA
5,A6andA7toSrinagarforfurtherrecoveriesandtheyreturned
backtoDelhion30/6/1996. Onthatday,hefurtherinterrogated
theseaccusedpersonsandrecordeddisclosurestatementsofA6
andA7whichareEx.PW16/JandEx.PW16/M.Thewitness
didnotelaboratethenamesofotherpoliceofficersintheteamof
Insp. Jagmal Singh, who had accompanied these accused
personstoSrinagar. Thiswitnessalsodidnotrevealastowhat
wasrecoveredattheinstanceoftheseaccusedpersons.
438 IthascomeonrecordthatInsp.JagmalSinghhas
sinceexpired.Thushecouldnotbeexaminedbytheprosecution
315
toprovetherecoveriesallegedlyeffectedattheinstanceofthese
accused persons. None of the witnesses examined by the
prosecution identified the handwriting and signatures of
Insp.JagmalSinghontheseizurememopreparedbyhim.
439 ProsecutionexaminedPW17SISanjayKumaronthis
aspect.HehadaccompaniedInsp.JagmalSinghalongwiththese
accusedpersonstoSrinagar. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,
hetestifiedthaton27/6/1996hejoinedtheinvestigationandalong
withInsp.JagmalSinghA5,A6andA7 reachedatSrinagar.
From the house of one accused whose name he did not
remember, some explosives weighing 500gms, two detonators
alongwithredwirealongwithsomearticlesdetailsofwhichhedid
notrememberwererecovered.Theexplosivesweresealedbythe
IOwiththesealofJSandseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW17/F.
Thewitness stated thatperhaps the name of theaccused from
whose house the recovery was effected was A7. The witness
furtherstatedthatthereafter,theyreachedatthehouseofaccused
316
A5 andfromthesearchofhishouse,inasteelboxtwoIEDs
wererecovered.Thedetailsoftherecoveredarticles,hedidnot
remember.HedidnotrememberifthetwoIEDsweresealedor
notbutthesameweretakenintopossessionvidememoEx.PW
17/G.ThereaftertheyreachedatthehouseofA6 andfromthe
searchofhishouse,fromacupboard/almirahfromawallonehand
grenadewasfound.IOsealedthehandgrenadeinaclothparcel
withthesealofJSandseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW17/H.
Thiswitnessclaimedthathecouldidentifytheaccusedpersons.
However,thewitnesspointedouttowardsaccusedpresentbefore
courtwearingcapandtoldhisnameasA6orA5.Theaccused
pointedoutbythewitnesshoweverdisclosedhisnameasMohd.
Naushad(A3).Thewitnesspointedouttowardsanotheraccused
personwearingspecsstatingthathewasA7.Thesaidperson
pointedbythewitness identifiedhisnameasA10.Thewitness
thentooktheexcusethathehadforgottenfacesoftheaccused
personsduetopassageoftime.
317
450Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPfor
theStateandwascrossexamined.Inthecrossexaminedbythe
ld.AddlPPfortheState,thiswitnessadmittedthatsearchofthe
houseof A6wastakenvidememoEx.PW17/J. Noquestion
wasputtothis witness astofromthehouseofwhichofthese
accused person which particular arms or ammunitions were
recovered.
451 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthat
they had left Delhi on 26/6/1996 for Srinagar by Air under the
supervision of Insp. Jagmal Singh. They did not take any
assistancefromthepoliceofJ&K.Accusedwerenotproduced
beforeanycourtinSrinagar.AssistancewastakenfromSTF.He
did not know under which road certificate, the two IEDs were
transportedfromSrinagartoDelhi.Hedidnotrememberwhowas
the STF officer who assisted them in various recoveries. No
separatepointingoutmemowaspreparedaboutanyoftheplace
pointed out by the accused persons. No member of the police
318
teamcametoDelhibyroad.HedidnotknowifIOhadgivenany
declaration to the concerned airlines regarding carrying some
explosives in the sealed pullandas. No other witness was
examinedbytheprosecutiononthisaspect.
452 FromthewaveringtestimonyofsolewitnessPW17
SISanjayKumarexaminedonthiscircumstance,Iamoftheview
thatprosecutionhasfailedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthat
all these accused persons got recovered the arms and
ammunitions/explosivesfromtheirrespectivehousesasclaimed
bytheprosecutionon27/6/1996.Nopublicwitnesswasjoinedat
the time of alleged recoveries. Nothing has come on record to
show if any family member of these accused persons were
residinginthehousesfromwheretherecoverieswereeffected.No
documenthasbeenplacedonrecordtoshowifthehousesfrom
where the recoveries were effected belonged to the accused
personsortheirfamilymembers.Noneofthesewerejoinedinthe
investigation.Insp.JagmalSinghcouldnotappearinthetrialdue
319
to his death. SI Sanjay Kumar failed to specify as to from the
houseofwhichaccusedwhichexplosiveetcwasrecovered.He
also failed to explain as to how the recovered arms and
ammunitionsweretransportedfromSrinagartoDelhiandinwhose
custodythesameremainedduringthesaidperiod.Hewascross
examined bytheld.AddlPP.Nospecificquestionswereputto
himastofromthehouseofwhichaccused,anyparticulararms
andammunitionswererecovered. Prosecutionhasfurtherfailed
toexplainastohowthesearmsandammunitionswererelevantin
the conspiracy to cause bomb blast. SI Sanjay Kumar has
admittedthatassistancewastakenfromSTF,J&Katthetimeof
recoveries. However, no such witness from STF has been
examined by the prosecution. Seizure memos Ex.PW17/F,
Ex.PW17/GandEx.PW17/HcontainsignatureofoneSIDavinder
SinghofJ&KPolice.PW17SISanjaydidnotutterawordin
hisdepositionifSIDevenderSinghhadjoinedthe investigation.
RatherhepleadedincrossthatnoassistancewastakenfromJ&
320
K Police. Moreover, prosecution did not bother to examine SI
DevenderSinghasawitnessduringtrial.Adverseinferenceisto
bedrawnagainsttheprosecutionforwithholdingthiswitness.
453 There is no evidence to prove if these accused
persons residing in Nepal had visited J & K and if so when.
Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowiftheseaccusedpersonswere
involvedinanycriminalcaseatJ&Ktohavepossessionofthese
explosives.Thereisnothingastofromwheretheseaccusedhad
arranged these explosives and if so when. These arms and
explosivesallegedlyrecoveredattheinstanceoftheseaccused
personshavenotbeenconnectedwiththeincidenttoinfertheir
conspiracy.
454 A1andA2hadalreadybeenarrestedlongbackby
Delhi Police who were alleged to have conspired with these
accusedpersonstocausebombblast.Aftercomingtoknowabout
thearrestofA1andA2atSrinagar,familymembers ofthese
accused persons are not expected to retain arms and
321
ammunitionsattheirhousesforitsrecoverybythepolice. DD
No.9 dated 26.6.96 on record has not been proved by the
prosecution.IttalksaboutpresenceofoneASIOmPrakashwith
Inspector Jajmal. ASI OmPrakashhasnotbeenexaminedby
prosecution.
455 Prosecution in my view has failed to prove the
recoveryofallthesearticlesattheinstanceof A5,A6andA7
fromtheirrespectivehouseson27/6/1996.
(44)TelephoneCallbyA5TOA7:
456 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton30.6.1996A5pointed
shopNo.3/32,Bhogal,Delhiandinformedthaton19.5.96inthe
evening he had made a telephone call to A7 at Kathmandu,
Nepal.PW101Insp.ParasNathdeposedthatpointingoutmemo
Ex.PW16/Kwaspreparedinthisconnection.(Wronglytypedas
PW16/A in the statement of PW101). Again, prosecution has
failedtoestablishthiscircumstancebeyonddoubt. Pointingout
322
memoEx.PW16/Kdoesnotcontainthenameofownerofshop
no.3/32Bhogal,DelhifromwhereallegedlyA5madetelephone
calltoA7atKathmandu,Nepal. PointingoutmemoEx.PW1/K
doesnotcontainsignaturesoftheownerofSTDboothwhichwas
allegedlypointedoutbyA5.Italsodoesnotcontaindetailsofthe
telephonenumbersastofromwhichtelephonenumbertowhich
telephonenumberA5madetelephonecalltoA7atKathmandu,
Nepal.Nosuchcalldetailsofthesaidcallmadeon19.5.96was
collectedbytheprosecution.MerepointingoutmemoEx.PW16/K
is not an incriminating piece of circumstance against A5. No
explanation has been given by IO in his disposition as to why
relevantcallrecordwasnotcollectedandwhywitnessfromthe
STD booth was not joined in the investigation or why his
statementwasnotrecord.TIPofA5wasnotgotconductedfrom
theSTDboothownertoshowifA5hadvisitedhisSTDboothto
make any telephone call or A5 had made any payment for
telephonecallmadeatKathmandu,Nepal.Nosuchrecordfrom
323
the STD booth was collected/seized by the IO for the reasons
knowntohim.
457 AnotherwitnesstothepointingoutmemoEx.PW16/K
PW16Insp.RajinderGautaminhis examinationinchiefdidnot
testifyifA5hadpointedoutshopno.3/32Bhogal,Delhi. Only
afterhewasgotdeclaredhostilebytheLd.Addl.PPfortheState
andwascrossexamined,headmittedthesuggestionoftheLd.
Addl. PP for the State that A5 had pointed out shop no. 3/32,
Bhogal andmemoEx.PW16/Kcontained hissignatures.This
witness failedtotestifyastowhowasowneroftheSTDbooth.
HealsofailedtoexplainastowhynorecordfromtheSTDbooth
for making telephone call to Kathmandu was collected.
Prosecutionhasthus,failedtoestablishthiscircumstanceagainst
A5orA7.
(45)LEGALASPECT:
(a)Policewitnessesvalueoftheirevidence:
324
458 IdonotsubscribetothecontentionoftheLd.Defence
Counsel for the accused persons that the evidence of police
witnesses can't be taken into consideration as at the time of
recoveries at the residence of A1 and A2 and other accused
persons, no independent public witness was joined. The law is
very clear on this aspect as laid down in a recent case titled
RameshKumarVsState,reportedinILR(2009)V,Delhi235
Hon'bleHighCourtobservedthat factumofnonexaminationof
public/independent witness is not fatal to the case of the
prosecutionineverycase.Itdependsupontheadditionalfactor
whetherthe evidenceledbytheprosecutioninspiresconfidence
ornot.Iftheevidenceofpolicewitnessesinspiresconfidenceand
is otherwise credible and trust worthy, nonexamination of
public/independentwitnessesisofnoconsequence.Hon'beHigh
CourtreliedupontheauthorityreportedinKalpnathRaiVsState
(1997)8SCC732whereitwasobserved:
325
As a legal proposition, it was argued

thatitwouldbeunsafetobaseaconclusion
ontheevidenceofpoliceofficersalonewithout
beingsupportedbyatleastoneindependent
personfromthelocality.Toreinforcethesaid
contention Sh V S Kotwal, Senior Advocate
cited the decision of this Court in Pradeep
NarayanMadgaonkarandOrsVsStateof
Maharashtra(1995)4SCC255whereinwant
of independent witnesses of the locality
renderedsuspicious araidconductedby the
police.
459 There can be no legal proposition that evidence of
police officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is
unworthyofacceptance.Nonexaminationofindependentwitness
orevenpresenceofsuchwitnessduringpoliceraidwouldcastan
addeddutyonthecourttoadoptgreatercarewhilescrutinizingthe
evidenceofthepoliceofficers.Iftheevidenceofthepoliceofficer
isfoundacceptableitwouldbeanerroneouspropositionthatcourt
mustrejecttheprosecutionversionsolelyonthegroundthatno
independent witness was examined. In Pradeep Narain
Madgaonkar(supra)towhichoneofus(Mukherjee,J)isaparty,
326
theaforesaidpositionhasbeenstatedinunambiguousterms,the
relevantportionofwhichisextractedbelow:
460 Indeed,theevidenceoftheofficial(police)witnesses
cannotbediscardedmerelyonthegroundthattheybelongtothe
policeforceandare,eitherinterestedintheinvestigationorthe
prosecuting agency but prudence dictates that their evidence
needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible
corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be
sought.Theirdesiretoseethesuccessofthecasebasedontheir
investigation;requires\greatercaretoappreciatetheirtestimony.
461 In Balbir Singh Vs State (1996) 11 SCC 139, this
Courthasrepelledasimilarcontentionbasedonnonexamination
of independent witness. The same legal position has been
reiteratedbythisCourttimeandagainvideParasRamVsState
ofHaryana(1992)4SCC662,SameAlanaAbdullaVsStateof
Gujarat,(1996)1SCC427,Anil@AndyaSadashivNandoskar
327
VsStateofMaharashtra,AIR 1996SC 2943,TahirVsState
(Delhi)JT1996(3)SCC338.
462 Inthepresentcaseeffortsweremadebythepolice
tojointheindependentpublicwitnessesatthetimeofeffecting
recoveryatthe residencesofA1andA2andotheraccused
persons. However, no such witness came forward to join
investigation.A1andA2whowereresidentsofJ&Kdidnot
askanyneighbortojoininvestigationatthetimeoftheirvisit
alongwithpolice.DelhiPolicebeingstrangertothevicinityofthe
accusedpersonswasnotexpectedtogetindependentpublic
witnessestojoinintheinvestigation.Itisseenwheneverthe
policejoinsindependentpublicwitnessandiftheysupportthe
caseoftheprosecution,theyaredubbedas''stockwitnesses''
orinterestedwitnesses.Whenwitnessesjoinedbythepolice
turnhostile,thencourtisaskedtoappreciatetheirevidence.No
fault can be found in the testimony of police witness simply
328
becauseitfailedtojoinindependentpubicwitnessesatthetime
of recoveries at the residence of A1 and A2 and other
accusedpersons.
:
b.Section27EvidenceAct
463 IdonotsubscribetothepleaoftheLd.Defence
Counsel that disclosure statements relied upon by the
prosecutioncan'tbetakenintoconsiderationastheyarenot
admissibleinevidence.Hon'bleSupremeCourtinthecase,
State(NCTofDelhi)VsNavjotSandhu@AfsanGuru(2005)
11SCC600,hascategoricallyheldinpara(204),
..........Thatinformationfurnished
to the investigating officers leading to
thediscoveryoffactsandtheconductof
the accused in pointing out the places
where the terrorists stayed are
admissibleeitheru/s27orSec.8ofthe
EvidenceActandtheysupplementthe
evidence furnished by the IOs, the
landlordsandtheshopkeepers
464 Itfurtherobservedwhilereferring OmParkash's
329
caseAIR1972SC975,
Even apart from the

admissibility of the information u/s 27,
theevidenceoftheinvestigatingofficer
andthepanchasthattheaccusedhad
taken them to PW11 (from whom he
purchasedtheweapon)andpointedhim
out and as corroborated by PW11
himselfwouldbeadmissibleu/s8ofthe
Evidence Act as conduct of the
accused
465 In Nalini's case (supra) also Hon'ble Supreme
Courtadmittedtheportioninevidenceu/s27bywhichthe
accused therein had enabled the IO to trace out the
prosecution witnesses from whom the articles were
purchased. As discussed in the relevant circumstances
pertaining to A3, A5 and A6 in my view, the entire
disclosurestatementsmadebytheaccusedpersonscan'tbe
treated as inadmissible evidence. That portion of the
disclosure statement which led the police to recover any
330
object or discover of any new fact in pursuance to the
disclosure statement is relevant and admissible against the
accused making the disclosure statement u/s 27 of the
EvidenceAct.
JOINTDISCLOSURESTATEMENTSVALUE:
C.
466 Inthepresentcase,somefactshavebeendiscovered
bythepoliceinpursuanceofthejointdisclosurestatementsmade
bymorethanoneaccusedperson. Thelawhasbeenlaiddown
onthisaspectbytheHon'bleHighCourtinthecasereportedas
ASHOKKUMAR@GOVIND VSSTATE,ILR (2009)VDELHI
557.Hon'bleHighCourtobserved:
The controversy pertaining to

disclosurestatementsandjointpointingoutof
places wherefrom recoveries are effected,
stands concluded by the Supreme Court in
thedecisionreportedas 2005(11)SCC600
STATE VSNAVJOTSANDHU. Inpara145
the Supreme Court held that disclosure
statements of accused made to the police
followed by both accused jointly taking the
police to a place and getting recovered an
331
object pursuant to the disclosure statement

wouldnottakeoutthedisclosurestatements
fromoutsidethepurviewofSection27ofthe
EvidenceAct.
467 Themakingofthedisclosurestatements byMadan,
JaipalandDharamSinghhasbeenprovedbythetestimonyofSI
ChanderpalPW29,SIRameshSinghPW30andConst.Dayanand
PW23.ThepointingoutmemosEx.PW26/C,Ex.PW26/DandEx.
PW26/E have been proved by means of the testimony of SI
Chanderpal PW29 as also the testimony of SI Shri Ram Singh
PW26.ItthusstandestablishedthatthedeadbodyofSunilwas
recoveredfromaplacenotwithintheknowledgeofthepoliceand
afactwasdiscoveredbythepolicenamelythatMadan,Jaipland
DharamSinghhadknowledgeaboutthedeadbodybeinginthe
sugarcanefield,atadistanceofabout15metersfromacanal,
hiddenbysugarcane,invillageSilapur,i.e.Theplacewherefrom
thedeadbodywasactuallyrecovered.
468 Thus,itstandsprovedthatappellantsJaipa,Madan
332
andDharamSinghhadknowledgeaboutSunil(deceased)being
murderedandhisdeadbodybeinghiddeninthesugarcanefieldin
villageSilapurandthattheaforesaidevidencepertainingtotheir
disclosurestatementsandtherecoveryofthedeadbodyattheir
instanceandtheidentificationthereofasthatofdeceasedSunilis
incriminatingevidenceagainstthethreesincetheyhavenotbeen
abletoexplainsaidevidenceagainstthem.
469 Inthepresentcasealso,discoveryoffactsnotearlier
knowntothepoliceinpursuanceofjointstatementsofaccused
personsA3,A5andA6arerelevantandcrucialtoconnectthem
withtheoffence.
d.HostileWitnessesValueoftheirtestimonies:
470 ThereisnoforceintheargumentsoftheLd.Defence
Counselsfortheaccusedpersonsthattestimoniesofindependent
publicwitnessesexaminedbytheprosecutionduringtrialshould
notbebelievedagainstthemastheyhaveturnedhostileandhave
333
notsupportedtheprosecutionintoto.Itisfurtherstatedthatonly
whentheseprosecutionwitnessesweregotdeclaredhostilebythe
Spl. PP for the State and were examined, they came up with
differentversiontosupporttheprosecution.
471 I do not subscribe to this plea of the Ld. Defence
Counselsfortheaccusedpersons.Theevidenceofawitnessas
wholeistobereadtoascertainthefactsdisclosedbythewitness.
472 Itiswellsettledlawthattestimonyofahostilewitness
can'tberejectedaswhole.
473 InthelatestcaseofBurSingh&AnotherVsState
ofPunjab,reportedinAIR2009SC157,Hon'bleSupremeCourt
hassummedupthelawonthisaspectinparaNo.(13)asunder:
....Even if major portion of evidence is

found to be deficient, in case residue is
sufficient to prove guilt of an accused,
notwithstandingacquittalofnumberofotherco
accused persons, his conviction can be
maintained. It is the duty of the Court to
334
separatethegrainfromthechaff. Wherethe
chaffcanbeseparatedfromthegrain,itwould
be open to the Court to convict an accused
notwithstandingthefactthatevidencehasbeen
found to be deficient to prove gui9lt of other
accusedpersons.Falsityofparticularmaterial
witnessormaterialparticularwouldnotruinit
fromthebeginningtoend.Themaxim'falsus
inunofalsusinomnibus''hasnoapplicationin
India and the witness cannot be branded as
liars. The maxim ''falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus''hasnotreceivedgeneralacceptance
norhasthismaximcometooccupythestatus
ofaruleoflaw. Itismerelyaruleofcaution.
All that it amounts to, is that in such cases
testimonymaybedisregarded,andnotthatit
must be discarded. The doctrine merely
involved the question of weight of evidence
which a Court may apply in a given set of
circumstances,butitisnotwhatmaybecalled'
amandatoryruleofevidence'.(SeeNisarAliV
TheStateofUttarPradesh,(AIR1957SC366).
Merelybecausesomeoftheaccusedpersons
havebeenacquitted,thoughevidenceagainst
allofhem,sofarasdirecttestimonywent,was
the same does not lead as a necessary
corollary that those who have been convicted
mustalsobeacquitted. Itisalwaysopentoa
Court to differentiate accused who had been
acquittedfromthosewhowereconvicted.(See
GurcharanSinghandAnr.V.StateofPunjab
(AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a
dangerousonespeciallyinIndiaforifawhole
335
body of the testimony was to be rejected,

becauseawitness wasevidentlyspeakingan
untruthinsomeaspect,itistobefearedthat
administrationofcriminaljusticewouldcometo
adeadstop.......
474 AlsointhecaseofKeharSingh(Supra)theHon'ble
SupremeCourtinParaNo.(302)observed:
An endeavour is made to impeach

Bimla Khalsa, first on the ground that she
turnedhostileandsecond,shewasexamined
belatedly. Imuststatethatmerely because
she turned hostile, her examination can't be
rejected.Thatiswellacceptedpreposition.
e.MinorContradictionsEffect:
475 Minorcontradictionsanddiscrepanciespointedoutby
the Ld. Defence Counsels in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnessesinmyviewarenot fataltotheprosecutioncase as
thesedonotgototherootofthecase.
476 InthematerofRameshKumar(supra)
Hon'bleHigh
336
Courtobservedasunder:
Beforedealingwiththeaforenoted
submissionofthecounselfortheappellant
itwouldbeappositetoreferthefollowing
observations rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a recent decision in
CriminalAppealNo.456/2002Jayaseelan
Vs State of Tamil Nadu decided on
11.2.2009:
......... Witnesses just cannot help in
givingembroiderytoastory,however,truein
themain.Therefore,ithastobeappraisedin
eachcaseastowhatextenttheevidenceis
worthyofacceptance,andmerelybecausein
somerespectsandCourtconsidersthesame
to be insufficient for placing reliance on the
testimonyofawitness,itdoesnotnecessarily
follow as a matter of law that it must be
disregarded in all respect as well. The
evidence has to be shifted with care. The
aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the
reason that one hardly comes across a
witness whose evidence does not contain a
grainofuntruthorat anyrateexaggeration,
embroideries or embellishment..... As
observedbythisCourtinStateofRajasthan
VsSmt.KalkiandAnr. (1981)2SCC752,
normal discrepancies in evidence are those
which are due to normal errors of
observations,normalerrorsofmemorydueto
lapseoftime,duetomentaldispositionsuch
337
asshockandhorroratthetimeofoccurrence
andthosearealwaystherehowever,honest
and truthful a witness may be. Material
discrepanciesarethosewhicharenotnormal,
andnotexpectedofanormalperson.Courts
have to label the category to which a
discrepancy may be categorized. While
normal discrepancies do not corrode the
credibility of a part's case, material
discrepanciesdoso.......
f. Use of Confessional Statement against
accusedhimselfandagainstcoaccused:
477 Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs
Nalini(Supra)heldthatconfessionsareconsidered
highly reliable because no rational person would
made disclosure statement against his interest
unlesspromptedbyhisconsciencetotellthetruth.
Ithasfurtherheldthatconfessionofanaccusedis
admissibleassubstantiveevidenceagainsthimself
as well as against a coaccused, abettor or
338
conspirator. But as a matter of prudence court
should require some corroboration of confession
whenusedagainstacoaccused.Hon'bleSupreme
Courtfurtherobservedthatthereisnoprovisionin
the Evidence Act for making confession of an
accused relevant or admissible against the co
accused. InthesettingofthoseprovisionsSection
30oftheEvidenceActisenactedwhichisaclear
departure from the principles of English law. The
expression may take into consideration means
that the use of the evidence of confession of an
accused may be used for the purposes of
corroboratingtheevidenceonrecordagainsttheco
accused and that no conviction can be based on
such confession. Hon'ble Supreme Court further
339
observedthatthepositionoftheaccusedwhohas
given confessional statement implicating a co
accusedisthathehasplacedhimselfonthesame
plankandthushesinksorsailsalongwiththeco
accusedonthebasisofhisconfession. Forthese
reasons,insofarasuseofconfessionofanaccused
againstacoaccusedisconcerned,ruleofprudence
cautions the judicial discretion that it cannot be
relieduponunlesscorroborated generally byother
evidenceonrecord.
478 Again in the case of State Vs Navjot Sindhu
(Supra)Hon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatthetwinteststobe
applied to evaluate a confession are: (1) whether the
confessionwasperfectlyvoluntary,and(2)ifso,whetheritis
true and trustworthy. If the first test is not satisfied the
340
question of applying the second test does not arise. One
broadmethodbywhichaconfessioncanbeevaluatedisthat
the Court should carefully examine the confession and
compare it withtherest oftheevidence, in the light of the
surroundingcircumstancesandprobabilitiesofthecase.ifon
suchexaminationandcomparison,theconfessionappearsto
beaprobablecatalogueofeventsandnaturallyfitsinwhich
therestoftheevidenceandthesurroundingcircumstances,it
maybetakentohavesatisfiedthesecondtest.
479 Regardinguseofretractedconfessionagainstco
accusedHon'bleSupremeCourtheldthattheproperwayto
approachacaseofthiskindis,first,tomarshaltheevidence
against the coaccused excluding the confession altogether
from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a
convictioncouldsafelybebasedonit.Ifitiscapableofbelief
341
independently of the confession, then of course it is not
necessarytocalltheconfessioninaid.Butcasesmayarise
wherethejudgeisnotpreparedtoactontheotherevidence
asitstandseventhough,ifbelieved,itwouldbesufficientto
sustainaconviction. Insuchaneventthejudgemaycallin
aidtheconfessionanduseittolendassurancetotheother
evidenceandthusfortifyhimselfinbelievingwhatwithoutthe
aidoftheconfessionhewouldnotbepreparedtoaccept.
480 Thecourtcan'tstartwiththeconfessionofaco
accusedperson;itmustbeginwithotherevidenceadducedby
theprosecutionandafterithasformeditsopinionwithregard
to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is
permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive
assurancetotheconclusionofguiltwhichthejudicialmindis
abouttoreachonthesaidotherevidence.
342
481 The crucial express used in Section 30 of the
EvidenceAct,1872istheCourtmaytakeintoconsideration
suchconfession.Thesewordsimplythattheconfessionofa
coaccused cannot be elevated to the status of substantive
evidence which can form the basis of conviction of the co
accused.
482 SimilaristheviewofHon'bleSupremeCourtin
Bishnu Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Assam AIR 2007 SC
848. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a confessional
statementisadmissibleinevidence.Itisarelevantfact.The
courtmayrelythereuponifitisvoluntarilygiven.Itmayalso
formthebasisofconviction.
483 Section 164 Cr.P.C makestheconfessionbeforea
Magistrateadmissibleinevidence.
g.RemissnessofI.OEffect:
484 On scanning the file, it transpires that the
343
investigation conducted by the police in this case is highly
defective.Atnostagethepoliceoptedtoputanyoftheaccused
personsforTIPfromtheprosecutionwitnesses.Theprosecution
has miserably failed to justify as to why no TIP of the case
property recovered in this case or that of the accused persons
arrestedinthiscase conductedfromtheprosecutionwitnesses.
Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthattheaccusedpersonsledthe
policeteamatvariousplacesduringinvestigationandpointedout
various places from where they had arranged articles for
preparationofcylinderbombplantedinthemaruticarinquestion.
However,atnostagepolicebotheredtogetanyoftheaccused
persons arrested in this case to be identified in judicial TIP
proceedingsfromtheprosecutionwitnesses.
485 Thepolicedidnotdeemitfitduringinvestigationtoget
record statement of any material witnesses u/s 164 CrPC.
Perusalofthefilerevealsthatnumberofprosecutionwitnesses
examinedbythepoliceduringinvestigationandwhosestatements
344
wererecordedundersection161CrPC haveturnedhostileand
didnotsupporttheprosecution.
486 Thepoliceduringinvestigationdidnotseizerelevant
recordpertainingtothevisits/stayoftheaccusedpersonsinthe
hotels/guest houses prior to their arrest. Statements of the
concernedemployees/Managersofthehotelswerenotrecorded.
487 Thepolicedidnotjointhelocalpoliceatanystage
duringinvestigationanddidnotmakeanyentriesoftheirvisitsout
sideDelhi.NoDDentriesregardinganysuchvisitswasprovedon
record during trial. The police failed to show by documentary
evidencetheirvisitstospecificplaces.Theaccusedarrestedfrom
outside Delhi were never produced before the concerned court
andnotransitremandofanyoftheaccusedwasobtainedcreating
doubt ofthedate,placeandthemannerinwhichtheaccused
personswereapprehendedandarrestedinthiscase.
488 Numberofwitnessescitedinthelistofwitnesseswere
notexaminedbytheprosecutionduringtrial.Insp./ACPPPSingh
345
isstatedtobetheoverallinchargeoftheinvestigation.However,
atthefirstinstance,hedidnotbothertoappearaswitnessbefore
thecourt.Onlywhenapplicationu/s311CrPCwasmovedbythe
prosecution during final arguments was allowed, he opted to
appear as witness PW 105. No memos contain signatures of
PW105ACPPPSingh.
489 Ld.Spl.P.PfortheStateduringtrialandspecifically
duringfinalargumentsalwayscomplainedaboutnoncooperation
from the IO of the case. He expressed his inability to address
arguments in detail due to noncooperation from the IO. No
efforts were made during the last about more than 14 years to
apprehend the coaccused persons against whom challan was
presentedasProclaimedOffenders.
490 Antecedentofnoneoftheaccusedwascollectedby
thepoliceduringinvestigation.Inthedisclosurestatementofthe
accusedpersons,thepolicehadcometoknowaboutthedetailsof
theantecedentsoftheaccusedpersonsandalsoregardingtheir
346
various activities. However, no independent evidence was
collected by the prosecution to substantiate the information
recordedinthedisclosurestatementsoftheaccusedpersons.No
worthwhile evidence was collected by the police to show the
activitiesoftheseaccusedpersonspriortotheincidentandandto
findoutastoinhowmanysimilarcasestheywereinvolvedorany
ofthemwaseverconvictedatanytime.
491 The IO failed to collect relevant call records of the
variouscallsallegedlymadebytheaccusedpersonspriortothe
incident.
492 A1wasadmittedlyemployedwithGovt.ofJ&Kprior
totheincidentasEngineer.Noinvestigationwascarriedoutbythe
IOtoascertainifA1usedtoattendhisofficeregularlyorheused
to remain absent from his office. His moments prior to the
incidentswerenotascertained.Hisofficialaccommodationwhere
heusedtoresidepriortotheincidentwasnotsearched.
493 However,itisalsowellsettledthatprosecutioncaseasa
347
whole can't be thrown away due to remissness of investigating
officers. Otherwise,cogent,reliableandtrustworthyevidenceof
independentpublicwitnessistobegivenpreference.Hence,this
aspectdoesnotcausedentinthecaseofprosecution.
(46)CONSPIRACY
A.ROLEOFA1
494 OnlymaterialcircumstancetoinferconspiracyofA1
with coaccused persons is recovery of ammunition/explosive at
hisresidenceinpursuanceofdisclosurestatementmadebyhim.
No other circumstance has been proved on record by the
prosecution to infer involvement of A1 in the hatching of
conspiracywithcoaccusedpersons.Ld.SpecialPPfortheState
has fairly admitted that recovery of ammunition/explosive at the
residenceofA1 hasnothingtodowiththecommissionofthe
incident. These explosives recovered at the residence of A1
348
werenotmeantforexplosionatCentralMarket,LajpatNagar,New
Delhi. There is nothing in the testimony of the prosecution
witnessesifanyexplosiveusedinthecommissionoftheincident
wasreceivedbyA1athisresidenceoranysuchexplosivewas
transportedfromJ&KtoDelhiortoanyotherplace.Contraryto
that evidence has come on record that explosives used in the
incidentweredeliveredbyA9attheresidenceofPWWazidKasai
whichwastobehandedovertoA5.Itisthesaidexplosivewhich
isallegedtohavebeenusedinthecommissionoftheincident.
495 So far as the explosives allegedly recovered at
residenceofA1isconcerned,itisnotenoughtoconnecthimin
thehatchingofconspiracywiththeaccusedpersons.Nothinghas
come on record to show if A1 had remained in touch with co
accused persons at any time prior to the incident. Nothing has
comeonrecordtoshowifA1hadgivenanyinstructionstoany
coconspirators to carry out the plan at any time. Nothing has
comeonrecordifA1hadvisitedDelhiatanytimeinconnection
349
withincidentinquestion.NovisitsofA1atGorakhpuroratNepal
has been proved on record by the prosecution to show his
movementssoonpriortotheoccurrence.
496 ItisadmittedcaseoftheprosecutionthatA1 was
employedasGovt.servantwithJ&K.Norecordwascollectedby
theIOfromtheofficeofA1wherehewasinservicetoshowifA1
usedtoattendhisofficeregularlyorusedtoremainabsentfrom
hisoffice.ThemovementsofA1werenotascertainedsoonprior
totheincident.Nodocumentaryevidencewascollectedfromthe
officeofA1regardinghisabsenceathisplaceofworkontheday
ofincidentinDelhi.IthasrathercomeonrecordthatA1didnot
abscondatany time.HewasapprehendedbythepoliceofPS
SherGarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94on25.5.96.Prosecutionfailed
toshowastohowandunderwhatcircumstanceandfromwhere
A1 was apprehended by police of PS Sher Garhi to be
apprehended on25.5.96byDelhiPolicejustoutsidePSSher
Garhi.Noincriminatingarticlewasrecoveredfromthepossession
350
of A1 at the time of his apprehension by Delhi Police. No
personalsearcharticlesrecoveredfromthepersonofA1were
handedovertoDelhiPoliceatthetimeofapprehensionofA1.
Subsequently, after a considerable delay of one month Delhi
Police happened to collect articles recovered in the personal
search of A1 from PS Sher Garhi which were handed over to
DelhiPolicebyPW95Insp.ShivKumar. Thiscircumstancehas
alreadybeendiscussedanddisbelievedbythecourt.
497 Nothing has come on record to show if A1 had
participatedinanymeetingofJKIFonanyparticulardateatany
particularplace. Theprosecutiondidnotcollectanyevidenceto
showifA1wasactivememberofJKIFandusedtoparticipatein
itsactivities..Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifanytimeprior
totheincidentA1waseverapprehendedforhisunlawfulactivities
beingthememberofJKIFandthisfactcametothenoticeofhis
employer.
498 PW85ManoharSingh,SuperintendentofPolice,J&K
351
merely statedthatduringthemonthofJune1996,interrogation
report about the coaccused Mehrajudin (A12) revealed that
Sajjad Kinnu (since expired in an encounter) and his other
associatesusedtoheldmeetingsatthehouseofA2.Heusedto
receivecopyofIRAinterrogationreportsregardingtheincidentsof
suchtypeoforganizations.Thiswitnessdidnotspecifyatallifhe
hadgotanyinterrogationreportregardingA1tohaveattended
any such meeting at the residence of A2. In the cross
examination,thiswitnessadmittedthathedidnotorderarrestof
any of the accused. He had no personal knowledge of any
meetingheldattheresidenceofA2. Hadthiswitnesscometo
knowaboutanysuchmeetingattheresidenceofA2,hemust
have raided the premises /place of meeting to apprehend the
suspects.CoaccusedpersonsexceptA1andA2usedtoreside
outsideJ&K.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifanysuchco
accusedhadevervisitedJ&KtomeetA1andA2tohaveany
meeting.
352
499 A1 was apprehended alongwith A2 out side PS
SherGarhion25.5.96byDelhiPolice.Asdiscussedabove,police
failedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubttheexactdate,placeand
mannerofarrestofA1andA2justoutsidePSSherGarhi.Delhi
Police has reached J & K on receipt of some information from
PW78 FarooqKhan,thethenSSP(Operation),SriNagar,J&K.
However, in his deposition PW78 failed to give any basis or
materialonthebasisofwhichA1wasconsideredassuspectin
the bomb blast at Central Market, Lajpat Nasgar. He merely
testified that in May, 1996 they learnt that responsibility in the
press/mediawas takenbyselfstyledterroristorganizationJKIF.
They had some clues from reliable sources about the said
organizationandworkedonthisinformationwiththehelpofsecret
reliable sources. They apprehended A1 who was resident of
AnantNag.ThiswitnessdidnotrevealifbeforearrestofA1,he
hadcometoknowifA1hadmadeanytelephonecalltodifferent
media/news agencies at Delhi and had owned responsibility for
353
bomb blast in J& K. This witness further stated that only on
interrogation, A1disclosedthathehadmadedifferentcallsto
different news agencies claiming responsibility of Lajpat Nagar
Bomb Blast among other like incidents on behalf of said
organization JKIF. Had A1 been a suspect and had taken
responsibility for making telephone calls to different news
agencies,therewasnooccasionforthiswitnessnottoapprehend
A1andtokeephimindetentiontillthearrivalofDelhiPoliceatJ
&K.ThiswitnessdidnotapprehendA1.Healsodidnotoptto
raidtheresidenceofA1tofindoutanyincriminatingarticleathis
residence. Nothinghasbeenrevealedbythiswitnessifhehad
cometoknowastofromwhichtelephonenumber,atwhichplace,
and at what time, A1 made telephone calls to different news
agenciesatDelhi. Evidencehasrathercomeonrecordthatthis
accusedwasallegedlyapprehendedbypoliceofPSSherGarhiin
case FIR No. 162/94 and he alongwith A2 was subsequently
releasedbythepoliceofPSSherGarhijustbeforearrivalofDelhi
354
PoliceatJ&K.OnlyA1andA2happenedtobepresentoutside
PSSherGarhiwhenDelhiPoliceapprehendedthemandbrought
them to Delhi. Prior to taking A1 to J&K again on 4.6.96, for
effecting recovery at his residence, the police had not come to
know about the association of this accused with coaccused
persons.
500 Disclosure statement of A1 was recorded by Delhi
PoliceinthiscaseafterhisapprehensionatDelhi.However,even
in the disclosure statement made by A1, police was unable to
ascertain the names of coconspirators who were subsequently
arrestedinthiscase. Coaccusedsubsequentlyarrestedinthis
casehappenedtobeinvolvedinthiscaseonlyduetoconfessional
statement made by A9 at Jaipur regarding the incident in
question.HadA1beenactivelyinvolvedinanyconspiracywith
other conspirators, Delhi police must have unearthed the
conspiracyonapprehensionofA1.
501 Differentversionhasbeengivenbythepoliceinthe
355
chargesheetregardingtheapprehensionofA1atJ&K.Inthe
charge sheet u/s 173 CrPC, there is mention that on 21.5.96
terrorist organization JKIF took responsibility for causing bomb
blastatLajpatNagar bymakingtelephonecallstopress/media
fromtelephoneno.22135fromAnandNag,SriNagar,J&K.J&K
policewasinformedtodevelopinformation.Ongettinginformation
fromJ&K. On24.5.96,A1andA2werearrestedbyPSSher
GarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94.Thisstatementinthechargesheet
iscontrarytotheevidenceadducedonrecordbytheprosecution.
Thereisnothing inthetestimonyofPW78FFarooqKhanifhe
had got any information from Delhi Police prior to 24.5.96 to
develop information regarding telephone calls made from
telephoneno.22135.Beforeallegedfaxmessageandwireless
messageweresentbyPW78F.FarooqKhan,DelhiPolicewas
notawareifA1hadownedanyresponsibilityintheLajpatNagar
bomb blast or that he had made any telephone calls from
telephone no. 22135 to the press/media. This telephone
356
connection was never kept under surveillance to ascertain
activitiesofA1aftertheincident.Nocalldetailsofthistelephone
connection for any considerable period were collected by the
prosecutiontoascertainhisconductregardingtheincidentorto
have his acquaintance with coaccused persons. Prosecution
evenfailedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtifitwasA1who
hadmadetelephonecallstoanytelephonenumberfromtelephone
no. 22135 or to different media agencies. There is nothing on
recordifA1wastheChiefSpokesmanofJKIF.Prosecutionhas
failed to collect any evidence to ascertain if A1 was active
member of JKIF or that he was the Chief Spokesman. No
conversationontelephonewastracedofthisaccusedwithmaster
mindoftheincident.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifany
kingpinoftheincidentinsideoroutsideIndiaremainedintouch
withthisaccusedoreverpassedoveranyinstructionstocarryout
nefariousplan.NoliteratureoftheJKIFwasrecoveredfromthe
possession of A1 or at his residence. Even on the date of
357
apprehensionofA1on24.5.96,nohousesearchoftheaccused
wasconductedtorecoveranysuchobjectionablematerial.Nocall
detailswerediscoveredtoshowifA1andA2usedtoremainin
constanttouchorthatA1hadcalledA2atherresidenceonany
particulardatetoattendanysuchmeeting.
502 A1wasarrestedinJune,1996bythepoliceincase
FIR No. 817/95 for his involvement in Connaught Place Bomb
Blast. It is admitted case of the prosecution that A1 has since
beendischargedinthesaidcase.
503 A1alongwith(A6)wasarrestedinDosabombblast
case.PW101Insp.ParasNath,however,admittedthatA1was
dischargedintheSwaiManSinghStadiumJaipurblastcase.
504 PW101Insp.ParasNathfurtheradmittedthathehad
inquiredaboutpostingofA1whenhe hadgonetoSriNagarin
July,1996andhadcometoknowthathewaspostedinBijbhirar.
HehadcometoknowabouttheresidenceofA1whichwasin
GovernmentFlatsinChandpora,DistrictSriNagarbearingNo.K
358
22,LalNagar,Chandpora.Hedidnotinquireaboutdurationofthe
stayofA1atSriNagar. Thiswitnessfailedtoinvestigateasto
where infactA1usedtoresidewithhisfamily,whetherathis
officeaccommodationorattheaddressofhisfather.Policedid
notinvestigateastoforwhatdurationA1hadstartedresidingat
hisresidenceatAnantNag.Noinformationisthereonrecordto
showifA1washavingany telephoneconnectionathisofficial
accommodationinhis name. No suchcall details oftelephone
wasreceived.Itwasnotascertainedastowhoelsewasresiding
attheofficialaccommodation onthedayofincident. Nofamily
member of A1 was examined or his or her statement was
recordedu/s161CrPCtoinferifA1usedtohavefrequentaccess
at his residence at Anant Nag or that he had visited the said
residenceonthedateofincident toowntheresponsibilityofhis
organization for the bomb blast in Lajpat Nagar case. No
neighborwasexaminedbytheprosecutiontoshowvisitsofA1at
hisresidenceatAnantNag.
359
505 PW78 F. Farooq Khan, in the cross examination
claimed that A1 and A2 made their confession during their
questioningandanswersgivenbythemweresenttoDelhiPolice
withrespecttooffence. Nosuchquestionsandanswershave
been placed on record by the police. Testimony of PW78 has
alreadybeendiscussedindetailwhichdoesnotgiveanycogent
informationabouttheapprehensionoftheaccusedpersonsand
alsoregardingtheirinterrogation.IntheevidencePW78didnot
deposeastowhatwasthematerialavailablewithhimtosuspect
theinvolvementofA1inthecommissionoftheoffence.
506 The recovery of some belongings of A1 at the
residenceofA8havenotbeenbelievedbythecourtinthesaid
circumstancediscussed.Evenaftertheincidentnothinghascome
on record to show if any coaccused residing out of J& K had
remainedintouchwiththis accusedorhadcollectedany cash,
armsorexplosivefromhim.
507 A1allegedactivememberofJKIFisnotexpectedto
360
create evidence by making telephone calls to media owning
responsibilityofbombblastwhenhehadnotdisclosedhisidentity
fromlandlinetelephonenumberinstalledattheresidenceofhis
fatherparticularlywhenhehadnotdisclosedhisidentitytomedia.
508 Onjudicialrecordthereisanewspaper'CITY'dated
27/5/1996 inwhichthereismentionthatJKIFdeniedifA1was
memberoftheoutfitorwasevenremotelyconnectedwithit.
509 NootherovertacthasbeenattributedtoA1toinfer
conspiracy.Criminalresponsibilityforaconspiracyrequiresmore
thanamerelypassiveattitude.
510 A9inhisconfessiondidnotutterawordaboutA1to
haveanyroleintheincident.A1didnotfinanceanyconspirator.
Hedidnotgivesheltertoanyothercoaccusedinvolvedinthe
incident.NomotiveofA1tocausebombblasthasbeenproved.
No unnatural conduct having close nexus with the incident has
beenprovedonrecord.
511 After his arrest A1 along with A2, on the basis of
361
disclosurestatementinthiscasewasarrestedbythepoliceofPS
ConnaughtPlaceincaseFIRNo.817/95u/s307/323/427/120B
etc along with coaccused therein for hatching conspiracy for
causingbombblaston21/11/1995.Hefacedtrialinthesaidcase.
However,videjudgmentdated7/4/2001,hewasacquittedbythe
courtofShriBabuLal,thethenld.AddlSessionsJudge.Acquittal
ofA1alongwithA2forbombblaston21/11/1995isadditional
factortodiscardtheallegationofprosecutionofhisinvolvementin
thisincident.
512 Ld. defence counsel has also filed on record
photocopyofjudgmentwhichhasnotbeenchallengedofthecourt
atJaipurincaseFIRNo.39/96u/s307/456/120BIPCetcwhere
u/s169 Cr.P.C A1alongwithA9,A10,A7andotherstherein
weregotdischargedforwantofevidenceon18/9/1997.Again,this
dischargealsoisafactortoinferhisinnocenceinthiscase.
513 TheprosecutionhasthusfailedtoprovethatA1was
memberofconspiracytocausebombblastatDelhion21/5/1996.
362
Hedeservesbenefitofdoubtinthisregard.
B.RoleofA2:
514 SofarasA2isconcerned,theprosecutionhasfailed
to establish beyond reasonable doubt that she alongwith co
accused persons conspired to commit the offence. Nothing has
comeonrecordtoshowifA2enteredintoanyagreementwithco
accusedpersonsatanytimetocommittheoffenceorhatchedthe
criminalconspiracyonthataspect.
515 Conspiracyconsistsintheagreementoftwoormore
personstodoanunlawfulact,ortodoalawfulactbyunlawful
means. The agreement may be express or implied or in part
express and in part implied. In the case of Kehar Singh
reportedin1988(3)SCC atpage731Hon'bleSupremeCourt
observedthat
'' the gist of the offence is an

agreementtobreakthelaw.Thepartiesto
suchanagreementwillbeguiltyofcriminal
conspiracy,thoughtheillegalactagreedto
363
bedonehasnotbeendone.Sotoo,itisnot
an ingredient of the offence that all the
parties should agree to do a single illegal
act.Itmaybecomprisethecommissionof
anumberofacts.
516 Inthepresentcase,nothinghascomeonrecordto
showifA2evermetcoaccusedpersonspriortotheincidentto
hatchanysuchconspiracy.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowif
A2everremainedinconstanttouchwithanyofthecoaccused
personsatanytime. Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifshe
everparticipatedinthecommissionoftheoffenceinanyformor
thatsheevergaveanyinstructionstothecoaccusedpersonsto
carryouttheplan.ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA2ever
facilitatedinwhatsoevermannerinthecommissionoftheoffence
atanyplace.Theprosecutiondidnotcollectanyevidencetoshow
involvementofA2intheconspiracyinquestion.Noevidencewas
collectedbytheprosecutiontoshowifA2wasinvolvedinany
suchactivitiesorthatsheusedtohavemeetingsatherresidence
asalleged.NorecordwasproducedtoshowifA2hadorganized
364
any meeting at her residence with other members of the
conspiracy. A2wasapprehendedbythepoliceofJ&Kincase
FIR No. 162/94, PS Sher Garhi. Again, nothing has come on
recordtoshowastowhatexactlywastheinvolvementofA2in
thesaidcase.TheproceedingsofthesaidcaseincludingtheFIR
havenotbeenplacedonrecordbytheprosecution.Itisalsonot
revealedastowhathashappenedtotheproceedingsinthesaid
caseorif A2hasbeenchargesheetedbeforeanycourtinthe
saidproceedings.NoothercaseagainstA2hasbeenbroughton
recordtoinferherinvolvementinterroristactivities.Hadthepolice
ofJ&KorBSFwasawareaboutanymeetingsoftheterrorist
group at the residence of A2, as claimed in the disclosure
statement,wherewasthehitchforJ&Kpolicenot toraidthe
residenceofA2atthattime.Infact,noevidencehascomeon
recordtoshowifanysuchmeetingwasorganizedbyA2ather
residenceandifso, whohadparticipatedinthesaidmeetingor
what was planned in the said meeting. There is no oral or
365
documentaryevidenceonrecordonthisaspect.
517 ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifatanytimeA2
travelled to Delhi for the purpose of commission of offence in
questionorsheeverprovidedanyinputstotheothermembersof
theconspiracy.A2wasnotnamedbycoaccusedpersonsintheir
disclosure statements. The confessional statement of A9 was
recordedbyPW100ShBhagwanDass,u/s164CrPCincaseFIR
No. 39/1996 PS Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan u/s
307/427/120BIPC.Ihavegonethroughthedetailedconfessional
statementmadebyA9.ThereisnotawhisperofA2inthesaid
confessional statement. A9 did not name A2 at all to be a
memberoftheconspiracy.FromtheconfessionalstatementofA
9, ratheritrevealsthatconspiracywashatchedinKathmandu,
Nepal and the ammunition/explosive used in the incident was
transportedfromthere. Inthisconfessionalstatement, thereis
nothingtoinferifanyammunitionorexplosivereachedfromSri
NagartoDelhi.A9didnotmentionifheremainedintouchwithA
366
2atanytime.HedidnotstateifhevisitedJ&Ksoonpriortothe
incidentorhadanyconversationmeeting withA2.Hatchingof
conspiracyatSriNagardoesnotappealtomymindasA9used
toresidecontinuouslyforsufficientlongtimeatKathmandu,Nepal
andwascarryingouthisbusinessthere.Thereisnoevidenceon
recordtoshowifhevisitedKashmirsoonpriortotheincident.
518 Similarly,disclosurestatementofA10Ex.PW101/A
was recorded on 26.7.1996. In his disclosure statement A10
claimedtohavejoinedJKIFinDecember,1995only.Healsodoes
notknowaboutanymeetingatJ&KwithA2.Hedidnotascribe
any role in the incident to A2. In his disclosure statement, he
rather talked about the meeting in March, 1996. There is no
mention if any meeting by any member of the conspiracy was
organizedattheresidenceofA2.NorolewasassignedtoA2in
theincident.
519 Similarly, the disclosure statements of other co
accused persons recorded by the police do not show active
367
participation of A2 at any stage in the conspiracy. A2 is
admittedlysisterofA11whoisallegedtobesupremeleaderof
JKIFandthemastermindoftheincident.Thatfact itselfisnot
enough to prove involvement of A2 in the commission of the
incident. The prosecution did not collect cogent evidence on
recordtoshow conductandmovementofA2soonpriortothe
incidentoraftertheincident.Noevidencewascollectedastowhat
weretheactivitiesofA2duringtheperiodwhentheincidenttook
place.Shedidnotabscondfromherplaceofresidenceafterthe
incidentandwasapprehendedbythepoliceofJ&KincaseFIR
No.162/94,PSSherGarhi. Eveninthatcasewithoutarresting
her formally, she was released and Delhi Police allegedly
happenedtoapprehendheroutsidePSSherGarhiinpursuance
of NBWs against her. Call details of the telephone installed at
residenceofA2werenotcollectedtoshowifA2usedtoremain
intouchwithcoaccusedpersons. Noincriminatingmaterialwas
collected from the residence of A2 at the time of her search
368
showing her connection with the incident in Delhi. Disclosure
statementofA2Ex.PW25/Kwasrecordedon26/5/1996.Inthe
disclosurestatementthereisnomentionastowhenanymeeting
hadtakenplaceattheresidenceofA2. Asperherdisclosure
statement Ex. PW 25/K, A2 did not lead Delhi police at any
office/placeofJKIFforrecoveryofanyincriminatingmaterialto
inferhertobeactivememberofthatorganization.
520 PW85ManoharSingh,S.P(J&K)alsofailedtothrow
anylightonthesuspiciousactivitiesofA2asdiscussedabove.
521 Nocircumstancehasbeenadducedonrecordbythe
prosecution to infer hatching of conspiracy of A2 with other
membersoftheconspiracy.ThereisnothingonrecordthatA2
wasawareoftheplanoftheotheraccusedandwasaparttosuch
conspiracy. There is no evidence to the effect that A2 was
maintainingpersonalortelephoniccontactswithothercoaccused
persons. There is no evidence of any participative acts in
connectionwithorinpursuanceoftheconspiracy.Shewasnot
369
connectedwiththeprocurementofhideouts,explosivesandother
incriminatingarticlesusedbyexecutorsofplan.Thereisnothing
inevidencethatA2renderedanyadviceorgaveimportanttips/
informationrelevanttotheproposedbombblast.
522 It is well settled that offence of conspiracy requires
somekindofphysicalmanifestationofagreementsuchasbyway
ofmeetingandcommunication.Inmostcasesproofofconspiracy
islargelyinferentialthoughtheinferencemustbefoundedonsolid
facts.Surroundingcircumstancesandantecedentandsubsequent
conduct,amongotherfactors,constituterelevantmaterial.Afew
bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies
cannotbeheldtobeadequateforconnectingtheaccusedinthe
offenceofcriminalconspiracy. Thecircumstancesbefore,during
and after the occurrence can be proved to decide about the
complicity of the accused. In the present case, no such
circumstance has been brought on record to infer hatching of
conspiracybyA2.
370
523 Mere knowledgeor evendiscussion ofthe plan,is
not,perseenough.StateVs.Navjot(supra).
524 During the entire proceedings/investigation, the
prosecution was able to prove only recovery of ammunitions
pursuant to disclosure statement of A2 from her residence.
However,ithasbeenfairlyconcededbytheprosecutionthatthe
ammunitionsrecoveredfromtheresidenceofA2hasnothingto
dowiththeincidentinquestion.Thesaidammunitionshasnot
been connected with the incident at hand. No other
incriminatingcircumstanceormaterialhasbeenprovedtoinfer
involvementofA2inhatchingtheconspiracyinthiscase.
InvolvementofA3:
C.
525 The circumstances to connect A3 with the
commissionoftheoffencerelieduponbytheprosecutionareas
under:
a.RecoveryofExplosivesetc.:
371
526 AfterhisarrestalongwithA4on14/6/1996fromNew
DelhiRailwayStation, disclosurestatementofA3wasrecorded
whichisEx.PW31/B.Inpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement,A
3 led the police team to his residence at P7, First Floor, DDA
Flats,TurkmanGate,Delhiandfromthere,hegotrecoveredtwo
RDXbricksEx.PW18/64&65inagreenpolythenebagEx.P17;
thetimerwatchEx.P8,theironsolderEx.P9,thewireEx.P10,
screw driver Ex.P11, pliers Ex. P12, wire cutter Ex. P13, two
aralditetubesEx.P14,electricwireEx.P15andonegascylinder
Ex.P16.Thiscircumstancehasbeendiscussedindetailasserial
number 10. A3 failed to explain as to from where he had
obtainedtheexplosivesrarelyavailableinthemarket. Healso
failed to disclose when he had obtained all these articles.
RecoveryofRDXbeing1kg150gms alongwithotherarticles
pointsanaccusingfingeragainstA3.
b.Abscondence:

527 A3remainedabscondedfromhisresidenceafterthe
372
incident After coming to know about his involvement from the
confessional statement of A9 through PW Wazid, Police made
effortstoapprehendA3.However,A3couldnotbetracedoutat
hisresidence.NofamilymemberofA3wasfoundpresentatthe
house when A3 led the police team at his residence and got
recoveredRDXslabsandotherarticles.A3failedtoexplainasto
whereheremainedduringthisperiodandwhyheabscondedfrom
his residence. On 14/6/1996, on the basis of the secret
information,A3alongwithA4wasarrestedatNewDelhiRailway
Stationatabout7.30pmhewastoboardVaishaliExpresstogo
toGorakhpur.ProsecutionprovedapprehensionofA3andA4
on14/6/1996and recovery of railway ticket ofsecond class for
GorakhpurfortwopersonsfromthepossessionofA3.A3failed
to explain the purpose of his visit to Gorakhpur. Case of the
prosecutionisthatthepurposeofA3andA4tovisitGorakhpur
wastocollectcashfromA6andA7whoweretoreachthere.
373
c.StayatGorakhpur:
528 In his disclosure statement Ex. PW 31/B, A3
disclosed that on 27/5/1996 he had stayed at Gorakhpur.
Prosecution examined PW82 Daya Shanker Lal Gupta who
testifiedbeforethecourtthat on18/6/1996policehadtakentwo
photocopies of vistor's book at his hotel and tourist lodge at
Gorakhpurandhadseizedthesamevidememo Ex.PW40/D.
Thereafterphotocopyoftheentryinwhichthenameofvisitor/
guest Mohd. Naushad s/o Abdul Rashid, P11, DDA Flats,
TurkmanGate,Delhiatserialnumber1285wasshownashehad
visited the hotel and stayed in room no. 14 on 27/5/1996 was
taken.StayofA3atGuptaHotelatGorakhpurhasbeenproved
in circumstanceatserialnumber13. Policecametoknowabut
the stay of A3 at Gupta Hotel, Gorakhpur in pursuance of the
disclosure statement made by A3. A3 failed to explain any
apparentreasonfor his stay faraway fromDelhi on27/5/1996.
374
PW83VijayKumarGuptahasprovedstayofA3inroomno.
14from9/10amto9.30pm.Documentaryproofregardingentryin
registerseizedbythepoliceconfirmedhisstay atGuptaHotel,
Gorakhpur.
529 ProsecutionfurtherprovedreservationchartEx.PW
40/AshowingnameofA3appearingat serialnumber7therein.
NosuggestionwasputtothewitnessthatA3hadnottravelledby
ShaheedExpressfromGorakhpuron27/5/1996.Thegenuiness
ofthereservationchartwasnotchallenged.A3failedtodisclose
astowhyhegothisseatreservedon27/5/1996.
d.Pointingoutshopof'DulhanDupatta':
530 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW31/B, A3gave
graphic detail regarding his association with the coaccused
persons and his active participation in the commission of the
incident. Hedeposedthaton19/5/1996onSundayaspertheir
plan, healongwithA5andA6parkedtheMaruticaratabout
7.00pmatCentralMarket,LajpatNagarinfrontofoneshopof
375
'DupattaRangai'onwhichtherewasaboardof'DulhanDupatta'.
Thereweresomeshopsofvegetablesandfruitsthere.Theshop
keeperof'DulhanDupatta'toldthemnottoparkthevehiclethere.
Thereafterheparkedthesameatsomedistance.
531 In pursuance of this disclosure statement A3 along
withA5andA6ledthepoliceteamatthesaidplacewhereon
19/5/1996 they had parked the vehicle in front of the shop of '
DulhanDupatta'. They identifiedtheshopofDulhanRangrej.
PW 61 Sumit Kumar met the police team there. PW61 Sumit
Kumarsupportedtheprosecutionandinhisdepositionbeforethe
court,hecategoricallyclaimedthatthreepersonshadparkedthe
Maruticarhavingregistrationno1895on19/5/1996infrontofhis
shop. Whenheraisedobjection,thesaidpersonshadquarreled
withhim.Thewitnessfurthertestifiedthaton18/6/1996thepolice
broughtthesaidthreepersonsattheshopandpointingoutmemo
Ex.PW31/Rwaspreparedwhichcontainedhissignatureatpoint
C. This witness further claimed to identify the said persons.
376
Witnesspointedattheaccusedpersonspresentbeforethecourt
and he rightly identified A3 with 'certainty'. This witness also
identifiedA5withsomedegreeofdoubtful.Thistestimonyofthis
witnesswasdiscussedindetailaboveandwasfoundconvincing
and trust worthy. A3 failed to explain his visit along with his
associatesneartheshopofPW61SumitKumarwherehealong
withhisassociateshadparkedtheMaruticaron19/5/1996,used
intheexplosion.A3failedtoexplainhisnexuswithMaruti car
havingregistrationnumber1895. ThetestimonyofPW61Sumit
KumaridentifyingA3withcertaintyinspiresconfidenceashehad
objectedtoA3andhisassociatesforparkingthevehicleinfront
ofhisshopandonhisobjectionaquarrelhadtakenplacewhich
forced A3 and his associates to remove the vehicle from that
placeandtoparkitatsomeotherplace.PW61SumitKumarhad
sufficientopportunitytoseefacesofA3andhisassociatesatthat
timeasquarrelhadtakenplacewiththem.Thiscircumstancefully
establishes involvement of A3 in the incident. Its corroborative
377
valueisunassailable.
532 Againpolicewasnotawareofallthesefactsdisclosed
byA3inhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW 31/B andcameto
locatetheplaceinfrontofshopofPW61SumitKumaronlywhen
A3alongwithhisassociatestookthemtohisshop.A3didnot
denythatA5andA6hadnotaccompaniedhimatthattimeor
thatthereweretwootherdifferentpersonswithhim.Signaturesof
A3andhisassociatesA5andA6inthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/RcategoricallyprovethatitwasonlyA3,A5andA6who
hadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW61SumitKumar.
e.Pointingofshopfromwhereironsolderwaspurchased:
533 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW31/B,A3further
disclosed that on13/5/1996 he along with A5 had purchased
solderingironandsolderfromtheshopofoneSardarjiatLajpat
RaiMarket.Inpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement,A3andA5
ledthepolicepartytotheshopofPW58JitenderPalSinghand
identified that from his shop on 13/5/1996, they had purchased
378
solderingironandsolderfromhim.ThisfactdisclosedbyA3was
provedbyPW58JitenderPalSinghwhoinhisdepositionstated
thathehadsold,thesolderingironandsolderforRs.35/.He
furtherstatedthaton19/6/1996policehadbrought oneortwo
publicpersonstohisshopandhewastoldthatonesolderingiron
andsolderwaspurchasedfromhisshopbythesaidoneortwo
persons.ThisindependentpublicwitnesspointedouttowardsA3
andstatedthathemightbeoneofthetwopersons,howeverhe
could not say anything about A5. This witness admitted that
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Kwaspreparedonwhichhesigned
atpoint'A'.ThiswitnessevenidentifiedthesolderingironEx.Z1
showntohimbeforethecourtwhichwaspurchasedfromhisshop.
ThissolderingironEx.Z1wasrecoveredfromtheresidenceofA3
whenhehadledthepoliceteamathisresidenceonthemorning
of14/1561996.
534 Thiswitnessfurthertestifiedthaton19/6/1996police
hadbroughttwopersonsinmuffledfaces athis shopandtheir
379
names were disclosed to him as A3 and A5. Both the said
personsadmittedaboutthepurchaseofsolderingironandsolder
fromhisshopon13/5/1996. A3andA5didnotestablishtheir
presenceatanyotherplaceon13/5/1996.A5wasnotresidentof
Delhi.HefailedtoproveifhewasoutofDelhion13/5/1996.A3
failed to justify his presence at the shop of PW58 Jitender Pal
Singh for purchasing soldering iron and solder without any
apparentpurpose.
f.Pointingoutofshopfromwherecylinderswerepurchased:
535 In his disclosure statement Ex. PW 31/B A3
informed that he along with A5 had gone to Moulana Yusuf
MaszidnearChuriwalanandfromtherehadboughttwocylinders.
TheshopkeeperhadtoldthatthecostoftwocylinderswasRs.
580/butthecylinderswerenotavailablewithhimatthattime.He
askedthatthecylinderswouldbemadeavailableafter2/3hours.
A5gaveRs.600/totheshopkeeperandtoldthatthecylinders
wouldbetakensubsequently.Onthenextdayon14/5/1996they
380
gotthecylindersfromthesaidshop.
536 In pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex. PW
31/B, A3andA5ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996atthesaid
shopfromwheretheyhadpurchasedthegascylindersusedinthe
incident. PW31Insp.SurinderandPW39Insp.HariRamMalik
andPW36Insp.Rajeshwarhaveprovedthepointingoutmemo/
identificationmemoEx.PW31/MwhenA3andA5tookthemto
the shop of M/s. Unique Agencies at Churiwalan. Prosecution
furtherexaminedPW54MehmoodKamal. He admittedthathe
wasrunninggasagencyunderthenameofM/s.UniqueAgencies
at2610,Churiwalan,Delhiand usedtosellgascylinders,other
homeappliancesandburnersetc.Thiswitnessfurthersupported
theprosecutionanddeposedthatinMay,1996twopersonshad
comeathisshopforpurchasingagascylinder.Thegascylinder
was notavailable with himon that day.Heasked the saidtwo
personstodepositthepriceofthegascylinderandtocomeonthe
nextdaytocollectthesame.Thosetwopersonsdepositedwith
381
himRs.290/andleftonthatday.Nextdateagaintheycameathis
shopandhedeliveredthemoneemptygascylinder.
537 ThediscoveryofshopofPW54 MehmoodKamal,
theplacefromwhereA3andA5hadpurchasedgascylinderis
relevantu/s27IndianEvidenceAct.PW54MehmoodKamaldid
not support the prosecution regarding identity of A3 and A5.
However,thisfactwasestablishedby PW31Insp.Surinderand
PW39Insp.HariRamMalikandPW36Insp.Rajeshwar thatit
werebothA3andA5whohadtakenthemtotheshopofPW54
Mehmood Kamal. PW54 Mehmood Kamal in the cross
examinationbytheld.AddlPPfortheStatehoweveradmittedthat
policehadrecordedhisstatementandpointingoutmemoEx.PW
31/Mcontainedhissignature.Hefurtheradmittedthathehadtold
thenamesofthesaidtwopersonstothepoliceasA3andA5.
Onthedayofdeposition,hefurthertestifiedthatheremembered
onlythenameofA5.Thisportionofthedisclosurestatementof
A3 corroborates the version given by the police witnesses
382
regardingidentificationofhisshopbyA3andA5.Instatement
u/s 313 Cr.P.C A3 and A5 did not explain this incriminating
circumstanceagainstthemastowhyandforwhatpurposethey
hadpurchasedgascylindersfromPW54MehmoodKamal.

(g) PointingOutResidenceOfA8:

538 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton17.6.96,A3,A5
andA6ledthepoliceteamattheresidenceofA8inpursuanceof
their disclosure statements at 4/11, Second Floor, Bhogal, New
Delhi from where they got recovered stepney Ex. P1. This
circumstancehasalreadybeendiscussedindetailatSl.No.15.
539 Theprosecutionversionregardingrecoveryofstepney
Ex. P1 from the house of A8 in the manner disclosed by the
prosecution was not believed. However, it was categorically
establishedbytheprosecutionthatA3alongwithhisassociates
had taken the police party at the residence of A8 from where
somearticlesallegedlybelongingtoA1wererecoveredfromhis
383
residence. TheresidenceofA8at4/11SecondFloor,Bhogal,
NewDelhiwasnotinthetheknowledgeofDelhiPolicepriorto
17.6.96.TheycametoknowabouttheresidenceofA8onlyin
pursuance to the disclosure statement of A3. A8 was found
presentathishouse.Again,circumstancewherebyA3alongwith
his associates pointed out the house of A8 substantiates the
prosecutionstorythatA3alongwithhisassociatehasparticipated
intheinvestigationbythepoliceon17.6.96andinpursuanceof
hisdisclosurestatementhadledthepolicepartytovariousother
placesfromwherearticleswerepurchased.

(h) PointingOut
Of ThePlaceFrom WhereDuplicateKey
WasGotPrepared:
540 This circumstance has already been discussed in
detailatSl.No.18.InpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementA3
ledthepolicepartyalongwithA5on19.6.96,totheplacefrom
wheretheduplicatekeywasgotpreparedwiththehelpofpetrol
384
tankcap. ProsecutionexaminedPW64Mohd.Rizwanwhowas
foundsittinginfrontofNimiArtsandHanicrafts,ShopNo.813,
Chawri Bazar, who was doing job of preparation of key on
footpath. PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Jwasprepared. PW64
Mohd. Rizwan disclosed in his testimony before the court that
about8or9yearsbacksomepersonshadcometohimforgetting
carkeyandhehadmadekeyforthem.Thiswitness,however,
failed to identify thepersons who had come to getprepare the
duplicate key because it was a very old matter. Nevertheless
PW64Mohd.Rizwanidentifiedhissignaturesonthepointingout
memoEx.PW13/JatpointA.Thewitnesswasnotconfrontedas
tohowandunderwhatcircumstancesheputhissignaturesonthe
identificationmemo/pointingoutmemoEx.PW13/J.Thegapwas
filledbythepolicewitnesseswhentheydeposedthatitwereboth
A3andA5whohadledthepoliceteamtotheplacewherePW64
Mohd.Rizwanwasfoundsitting.
541 Again, police was not aware about the existence of
385
PW64 Mohd. Rizwan at footpath making duplicate key. Delhi
Policecametoknowaboutthisfactforthefirsttimeonlyduetothe
disclosuremadebyA3andA5intheirdisclosurestatements.A
3failedtoexplainastowhatforcedhimtogotoPW64Mohd.
Rizwan to get prepare any duplicate key for the car. This
circumstanceagainfitsintheprosecutioncasewhereownerofthe
carPW8AtulNathcategoricallytestifiedthatpriortotheftofhis
car, its patrol tank cap had been stolen. PW76 Bishnu also
corroboratedtheversionofPW8AtulNathonthisaspect.Thus,
thiscircumstancealsoconnectstheaccusedwiththeincident.
(i)RecoveryofRs.1,00,000/byA4forA3:
542 ProsecutionhasprovedrecoveryofRs.onelakhbyA
4fromMangalDass.ThismoneywasmeantforA3. OnlyA3
wasbeneficiaryasA4hadaccompaniedhimon14/6/1996togo
toGorakhpurwherebothwereapprehended.A3didnotexplain
presenceofA4withhim.Hedidnotassertifmoneycollectedby
386
A4wasnotmeantforhim.Thiscircumstancealsoisatparwith
thecontentsofdisclosurestatementmadebyhim.

(j) OTHERCIRCUMSTANCES:

543 Prosecution further relied upon various other
circumstances from where A3 in pursuance of his disclosure
statement had taken the police team at places from where
duplicatecarnumberplatewasgotpreparedfromM/sRajaCar
NumberPlate;totheshopofM/sDeluxeStorefromwherehehad
purchasedaralditetube;shopofM/sVakilCablesfromwherehe
had purchased wire; to the shop from where he has got drill
machineandtotheplaceat134GaliNo.21,ZakirNagarwhere
carwasparkedpriortotheincident.However,prosecutionfailedto
proveallthesecircumstancesassomepublicwitnessesdidnot
opt to support the prosecution. Due to remisness of the I.O.
cogent evidence to prove these circumstances was also not
collected.
387
544 From the cumulative analysis of the circumstances
referredabove,itstandsestablishedthatA3wasnotonlyaware
oftheconspiracybutheactivelyparticipatedinexecutionofthe
objectoftheconspiracyandplayedactiverole.A3beingresident
of Delhi provided assistance to the coaccused persons to
purchasevariousarticlesfromvariousshopkeepers.Heremained
intouchwiththecoaccusedpersonswhohatchedconspiracyand
traveledtoGorakhpur.ItseemsthatA3didallthistogetfinancial
helpwhichisapparentasA4collectedRs.1,00,000/whichhas
havingsubstantialvalueintheyear1996fromoneMangalDassof
Shalimarbagh,Delhiwhichamountwastobedeliveredtohim.
D.InvolvementofA4:
545 AllegationagainstA4isthathealongwithA3
wasarrestedon14/6/1996atabout7.00pmatNewDelhi
RailwayStationwhentheyboth were toboard Vaishali
ExpresstogotoGorakhpur.FurtherallegationagainstA4
388
is that he was handed over a two rupee currency note
recovered from A7 at Gorakhpur and on the strength of
thattworupeecurrencynote,heobtainedRs.1lakhfrom
MangalDassatShalimarBagh.Boththesecircumstances
finddetaildiscussionasserialnumber11and17.Noother
circumstance showing A4 to be the member of the
conspiracyhasbeenallegedorprovedbytheprosecution.
546 Priortohisapprehensionon14/6/1996A4was
notatallinthepicture.TherearenoallegationsagainstA
4thatpriorto14/6/1996,heremainedincontactwithanyof
the accused persons or that he participated in the
commission of the incident in any manner or that he
procuredanyarticleusedinexplosionorthatheprovided
anyfinancialassistancetothecoaccusedpersonsorthat
heprovidedanysheltertoanyofthemaftertheincident.
389
547 At the time of his apprehension on 14/6/1996
alongwithA3,noincriminatingsubstancewasfoundinhis
possession.Atthetimeofhispersonalsearchonlyasum
of Rs. 770/ was recovered from his possession.
Disclosure statement of A4 Ex. PW 16/C was recorded.
Nothing incriminating was recovered in pursuance of the
disclosure statement of A4. No coaccused was
apprehendedattheinstanceofA4.Nonewfactcameto
theknowledgeofthepoliceonthebasisofthedisclosure
statementEx.PW16/C. Sincenothingwasrecoveredor
discovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.
PW 16/C, the disclosure statement is of no help to the
prosecution being inadmissible in evidence. Even the
contentsofthedisclosurestatementEx.PW16/Cdonot
prove beyond doubt that A4 had at any time showed
390
intentiontobeamemberofconspiracy.
548 Conspiracy in this case to cause bomb blast at
LajpatNagar,Delhihadcometoanendon21/5/1996.No
roleofA4inwhatsoevermannerwasascertainedbythe
police prior to 21/5/1996 to infer that A4 had hatched
criminalconspiracywithcoaccusedpersonstocommitthe
incident. After the conspiracy had come to an end on
21/5/1996,apprehensionofA4on14/6/1996andfactumof
his obtaining Rs. 1 lakh from Mangal Dass at Shalimar
Bagharenot enoughtoestablishconspiracywhichwas
nomoreinexistence.
549 A1 and A2 had already been arrested on
25/5/1996inthiscase.Intheirinitialdisclosurestatements,
norolewasattributedtoA4.A4wasnotarrestedonthe
basisofthedisclosurestatementsmadebyA1andA2.
391
Delhipolicehadalsocometoknowabouttheconfessional
statement of A9 at Jaipur before apprehension of A4.
EvenintheconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A,nameof
this accused (A4) does not find mention. No role was
assigned to this accused by A9 in his confessional
statement.Delhipolicewasnothavinganyclueaboutthe
involvementofA4inthiscaseon14/6/1996astheyhad
gotsecretinformationaboutA3tobegoingwithaKashmiri
boytoGorakhpur.EvenDelhipolicewasnotinsearchofA
4forhisroleintheincidentpriorto14/6/1996.Nothinghas
comeonrecordtoshowastowhereatDelhiA4usedto
reside. There is nothing on record to show as to since
when A4 was residing in Delhi. No antecedents of A4
werecollected by the police. Hismovements prior to the
incident and subsequent to the incident were not
392
ascertained.
550 MereapprehensionofA4alongwithA3on
14/6/1996isnotanincriminatingpieceofcircumstanceto
inferhisinvolvementintheincident.HiscollectionofRs.1
lakhfromMangalDassalsoisnotsufficienttoestablishhis
involvement in the conspiracy in this case. A4 was not
havinganynexuswithMangalDass.MangalDasswasnot
knowntohim.A4didnotobtainthetworupeecurrency
noteEx.PXfromcoaccusedpersons.Itisallegedtohave
beenrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA7. EvenA7
hadnothandeditovertoA4. Whentworupeecurrency
noteEx.PXwashandedovertoA4byDelhipoliceandhe
was sent to the residence of Mangal Dass at Shalimar
Bagh, on the strength of that two rupee currency note,
MangalDasshandedoverRs.1lakhtohim.Itisnotthe
393
caseoftheprosecutionthatA4wasbeneficiaryandwas
toretainanycashcollectedfromMangalDasswithhimfor
anyroleassignedtohim.Ratherithascomeonrecordthat
thiscashofRs.1lakhfromMangalDasswasmeantforA
3fortheroleplayedbyhimintheincident.
551 SinceMangalDasswasnotdirectlyknowntoA4,
collectionofRs.1lakhbyhimonlyonthestrengthoftwo
rupeecurrencynoteisnotafactortoprovehisinvolvement
intheincident.AnybodyhavingacurrencynoteofRe.two
could have got the cash from PW Mangal Dass. In the
absenceofanymaterial,therewasnobasisforthepolice
to arrest A4 in this incident. Mere apprehension of A4
withA3towhomheknewearlierisnotenoughtoprovehis
complicity in the incident.It is on record that A4 isthe
brotherofA5.Onthataccountnofaultcanbefoundwith
394
A4.FortheroleplayedbyA5,A4can'tberopedinthis
case. There is nothing on record to show if A4 had
remainedintouchwithhisbrotherA5.Nothinghascome
onrecordtoshowifA4washavinganynexus/connection
withJKIForhadparticipatedinanyofitsactivities. Itis
alsonotallegedifA4wasinvolvedinsuchincidentearlier
or he was arrested or apprehended in any such other
similarcases.
552 Thelawonthisaspectisveryclear.Inthecaseof
State Vs. Nalini (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically held that mere association with one of the
conspirators or even knowledge of conspiracy is not
enough. Spouses or relatives of conspirators providing
food,shelter,medicineortransportcan'tbeheldguiltyof
conspiracyonthatcountonly.
395
553 Discussing the role of A22 (Subha Sundaram)
amongothercircumstanceintheNalini'scase(supra),it
wasallegedthatA22hadprovidedcameratoHariBabu
(diedalongwithDhanuintheincident)whohehadinquired
about the camera after the incident from PW 258
(Vazhappari Ramamurthy) on 23/5/1991 and 27/5/1991.
Hon'bleSupremeCourt heldthatevenifalltheaforesaid
circumstances are assumed to be legal evidence, they
wouldhardlybesufficienttoprovetheinvolvementofA22
in the conspiracy to murder Rajiv Gandhi. It further
observedinpara(310),
That apart, if the circumstances are

individuallyanalysed,manyofthemcannotbe
treatedasincriminating circumstancesat all.
A22 would have been a critic of IPKF
activitiesinSriLanka.Hewouldhavebeena
sympathiser of the LTTE movement. Those
two premises are discernible from the
aforesaidcircumstances.
396
554 SimilarlydiscussingtheroleofA23thereinwhere
he had purchased a Maruti Gypsy which was used by co
accused Sivarasan, Subha Sundaram and others for moving
from one place to another, The Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that all such travels were subsequent to the
assassinationof RajeevGandhiandarenotenoughtoprove
the conspiracy of A23 regarding murder of Rajeev Gandhi.
ProsecutionthereinfailedtoproveifA23hadpriorknowledge
abouttheconspiracyandtherewasnoevidencetoindicatethat.
555 No active role has been attributed by the
prosecution to A4. In view of the paucity of any worthwhile
incriminatingcircumstanceagainstA4,Iamoftheviewthatthe
prosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoestablishinvolvementofA4
inthecommissionoftheincident.A4deservesbenefitofdoubt
inthiscase.
E.InvolvementofA5:
397
556 Cumulative effect of incriminating circumstance
provedonrecordbytheprosecutionisthatprosecutionhasbeen
able to establish complicity of A5 in the commission of the
incident at Delhi. The circumstances proved on record by the
prosecutionfullyconnectA5notonlyforhatchingconspiracyto
cause bomb blast at Delhi but also his active participation in
executionoftheplan.
a)ConfessionalstatementofA9:
557 Name of A5 specifically finds mention in the
confessionalstatementEx.PW100/AmadebyA9beforePW100
ShriBhagwanDass,thethenld.ACJM,Jaipuron19/7/1996in
caseFIRNo.39/96PSGandhiNagar,Jaipur. Specificrolewas
attributed to A5 in the confessional statement by A9. A9
confessedinthestatementthaton8/5/1996A5alongwithJaved
Senior,A6,A13hadcomeatKathmandu.JavedSeniorhadsent
A5toDelhion10/5/1996.Hewas toexecutesettingforbomb
398
blastatDelhi.Hefurtherdisclosedintheconfessionalstatement
thathewasinstructedbyJavedSeniorandA5toleavethebag
containing ammunition at theresidence of Wazid, friend ofA5.
Accordingly,he(A9)deliveredthesaidbagattheresidenceof
WazidwhereneitherWazidnorA5methim. Someladiesand
childrenwerepresentatthehouseofWazidandhe(A9)delivered
thebagcontaining'ammunition'tothemstatingthatitcontained
clothesofA5.A9furtherdisclosedintheconfessionalstatement
that he had inquired from Javed Senior after reaching at
KathmandufromDelhiastowhathadhappenedtotheirworkat
Delhi.JavedSeniorhadagaingiventhenameofA5andhadsent
thereafter A6 and A13 as the work could not be done due to
somedefect.
558 TheroleattributedtoA5byA9inhisconfessional
statementinexecutingtheplanforcausingbombblastatLajpat
Nagar, Delhi inspires confidence. A9 was having no ulterior
motivetofalselyropeinhisassociateA5intheincident.Nothing
399
hascomeonrecordtoshowifA5wasnotknowntoA9priorto
the occurance. Nothing has come on record if there was any
animositybetweenA5andA9forcingA9tofalselynameA5for
thecommissionoftheoffence.ThedetailaccountgivenbyA9in
hisconfessionalstatementabouttheincident,fullyfitsinthecase
of the prosecution and all these facts can't be concocted or
fabricatedparticularlywhenDelhipolicewasnotawareaboutthe
roleofA5orA9intheincidentpriortotheconfessionalstatement
madebyA9.EvenafterapprehensionandarrestofA1andA2
inDelhi,thepolicehadnotcometoknowabouttheinvolvementof
A5 or A9 in the incident. Delhi police came into motion to
apprehend the other accused persons except A1 and A2 only
whentheycametoknowabouttheconfessionalstatementmade
by A9 narrating the role played by his associates in the
commissionoftheincident.ConfessionalstatementofA9further
inspires confidence as he did not attempt to save himself.
ConfessionalstatementratherrevealsthatA9alsotookblamein
400
executing the conspiracy by delivering 'ammunition' at the
residenceofWazid,friendofA5aftertravellingtoDelhionthe
instructionsofhisassociates. A9wasnotgoingtobebenefited
byfalselynamingA5 forhisroleintheincident. Theveryfact
that A9 did not name A1 and A2 and other accused in the
incidentshowsthattherewasnoulteriormotiveforhimtomislead
theprosecutionortofalselyimplicateA5toinvitehiswrath.
559 Inhisstatementrecordedu/s313Cr.P.CA5didnot
challenge confessional statement made by A9 before PW 100
ShriBagwanDass.Hedidnotdenythattheroleattributedtohim
byA9inhisconfessionalstatementwasnotplayedbyhiminthe
incident.HedidnotdenyifhehadnevervisitedKathmanduand
hadnotmetJavedSenior.He alsodidnotdenythatPWWazid
wasnotknowntohimorthathewasnothisfriend.AgainA5did
notspecificallydenyinthestatementrecordedu/s313Cr.P.Cifhe
hadnotinstructedA9toleavethebagattheresidenceofPW
Wazid.A5didnotassignanyillwillorenmitytoA9whohimself
401
is facing trial along with the coaccused persons from the very
inceptionofthecasetomakefalsestatement.
560 The confessional statement of A9 describing the
specific role of A5 in the incident fully establishes conspiracy
hatchedbyhimalongwithhisassociatestocausebombblastat
Delhi. Not only A5 was aware of the conspiracy, he was
instrumentalinexecutingtheplantocarryouttheconspiracy.
(b)TraveltoDelhion1051996:
17/6/1996,A5informedDelhipolicethathehadalsotravelledto
Delhion1051996byRoyalNepalAirlinesinthenameofMirza
NissarHusssain in connectionwith procuringarticlesforbomb
blast. On the basis of this disclosure statement Delhi police
contacted PW67 Kesar Singh who produced photocopy of the
passengerlistdated10/5/1996inrespectofflightfromKathmandu
toIndiaofRoyalNepalAirlinesmark67/A.NameofA5wasfound
mentionedtherein.Thiscircumstancehasalreadybeendiscussed
402
indetailwhereA5didnotchallengehisjourneyfromKathmandu
toIndiaon10/5/1996byRoyalNepalAirlines. Thisfactwasnot
earlier known to the police and they came to know about this
circumstanceonlyinpursuance ofthedisclosurestatement Ex.
PW23/BmadebyA5. A5failedtoexplainthepurposeofhis
visittoDelhion10/5/1996.PresenceofA5inDelhiaftertravelling
from Kathmandu to India by Royal Nepal Airlines is another
circumstance showing his complicity in the commission of the
incident.
(c)Pointingoutshopofpurchaseofwallclock:
17/6/1996, A5 disclosedthaton17/5/1996 healongwithA6
andA15hadpurchasedonemediumsizewallclockforasumof
Rs. 180/ from a shopkeeper at Chandini Chowk. As per the
prosecution this wall clock was used in the preparation of the
cylinder,full ofexplosives usedintheincident. Policewasnot
403
aware regarding any purchase of wall clock by the accused
persons in the incident prior to recording of the disclosure
statementofA5.InpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW
23/B, A5 led the police team along with A6 to M/s. Imperial
Gramphone Company at 1388, Chandini Chowk and disclosed
thatfromthesaidshoptheyhadpurchasedoneJaycowallclock
on14/5/1996.Thiscircumstancehasalreadybeendiscussedin
detail.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Hwaspreparedwhichwas
alsosignedbyPW50YogeshKumarGupta,ownerofM/s.Imperial
Gramphone Company and PW48 Pramod. Besides PW31 Insp.
SurinderKumarandPW101Insp.ParasNathbothPW50Yogesh
KumarGuptaandPW48Pramodsupportedtheprosecutionand
categoricallytestifiedthaton14/5/1996twoboyshadpurchased
oneJaycowallclockofroundshapeforasumofRs.180/for
whichreceiptEx.PW48/AfrombillbookEx.G1wasissued.Both
these witnesses further testified that after 20/22 days i.e.,
19/6/1996 two police men had brought the said two persons at
404
theirshopandtheyhaddisclosedthattheyhadpurchasedthewall
clockfromthesaidshop.
563 It is true that both the public witnesses PW48
PramodandPW50YogeshKumarGuptacouldnotidentifybothA
5 and A6, however, both PW48 Pramod and PW50 Yogesh
KumarGuptaspecificallymentionedthatthenameoftheaccused
persons who were brought at the shop on 19/6/1996 were
mentionedinthepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Gandtherethey
haddisclosedtheirnamesasA5andA6.Thepolicewitnesses
categorically testified that both A5 and A6 were the accused
personswholedthemtotheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta
fromwheretheyhadpurchasedoneJaycowallclock.
564 This pointingoutmemo whereby A5alongwith A6
hadledthepolicepartytotheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta
whichcontainshisnamefullyestablishestheidentityofA5where
healongwithA6hadtaken thepoliceteamtotheshopwhich
was not known to the police prior to the disclosure statement .
405
Againthepolicediscoveredthisnewfactonlyduetothedisclosure
statementmadebyA5andfurtherhistakingofthepoliceteam
andidentifyingtheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.A5failed
toexplainhispresenceinDelhion14/5/1996whenhealongwith
A6 had gone at the shop of PW50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta for
purchase of Jayco wall clock. A5 further failed to explain the
purposeofpurchaseofJaycowallclockfromthesaidshop.PW50
YogeshKumarGuptaandPW48Pramodbothindependentpublic
witnesses have no ulterior motive to falsely allege purchase of
Jayco wall clock from their shop for a sum of Rs. 180/ on
14/5/1996.ThesewitnessesdidnotgivecleanchittoA5andA6
regardingtheiridentificationtheyonlypleadedthatduetolapseof
timetheywereunabletoidentifybothA5andA6tobethesame
persons who had purchased Jayco wall clock from them. This
deficiency in evidence has been covered by the testimonies of
other prosecution witnesses to whom A5 and A6 had led the
policeteamtotheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.Againthis
406
circumstance is one of the corroborating piece of evidence
showinginvolvementofA5intheincident.
(d)PointingofshopinfrontofwhichMaruticarwasparked
on19/5/1996:
revealedthataspertheirplanon19/5/1996onSundayatabout
5.30/6.00pmhealongwithA3andA6parkedthecarfittedwith
cylinderbombinfrontofDulhanDupatta,adyeshop,atLajpat
Nagar There were some shops of vegetables and fruits there.
However,duetosomedefecttheexplosioncouldnottakeplace
andonthenextdaytheyremovedthesaidcarfromthereand
parkedthesameatZakiirNagar.Againdetaildiscussionhasbeen
madeonthisaspectinthecircumstancenumber23.
566 InpursuanceofthisdisclosurestatementA5andA6
led the police team on 18/6/1996 to the shop of PW61 Sumit
Kumar.Delhipolicewasnotawareaboutexistenceofshopwith
407
the name of 'Dulhan Dupatta' at Lajpat Nagar. They were not
aware that the said shop was owned by PW61 Sumit Kumar.
WhenA5andA6ledthepoliceteamattheshopofPW61Sumit
Kumarthepolicecametoknowthattherewasoneshopunderthe
nameandstyleof'DulhanDupatta'beingownedbyPW61Sumit
Kumar. PW61 Sumit Kumar was joinedin the investigation. His
testimony lends credence to the fact disclosed by A5 in his
disclosurestatement. PW61SumitKumartestifiedthathewas
havingashopinCentralMarket,LajpatNagarinthenameand
styleof'DulhanDupatta'situatedinthepremisesofIID35,Lajpat
Nagar.Onedayatabout2.00/2.30 pm, 3/4personsparkeda
Maruticarofwhitecolourinfrontofhisshopdespitehisobjection.
Ultimately the said persons removed the car from there and
parked the same four shops away on right side in front of a
doctor's shop. Registration number of the vehicle parked was
1895. Twodayslateronhe cametoknowthatbombblasthad
takenplaceatLajpatNagarinaMaruticar.Thiswitnessfurther
408
supportedtheprosecutionthatafteramonthlaterpolicevisitedhis
shop. The witness identified his signatures at point C on the
pointingoutmemo Ex.PW 31/R. The witness categorically
admitted that he had identified these accused persons on
18/6/1996whentheyhadpointedouttheplaceinfrontofhisshop.
PW61 Sumit Kumar told the police that they were the same
personswhohadparkedtheabovementionedMaruti800infront
ofhisshopon19/5/1996andwhenheraisedobjection,thesaid
personshadquarreledwithhim.Thewitnessfurtheradmittedthat
on 19/5/1996 when he closed his shop at about 8.30 pm, the
abovementionedcarwasseenparkednearhisshopandnoother
personwaspresentthere.Thewitnessexplainedthatinitiallyhe
couldnotclarifysomeofthethingsandhedisclosedlateronin
testifying before the court but the same had taken place on
accountofconfusion.Thewitnessclaimedthathecouldidentify
thesaidthreepersonsifshowntohim.Seeingthethreeaccused
persons A3, A5 and A6 before the court, this public witness
409
rightlyidentifiedA3withcertainty. HefurtheridentifiedA5with
somedegreeofdoubt.However,hecouldnotidentifyA6.This
witnessfurtherprovedhissignaturesonthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/R.ThecontentsofEx.PW31/Rprovedonrecordbythe
policewitnessesaswellcontainednameofA3,A5andA6who
hadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW61SumitKumar.Since
thiswitnesswasabletoidentifyA3withcertaintyandA5 with
some degree of doubt, the testimonies of the other witnesses
examined by the prosecution on this aspect fill the gap and
establishbeyonddoubtthatA5andA6werethepersonswho
had led the police team along with A3 on 18/6/1996. The
statementofPW61SumitKumarisentirelyinconformitywiththe
factsdisclosedbyA5inhisdisclosurestatement.Againu/s27of
Indian Evidence Act discovery of new fact in pursuance of the
disclosure statement of the accused is fully relevant and
admissible. PW61Sumit KumarcategoricallyclaimedthatA3
alongwithhistwoassociateshaveparkedthevehicleusedinthe
410
commissionoftheoffenceandevengaveitsregistrationnumber
1895.ThiswitnesshadobjectedtoA3andhisassociatestohad
parkedthevehicleinquestioninfrontofhisshopandaquarrel
had taken place with them, so this witness had an ample
opportunitytoseethefacesofthepersonswhohadparkedthe
vehicleinfrontofhisshopduringdaytime. IdentificationofA3
along with his associates by this witness therefore can't be
doubted.
567A5hasfailedtoexplainastohowandforwhatpurpose
hehappenedtobetherealongwithA3atthetimeofparkingof
the vehicle in question in front of shop of PW61 Sumit Kumar.
MerelybecausethiswitnesscouldnotidentifyA5withcertainty
benefit of the same can't be given to A5 as other prosecution
witnessescategoricallystatedthatitwasonlyA5andA6who
weretherealongwithA3whentheyhadtakenthepolicepartyto
theshopofPW61SumitKumar.
568 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/B,A5revealed
411
that due to some defect the blast could not take place on
19/5/1996.HemadetelephonecallatKathmanduandinformedA
7aboutthesituation.HewasinformedbyA7onphonethatA13
and A15 were in Delhi and would meet him in the evening to
removethedefect.ThisdisclosureofA5againisinconsonance
withthecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementmadebyA9inEx.
PW 100/A where he had come to know from his associates at
KathmanduastowhathadhappenedtotheirworkatDelhiandhis
associates had informed him that due to some defect the work
couldnotbedone.
e.Pointingoutshopfromwhere9voltbatterywaspurchased:
569 In his further disclosure statement Ex. PW 23/B, A5
disclosedthatthebombcould notexplodeduetoweak battery
usedintheblast.HewasinformedbyA13thatonepowerfulcell
of9voltwasrequiredtobeusedandon21/5/1996atabout10.30
am,healongwithA6,A13andA15purchased9voltbatteryfor
412
a sum of Rs. 95 from a shop at subzi mandi, Bhogal. A5 in
pursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementalongwithhisassociatesA
6 took the police team to the said shop from where he had
purchasedthe9voltbattery.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Lwas
preparedon19/6/1996.BothA5andA6ledthepoliceteamat
the shop of PW60 Rajesh Kumar owner of M/s Ganesh
Electronicsfromwheretheyhadpurchased9voltbattery.Again
this circumstancehas beendealtwithminutelyas circumstance
number27.
570 PW31Insp. Surinder Kumar and PW 39 Insp. Hari
Ram Malik proved pointingoutmemo Ex. PW 31/L which
contained the signature of PW60 Rajesh Kumar as well as
signaturesofbothA5andA6.PW60RajeshKumartestifiedthat
hewasrunningelectricalshopwiththenameandstyleof 'M/s
GaneshElectronics'situatedatshopno.21,Jangpura,NewDelh.
On 21/5/1996 two persons had purchased 9 volt battery make
413
'Entiser'forasumofRs.95/Thewitnessagainstatedthaton
19/6/1996twoaccusedpersonsalongwithpoliceteamcameathis
shopandoneofthosepersonsidentifiedtheshopandtoldthat
theyhadpurchasedtheabovementionedbatteryfromhisshop.
Thiswitnesswasunabletoidentifythesaidtwopersons.However,
afterhavingalookattheaccusedpersonspresentbeforethecourt
incustodyPW60RajeshKumarpointedtowardsA5andstated
that he might be one of the accused persons who brought the
police to his shop and who had told the police that he had
purchasedthebatteryfromhisshop.
571 Inthe cross examinationby the ld. Addl PP for the
State, the witness further volunteered to add that two accused
personswerebroughtinaMarutivanbythepolicenearhisshop
andtheywerekeptinmuffledfaces.Onhisreachingtothevan,
facesofthetwoaccusedpersonswereunmuffled. Thewitness
furtherstatedthathehadtoldthepoliceatthattimethatoneof
those two persons namely A5 present in the court might had
414
purchasedthebatteryfromhim.
572 Inhisfurthercrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPfor
theState thewitnessstatedthattheabovenamedtwoaccused
personshadpointedouthisshopandidentifiedhim.Thepolice
had prepared memo Ex. PW 31/L which was signed by him at
point B. The said memo was also signed by the above named
accusedpersons.A5andA6didnotdenytheirsignaturesonthe
memoEx.PW31/LwhichcategoricallyestablishedthatonlyA5
andA6werethepersonswhohadledthepoliceteamattheshop
of PW60 Rajesh Kumar. The doubt lurking in the mind of this
witness regarding identification of A5 was cleared in the
subsequentcrossexaminationwhenheclaimedthathehadtold
thepolicethattheabovenamedtwoaccusedpersonshadpointed
outhisshopandidentifiedhim.
573 NameofPW60RajeshKumarandhisshopaddress
was not in the knowledge of the police prior to the accused
personsleadingthemtohisshop.Policediscoveredtheshopof
415
PW60 only in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the
accusedpersons.Healsocametoknowthatitwasthesameshop
fromwhereon21/5/1996one9voltbatteryforasumofRs.95/
waspurchasedwhichwasusedinthecommissionoftheincident.
ThisdiscoveryofshopofPW60fromwheretheitemforexplosion
was procured is very material piece of circumstance showing
involvementofA5intheincident.
574 InsimilarcircumstancesinthecaseofNalini(supra),
A18 therein had purchased a battery from a shop near LIC
building at Madras by giving a false name (Rajan) and a false
address. He also bought two batteries (9 volt Golden Power
battery)andhandedovertoSivrasanforusingtoblastthebomb.
ProsecutionexaminedPW91(Moideen),asalesmaninHindustan
TrainingCompany,RoyaPettahHighRoad,Madras.Hesaidinhis
evidencethatduringthesecondweekofMay,1991,A18(Arivu)
had purchased two batteries from his shop. He mentioned a
reason for remembering that it was A18 who purchased the
416
batteries.Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedinpara(270):
.......whateverbethereason,the
factremainsthatitwasonthestrength
oftheinformationthattheInvestigating
Officer(PW266Venkteswaram)cameto
knowofPW91'sshop.Theinfereanceis
therefore irresistible that A18 would
have pointed out the shop and PW91,
thesalesmanasthepersonfromwhom
A18hadpurchasedtwo9voltGolden
Powerbatteries.
575 AgainPW266IO,oninterrogationofA18cameto
know of PW88 (Dalip Chodia) who is a dealer of a firm called
'International Tyre Service' at Mount Road, Madras from where
Exidebatterieswerepurchased.Thecopyofacashbilissuedin
the name of one 'Rajan', door no. 6 Lady Madhavan Street,
Mahabalipuram,MadraswasprovedthroughPW88asEx.P447.
Hon'bleSupremeCourtalsofoundthiscircumstanceasmaterialto
corroborateconfessionofA18.
(f) Identification of shop from where solder iron was
purchased:
417
576 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/B,A5revealed
thataftercomingtoDelhifromKathmanduon10/5/1996,after3or
4dayshehadpurchasedonesolderingironandsolderfromthe
shopofoneSardarjiatLajpatNagarmarket.A5alongwithA3
ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996andpointedtheshopofPW58
JitenderPalSinghfromwherethesolderingironwaspurchased.
Pointingout/identificationmemoEx.PW31/Kwaspreparedinthis
regard.PW58JitenderPalSinghinhisdepositionbeforethecourt
statedthaton19/6/1996somepolicepeoplealongwithoneortwo
public persons came at his shop and he was told that one
soldering iron and solder were purchased fromhis shop by the
saidoneortwopersons.Hehadseenthosetwopersonsasthose
personshadsaidthattheyhadpurchasedthesolderingironand
solder. Thewitnessfurtherstatedthathehadsoldthesoldering
ironandsolderforRs.35/.Regardingidentification,thewitness
statedthatsinceitwasmatterof8/9yearsback,hewasunableto
identifythesaidtwopersonsbroughtathisshoptobeamongst
418
theaccusedpersons.Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPP
fortheState,thewitnessadmittedthathehadgiventhenamesof
thesaidtwopersonsinhisstatementrecordedbythepoliceasA
3andA5whohadaccompaniedthepoliceandhadpointedout
hisshopasaplacefromwheretheyhadpurchasedthesoldering
ironandsolderon13/5/1996.Hefurtheradmittedthatthesaidtwo
personshadcomeinmuffledfacesandtheywereseenbyhim
whentheirfaceswereunmuffledinhispresencebythepolice.He
furtheradmittedthathetoldthepolicethatthesaidtwopersons
who had come to his shop had purchased soldering iron and
solderfromhisshop.HefurtheraddedthatA3presentbeforethe
courtmightbeoneofthetwopersons. Thewitnessprovedthe
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Kbearinghissignatureatpoint'B'.
ThewitnessidentifiedsolderingironEx.Z1whichwaspurchased
fromhisshop.AgainidentificationoftheshopofPW58Jitender
PalSinghbyA3anA5wholedthepoliceteaminpursuanceof
thedisclosurestatementshowsthatitwasA3andA5whohad
419
ledtotheshopofPW58JitenderPalSinghfromwhomsoldering
iron was purchased on 13/5/1996. Again testimony of PW58
JitenderPalSinghisinconsonancewiththefactsdisclosedbyA5
in his disclosure statement. This circumstance has been
discussedindetailascircumstancenumber32.
(g) Identification of shop from where got fixed wires on
terminals:
narratedthathewasinstructedtogetthesolderingofthebattery
doneandhegotthesamedonefromanothershop.A5alongwith
A6ledthepolicepartyon19/6/1996attheshopofPW38Vijay
Kapoor,ownerofVijayElectronicsfromwhere accusedpersons
hadgotthesolderingofthebatterydone.
578 PW38VijayKapoorinhistestimonybeforethecourt
testified that he was running an electronic shop at 39, Masjid
Road,Jangpura,Bhogal.InMay,1996twopersonshadcomeat
420
hisshopwith9voltbatteryand theywantedhimtofixthetwo
wiresonterminalsbysolderingandtookRs.5/onthejob.The
witness identifiedthesaidtwopersonspresentbeforethecourt.
HepointedouttowardsA5as beingoneofthem.Thewitness
alsopointedouttowardsA6andstatedthathewasthesecond
person but he was not very sure about that. Accused persons
thereafter left his shop after getting the soldering job complete.
PW38 further testified that after a month thereafter, both these
accusedpersonscameathisshopleadingthepoliceteamand
pointed out his shopand pointing outmemoEx.PW 31/N was
preparedwhichcontainedhissignatureatpoint'B'.
579 This witness categorically and with certainty
identifiedA5beforethecourttobethepersonwhoalongwithhis
associatehadvisitedhisshoponemonthpriorto19/6/1996from
where they had got the two wires on terminals soldered. The
testimony of this witness has been discussed in detail in
421
circumstance number 28. Identification of A5 by this public
witness is a clinching evidence to prove his involvement in the
commission of the offence. Pointingoutmemo Ex. PW 31/N
containedsignatureofthiswitnesswhichshowedthatboththese
accused persons had led the police team at his shop and only
thereafterpolicecametoknowaboutthepresenceofPW38Vijay
Kapoor running his shop under the name and style of 'Vijay
Electronics'.
580 A5againdidnotexplaininhisstatementrecordedu/s
313 Cr.P.C regardinghispresenceinDelhiandabouthisvisitat
theshopofPW38VijayKapoor. A5alsofailedtotestifyasto
how and under what circumstances he happened to get the
terminalwiressolderedattheshopofPW38VijayKapoor.The
disclosurestatementofA5coupledwithdisclosurestatementon
similar facts of coaccused persons and discovery of shop of
PW38VijayKapoorandhisdepositionfullyprovestheactiverole
playedbyA5intheentireincident.
422
(h)Othercircumstances:
581 The prosecution further relied upon various other
circumstancestoconnectA5withthecommissionoftheoffence
whichhavebeendiscussedincircumstancesatserialnumber30,
31and32.Thoughthecircumstancediscussedaboveatnumber
30 find mention in the disclosure statement of A5, yet the
prosecution failed to prove those circumstances beyond
reasonable doubt. Some of the witnesses examined by the
prosecutionturnedhostileforulteriorpurposesanddidnotprove
thesaidcircumstances. However, even if these
circumstances which the prosecution could not prove beyond
reasonabledoubtorarenottenableinlawareignored/excluded,
itdoesnotestablishinnocenceofA5.Circumstancesprovedon
record by the prosecution are strong enough to infer the active
participation ofA5 in the execution ofthe plan to causebomb
blastatLajpatNagar,Delhi.A5didnotadduceanyevidencein
423
defencetofalsifytheincriminatingcircumstanceappearingagainst
him. Hedidnotproduceanyevidencetoshowthatduringthe
relevantdatesfrom10/5/1996to21/5/1996,hewasnotpresentin
Delhiorthathewaspresentatanyotherspecificplace.Nofamily
member or close associates of A5 appeared in his defence to
prove his presence at any place other than Delhi. Prosecution
establishedarrivalofA5toDelhion10/5/1996byRoyalNepal
Airlines. A5 failed to explain as to when, how and under what
circumstances,hehappenedtodepartfromDelhi.Healsofailedto
explainastohowandforwhatpurposes,hehadvisitedDelhiand
duringhisvisitatDelhi,A5failedtoexplainhisplaceofstay.A5
alsofailedtoexplainastohowA9,hisassociatewithwhomhe
was having no enmity, revealed his role in the incident. The
prosecution witnesses mostly shopkeepers where A5 led the
policeinpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementtestifiedagainstA
5 without any ulterior motive. They were not known to A5 to
falselyropehiminthiscase.A5wasnotresidentofDelhitohave
424
anyillwillagainstthepolicepersonnelstofalselyimplicatehimin
thiscase,afterbringinghimfromNepalasalleged.A5alsofailed
toexplainastohowDelhipolicehappenedtoidentifyhimtobethe
personinvolvedintheincident.Healsofailedtoprovetheexact
date when he was arrested by the police and if so from which
particular place. During the entire proceedings A5 never
challengedthathewaseverforcedbytheinvestigatingagencyto
putthesignaturesonblankpapers.Heneverchallengedbefore
anyauthoritythathenevermadeanydisclosurestatementorthat
hedidnotleadthepolicetovariousshops/placesfromwherehe
alongwithhisassociateshadprocuredthearticlestocarryoutthe
plan.
582 InthecaseofStateVs.Nalini(supra)PW179,aretail
textileshopkeeperidentifiedA1(Nalini)whensheledthepolice
athisshopandfromwhereshehadpurchased'chooridaar'worn
byDhanno(humanbomb).Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedon
thisaspect:
425
..........that apart, Investigating

Officer could trace out PW 179, only
because A1 (Nalini) told him of the
place where from the chooridaar was
purchased.Thatportionwasadmitted
inevidenceu/s27oftheEvidenceAct.
The cumulative effect is that the
testimonyofPW179canbetreatedas
trueevidence.Itishighlycorroborative
material.
F.InvolvementofA6:
583 TheroleofA6isakinonmostofthecircumstancesto
thatofA5.CircumstancespertainingtoA6provedonrecordby
the prosecution establish his involvement in the criminal
conspiracyandhisactiveparticipationinthe commissionofthe
incident.
a)ConfessionstatementofA9:
584 NameofA6specificallyfindsmentionintheconfessional
statement Ex. PW 100/A made by A9 before PW100 Shri
BhagwanDass.InhisconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A,A9
revealedthaton8/5/1996JavedSenior,A5,A6andA13came
426
atKathmandu.On10/5/1996JavedSeniorsentA5toDelhiashe
wastoexecutesettingforblastatDelhi.Hefurthertestifiedthat
thereafterhe,JavedSenior,A6andA13startedfromKathmandu
toDelhiintheeveningof11/5/1996.Howeveron12/5/1996inthe
morningonreachingattheborder,hestayedthereandremaining
personsleft.AfterdeliveringammunitionattheresidenceofPW
Wazid Kasai andon his returnto Kathmandu on 17/5/1996, he
found that Javed Senior, A6 and A13 had already reached at
Kathmandu. Heinquiredfromthemastowhathadhappenedto
theirworkatDelhi. On19/5/1996,A6andA13camebackto
Delhi.WhenheinquiredfromJavedSeniorastowhyA6andA
13hadgonebacktoDelhi,heinformedhimthattheworkcouldnot
bedoneduetosomedefect.
585 These facts narrated by A9 in his confessional
statement about A6 are in consonance with the disclosure
statementEx.PW16/Grecordedon16/6/1996.Thisconfessional
statementmadebycoaccusedA9regardingtheincidentshows
427
A6tobeawareaboutthecriminalconspiracyandhisassociation
withthecoaccusedpersons.A6didnotcontrovertthecontentsof
theconfessionalstatementmadebyA9attributingspecificroleto
him whereby he visited Delhi along with his associates first on
12/5/1996andthereafterhewasagainsentbackon19/5/1996as
theworkatDelhicouldnotbedoneduetosomedefect.Itisthe
caseoftheprosecutionthatduetoweakbatterytheblastcouldnot
takeplaceon19/5/1996.A6didnotdenyhisvisitstoDelhias
disclosed by A9 in his confessional statement. A6 failed to
disclose the purpose ofhis visits toDelhi during theserelevant
dates.A9hadnoulteriormotivetofalselyattributespecificroleto
A6whowashiscloseassociateandwithwhomhehadnoprior
enmity.A9,byexposingcoaccusedpersonsmusthaveannoyed
them.
b)Pointingoutshopofpurchaseofwallclock:
586 Prosecution has further proved on record various
circumstancescorroboratingtheconfessionalstatementmadeby
428
A9.InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/G.A6disclosedthat
during his presence at Delhi, he along with A3 and A5 had
procuredvariousarticlesformanufacturingbombfortheblast.He
disclosedthathealongwithA5andA15hadgoneatashopat
ChandiniChowkandtheretheyhadpurchasedamediumsizewall
clock for a sum of Rs. 180/. In pursuance of his disclosure
statementA5 andA6ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996toM/s.
Imperial Gramaphone Company at 1388, Chandini Chowk and
pointedouthisshopfromwheretheyhadpurchasedoneJayco
wall clock on 14/5/1996. This circumstance has already been
discussed in detail as circumstance number 29. PW48 Pramod
andPW50YogeshKumarGuptasupportedtheprosecutiononthis
aspectandcarboncopyofthebillEx.PW48/AissuedbyPW48
PramodwasseizedwithbillbookEx.G1videseizurememoEx.
PW31/G.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Hcontainingsignatures
ofPW50YogeshKumarGuptaandPW48Pramodandalsothe
signaturesoftheaccusedpersonswasprovedonrecord.
429
587 The testimonies of both PW48 Pramod and PW50
YogeshKumarGuptaprovedthattwoboyshadpurchasedJayco
wallclockon14/5/1996. Theyfurthertestifiedthaton19/6/1996
thepolicehadbroughttwopersonsathisshopandtheyhadtold
about the purchase of wall clock from his shop. PW50 Yogesh
Kumar Gupta further disclosed that pointingoutmemo Ex. PW
31/Hcontainedhissignatureanditalsocontainedthesignatures
ofthetwoboyswhohadcomeathisshopon19/6/1996.Hehad
signedthatmemoafterreadingthecontents.BothPW48Pramod
andPW50YogeshKumarGupta couldnotidentifythesaidtwo
persons being the same persons who had purchased the wall
clock from their shop. However, identity of A5 and A6 was
establishedfromthetestimoniesofPW31Insp.SurinderKumar
and PW 39 Insp. Hari Ram Malik as in pursuance of their
disclosurestatementsA5andA6hadledthemtotheshopof
PW50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta. Police was not aware about the
existenceoftheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGuptaandcameto
430
knowaboutthatonlywhenbothA5andA6ledthepoliceteamat
hisshop.ThispartofthedisclosurestatementofA6isadmissible
u/s27oftheIndianEvidenceActaspriortothatthepolicewasnot
awareaboutthenewfactsregardingpurchaseofwallclockfrom
theshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.A6didnotexplainthe
purposeofpurchaseofJaycowallclockfromtheshopofthese
witnesses. He also failed to justify his presence in Delhi on
14/5/1996.HedidnotexplainastoaftercomingtoDelhiwherehe
stayedandwhenhedepartedfromDelhi.
c.Pointingoutshopfromwhere9voltbatterywaspurchased:
588 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/GA6further
disclosedthaton19/5/1996duetosomedefectbombcouldnot
explode. A5informedA7onphoneatKathmanduthatdueto
some defect, the bomb could not explode. Thereafter from
KathmanduA13andA15cameanddisclosedthatduetoweak
batterythebombcouldnotexplode.On21/5/1996atabout10.30
431
am,healongwithA5,A13andA15purchasedone9voltcell
fromoneshopatsubzimandi,BhogalforasumofRs.95/. In
pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex. PW 16/G, A6 along
withA5ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996totheshopofPW60
RajeshKumar,ownerof'GaneshElectronics',situatedatshopno.
21,Jangpura,NewDelhifromwheretheyhadpurchased9volt
battery. PW60RajeshKumarmetattheshopandhesupported
theprosecutionandtestifiedthaton21/5/1996 twopersonshad
purchased9voltbatterymake'entiser'forasumofRs.95/The
witness further stated that on 19/6/1996, two accused persons
alongwithpolicehadcomeathisshopandoneofthesaidtwo
persons identifiedtheshopand told thathehadpurchasedthe
above mentioned battery from his shop. The witness could not
identify the person who had purchased the battery from him.
However, after having a look at the accused persons present
beforethecourt,PW60RajeshKumarpointedouttowardsA5and
statedthathemightbeoneoftheaccusedpersonswhohadbeen
432
broughttohisshopbythepoliceandwhohadtoldthepolicethat
he had purchased the battery from his shop. Again this
circumstance has been discussed in detail as circumstance
number27whereinvolvementofA5andA6regardingpurchase
of9voltbatteryfromtheshopofPW60RajeshKumarwasfound
believed. Nameoftwoaccusedpersonswhohadledthepolice
teamattheshopofPW60RajeshKumarwasfoundmentionedin
the pointingoutmemo Ex. PW 31/L which categorically
establishedthatitwasonlythesetwoaccusedA5andA6who
hadledthepoliceteamattheshopofPW60RajeshKumar.Again
priortotheaccusedpersonsleadingtotheshopofPW60there
wasnothinginthemindoftheprosecutionthatany9voltbattery
waspurchasedfromhisshopon21/5/1996. A6furtherfailedto
explainastohowandunderwhatcircumstanceshealongwithA5
happenedtopurchasethe9voltbatteryfromPW60RajeshKumar
on21/5/1996andwhatwasthepurposeofpurchaseofthesaid
battery.A6furtherfailedtojustifyastohowon19.6.96,hehad
433
identified the shop of PW60 Rajesh Kumar from where he
alongwithA5hadpurchasedthebatteryon21.5.96.
d)Pointingoutofshopfromwherewiresweregotconnected:
589 Anotherimportantcircumstanceestablishedonrecord
by the prosecution to connect A6 with the commission of the
incidentisthathealongwithA5gottwowiresontheterminalsof9
voltbatterysolderedfromtheshopofPW38VijayKapor.
590 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/G,A6disclosed
thatafterpurchasing9voltbattery,theygottwowiresconnected
fromanothershop.A6didnotgivespecificparticularsoftheshop
from where he alongwith A5 had got two wires fixed on the
terminals of 9 volt battery. However, in pursuance of the
disclosure statement Ex. PW16/G, A6 along with A5 led the
police team at the shop of PW38 Vijay Kapoor, Shop No.39,
Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi under the name and style of M/s
GaneshElectronics.Inhisdepositionbeforethecourthetestified
434
thatinMay1996,twopersonshadcomeathisshopwith9volt
battery and they wanted him to fix two wires on terminals by
solderingwhichhegotdonefromhisemployeeandtookRs.5/on
the job. The witness pointed out towards A5 as being one of
them.ThewitnessalsopointedouttowardsA6andstatedthathe
wasthesecondpersonbuthewasnotsureaboutit.Thesetwo
accused persons left the shop after getting the soldering job
complete.PW38VijayKapoorfurthertestifiedthatafteronemonth
both those two accused persons came to his shop leading the
policeteamandpointedouthisshopandpointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/Nwaspreparedwhichcontainedhissignaturesatpoint'A'.
A6didnotdenyhissignaturesonpointingoutmemoEx.PW31/N.
ItshowsthathealongwithA5hadledthepoliceteamtotheshop
ofPW38Vijay Kapoor.Some doubtin themindofPW38Vijay
KapoorregardingidentificationofA6wasclearedbythetestimony
ofotherpolicewitnessestowhomtheaccusedhadledtotheshop
ofPW38VijayKapoorinpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement.
435
A6alongwithA5 failedtojustify his presenceattheshopof
PW38VijayKapoor.ThedisclosurestatementEx.PW16/Gonthis
aspectbyA6isclearlyinconformitywithdisclosurestatementof
A5Ex.PW23/BwhowascategoricallyidentifiedbyPW38Vijay
Kapoor.
e) Pointing out shop where Maruit 800 was parked on
19/5/1996:
591 Inhisdisclosurestatement Ex.PW16/GA6further
informedthepolicethaton19/5/1996atabout6pm,healongwith
A3andA5hadreachedalongwithcarfittedwithbombatCentral
Market,LajpatNagarandaftertakingoneortworounds,parked
the said car in front of the shop where there was a board of
'Dulhan'.Thereweresomeshopsofvegetablesandfruitsthere.
592 In pursuance of his disclosure statement, A6 also
alongwithA3andA5ledthepolicepartytotheshopofPW61
SumitKumar atDII/35LajpatNagar on8/6/1996.PW61Sumit
436
Kumarmetthepolicepartyandstatedthathewastheownerof
shopofDulhanDupatta.HedeposedthatononeSundayatabout
atabout2.00/2.30pm,hewaspresentattheshop.Atthattime
3/4personsparkedaMaruticarofwhitecolourinfrontofhisshop
despitehisobjection.Ultimatelythesaidpersonsremovedthecar
fromthereandparkedthesamefourshopsawayonrightsidein
frontofaDoctor'sshop.Registrationnumberofthevehicleparked
was 1895. He further deposed that after a month later, police
visitedhisshopalongwith3or4persons.Inthecrossexamination
bytheld.AddlPPthiswitnessprovedthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/Rwhichcontainedhissignature.Hefurtherstatedthathe
had identified the three persons on 18/6/1996 when they had
pointedouttheplaceinfrontofhisshopandhehadtoldthepolice
that they were the same persons who had parked the above
mentionedMaruti800infrontofhisshopon19/5/1996andwhen
heraisedobjectionthesaidpersonshadquarreledwithhim.Itis
furtheradmittedinthecrossexaminationthaton19/5/1996when
437
heclosedhisshopatabout8.30pm,theabovementionedcarwas
seenparkednearhisshopandnootherpersonwaspresentnear
the car. This witness claimed that he could identify the three
persons who had led the police team to his shop. The witness
rightlyidentifiedA3 withcertainty.HefurtheridentifiedA5with
somedegreeofdoubtful.However,thiswitnesscouldnotidentify
A6.DisclosurestatementsofA5andA3arealsoonsimilarlines
onthisaspect.A6didnotchallengehisassociationwithA3and
A5anddidnotdenythathehadnotaccompaniedthepoliceon
that day to the shop of PW61 Sumit Kumar. Ex. PW 31/R
containedtheirsignaturesincludingthatofA6whichestablishes
his presence at the shop of PW61 Sumit Kumar along with his
associatesA3andA5.NoexplanationhasbeengivenbyA6as
tohowhehappenedtopointouttheshopofPW61SumitKumar
andwhatwashisnexuswiththecarwhichexplodedultimatelyon
21/5/1996duetobombblast.
593 Again the police discovered this fact only on the
438
basisofdisclosurestatement ofA6. In Nalini'scase,(supra)
PW215(Saamundeswari)inherevidenceidentifiedA1(Nalini)as
oneoftheladieswhoalongwithSivarasanandSubhahadtaken
waterfromheron21/5/1991at10.45pm.Hon'bleSupremeCourt
observedthatthesignificanceoftheevidenceofPW215wasthat
theinvestigatingofficersucceededindiscovering herhouseon
theinformationsuppliedbyA1(Nalini).
f.POINTINGOUTOFRESIDENCEOFA8:
594 On 17/6/1996 A6 alongwith A3 and A5 led the
police team at the residence of A8 in pursuance of his
disclosurestatementfromwheresomedocumentspertainingto
A1wererecovered.A6didnotdenythathedidnotleadthe
police party at residence of A8. Residence of A8 at 4/11,
SecondFloor,Bhogal,NewDelhiwasnotintheknowledgeof
Delhipolicepriorto17/6/1996. Theycametoknowaboutthe
residenceofA8inpursuanceofdisclosurestatementofA6.
439
A8wasfoundpresentathishouse.Again,thiscircumstance
wherebyA6alongwithhisassociatespointedoutthehouseof
A8 substantiate the prosecution story that he alongwith his
associateshadparticipatedintheinvestigationbythepoliceon
17/6/1996andinpursuanceofthedisclosurestatementhadled
thepolicepartytovariousotherplacesfromwherethearticles
werepurchased.
g.OTHERCIRCUMSTANCES:
595 Prosecution has relied upon the other
circumstances also whereby A6 alongwith his associates led
thepoliceteamattheplacesfromwhereduplicatenumberplate
wasgotpreparedfromM/s.RajaCarNumberPlate;theplaceat
134GaliNo.21,ZakirNagarwherecarwasparkedpriortothe
incident; the place from where front and rear number plates
weregotrecovered. However,allthesecircumstances could
not be established by the prosecution as number of public
440
witnesses turned hostile. IO also failed to collect cogent
evidenceonthesecircumstancestoprovethem.
G.RoleofA7:
596 AllegationstoproveinvolvementofA7intheincident
isthatonhisarrestalongwithA6atGorakhpuron16/6/1996one
two rupee currency note Ex. PX was recovered from his
possessionwhichwastobehandedovertoA4toobtainRs.1
lakhfromMangalDass.Othercircumstancesrelieduponbythe
prosecutionagainstA7arethaton27/6/1996atSrinagar,some
ammunitions/explosiveswererecoveredfromhisresidenceand
on19/5/1996,A5hadmadetelephonecalltohimatKathmandu.
Allthesecircumstanceshavebeendiscussedindetailats.no.11.
Prosecution failed to prove all these circumstances beyond
reasonabledoubt.
597 No other circumstance showing complicity of this
accused in this incident has been alleged or proved by the
441
prosecution.ItisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionifA7evervisited
DelhiorJ&Kpriortotheincidenttomakeanyplaninconspiracy
with coaccused persons to cause bomb blast at Delhi. No
evidencewascollectedbytheprosecutionifpriorto21/5/1996A7
hadremainedinconstanttouchwiththecoaccusedpersonsor
that he had attended any meeting of JKIF organization on any
specific date. There is no evidence on record to show if A7
providedanyfinancialassistancetoanyofthecoaccusedpersons
at any time or helped them in procuring articles used in the
preparationofthe bomb. Delhipolicewasnotawareaboutthe
involvementofA7intheincidentpriortoapprehensionofA3and
A4 on14/6/1996. A1andA2hadalreadybeenarrestedby
Delhi police on 25/5/1996 from J & K. In their disclosure
statementsA1andA2didnotattributeanyrolewhatsoevertoA
7 for hatching conspiracy to commit the incident. Even after
coming to know about the name of A7 in the confessional
statementofA9,DelhipolicewasnotinsearchofA7forhisrole
442
intheincident.A6andA7werearrestedfromGorakhpurwhen
allegedly they bothhadcomefromNepal todeliver two rupee
currencynoteEx.PXtoA4toenablehimtoobtainRs.1lakh
fromMangalDasstobegiventoA3.Thisoccurrencetookplace
on16/6/1996whenconspiracytocausebombblasthadalready
cametoanend.Priorto21/5/1996noactiveparticipationofA7in
theincidenthasbeenbroughtonrecord.Therewasnooccasion
forbothA6andA7totraveltoGorakhpurfromNepalonlyfor
handingoveratworupeecurrencynotetoA4.Itcouldhavebeen
givenevenbyoneperson.Thisversionoftheprosecutionhasnot
beenbelievedinthecircumstancesreferredabove.Evenifitis
assumedthatA7haddeliveredtworupeecurrencynotetoA4on
16/6/1996,itdoesnotestablishhimtobeamemberofconspiracy
tocausebombblaston21/5/1996atDelhiwhichwasnomorein
existence. It is not the case of the prosecution that A7 was
beneficiaryinwhatsoevermannerincollectionofRs.1lakhbyA4
fromMangalDassatShalimarBagh.Itisalsonotthecaseofthe
443
prosecutionthatMangalDasswasknowntoA7orthathehad
remainedintouchwithMangalDassatanytimetogiveRs.1lakh
toA4onthestrengthoftworupeecurrencynote.Therewasno
reasonforA6andA7tocallA3andA4toGorakhpurjustto
handovertworupeecurrencynote.A7wasnotasuspectatthat
timeandhecouldhavedeliveredthetworupeecurrencynoteto
A3 at Delhi. The whole story presented by prosecution on this
aspectdoesnotappealtomind.
598 Thereisnothinginthestatementsoftheprosecution
witnesses if A7 had provided any inputs to the coaccused
personstoexecutetheplan.Hedidnotfacilitateanycoaccused
personsincarryingouttheobjectofconspiracy.Noantecedents
of A7 were collected by Delhi police to show him to be the
memberofJKIForganization.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowif
A7hadindulgedinanyillegalactivitiesinIndiatocarryoutthe
objectsofJKIF.NoinvolvementofA7inanyothercasehasbeen
allegedbytheprosecution.
444
599 On scanning the confessional statement Ex. PW
100/A made by A9 before Shri Bhagwan Dass, the then ld.
ACMM,ittranspiresthatnameofA7findsmentiontherein.A9
disclosedinhisconfessionalstatementaboutthepresenceofA7
with him at Kathmandu when he had been instructed by Javed
SeniorandA5todelivertheammunitionattheresidenceofWazid
Kasai.A9furtherdisclosedintheconfessionalstatementthathe
alongwithA7hadgonetoreceiveZulfikar@Ayubattheairport.
However,A9inhisconfessionalstatementdidnotattributeany
roletoA7fortheconspiracytocausebombblastatDelhi.The
confessionalstatementmerelyshowsthatA7wasawareofthe
conspiracyatDelhibutthereisnothingonrecordtoshowifhein
any manner participated in the said conspiracy or shared any
intentionwithcoaccusedpersonstocausebombblastatDelhi.
A9thoughconfessedabouthimJavedSenior,A6andA13to
havecomeon11/5/1996fromKathmandutoDelhibuthedidnot
mentionifA7hasalsoaccompaniedthemtotheborder. A7
445
evendidnotaccompanyA9andotherstoAhmadabadandGujrat
wheretheywereapprehendednearRupaliCinemaon2/6/1996.
ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA7hadprovidedanyshelter
toanyofthecoaccusedpersonsaftertheincident.Atthetimeof
hisapprehensionallegedlyatGorakhpuron16/6/1996,A7was
notfoundinpossessionofanyincriminatingarticle.Hewasnot
foundinpossessionofanyexplosivesorarms.Eveninpursuance
ofhisdisclosurestatement,noincriminatingarticlewasrecovered
athisinstance. Allegedrecoveryofarmsandammunitionatthe
residence of A7 at J & K has not been established by the
prosecution.
600 Itiswellsettledthattheirassociationwithoneofthe
conspirators or even knowledge of conspiracy is not enough
(StateVs.Nalini). WhilediscussingtheroleofA4inthesaid
casetheHon'bleSupremeCourtcategoricallyobservedthat,
........Somerelybecauseapersonis
showntobeanactiveworkerofLTTEthat
446
byitselfwouldnotcatapulthimintotheorbit
of the conspiracy mesh to murder Rajiv
Gandhi. It cannot be forgotten that a
conspiracyforthatpurposewouldbestrictly
confined to a limited member of persons,
lestanytinyleakageisenoughtoexplode
theentirebubbleofthecabal.
601 TheHon'bleSupremeCourtfurtherobservedthat,
.........The worst that could be

concluded from the aforementioned
circumstances, assuming that they are all
proved by the prosecutionin this case, is
that A4 (Shankar) was also an ardent
LTTE votary having close acquaintance
with Sivarasan. But from that step of
conclusion it is not legally permissible to
ascendontothehighesttierandreachthe
final conclusion that he too was in the
conspiracytomurderRajivGandhi.
602 In the present case, from the confessional
statementofA9itrevealsthatA7washavingsomenexuswith
someorganizationandwasawareaboutitsactivities.Beyond
thatnoevidencehascomeonrecordtoinferparticipationofA7
intheincidentinanymannertoprovehimtobeamemberof
conspiracyinquestion. A7deservesbenefitofdoubtinthis
447
regard.
H.INVOLVEMENTOFA8:
603 Regarding involvement of A8 in the hatching of
theconspiracytocausebombblastinLajpatNagar,Iamof
the view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt his participation in the incident in any
manner.A8wasnotinpicturepriortohisapprehensionon
17.6.96.InpursuancetodisclosurestatementofA3andA
4. A8 was found present at his house on 17.6.96 when
allegedly A3, A5 and A6 took the police party at his
residence. One Stepney Ex. P1 is stated to have been
recoveredattheresidenceofA8inpursuanceofdisclosure
statementsofA3,A5andA6.SomearticlesbelongingtoA
1arefurtherallegedtohavebeenrecoveredattheresidence
ofA8. Allthesecircumstanceshavebeendiscussedabove
448
as circumstance number 15. The prosecution version
regardingrecoveryofstepneyfromthehouseofA8wasnot
believed.Prosecutionfailedtoconnectthearticlesrecovered
fromtheresidenceofA8tobelongingtoA1ortohaveany
nexus with the incident. No other circumstance has been
allegedorprovedbytheprosecutionagainstA8toconnect
him with the incident. Disclosure statement of A8 was
recordedafterhisapprehensionon17.6.96.Inpursuanceof
disclosurestatementofA8Ex.PW17/Inothingincriminating
wasrecoveredathisinstance.NopoliceremandofA8was
takenforanyrecoveryordiscovery.Disclosurestatementof
A8isthusnotadmissibleinevidence.
604 No incriminating object was recovered at the
residenceofA8showinghisconnectionwithJKIF. Nothing
hascomeonrecordtoshowifA8washavinganylinkwith
449
JKIForusedtohaveanymeetingswithanyothermembersof
thesaidorganizationorelsehadeverremainedinconstant
touchwiththem. Inthe disclosurestatementEx.PW.17/I
thereisspecificmentionthatthisaccusedrefusedtojoinany
conspiracyattheinstanceofcoaccusedpersons.A8didnot
abscondfromhisplaceofresidenceevenafterapprehension
ofA1andA2on25.5.96andthereafterapprehensionofA
3 and A4 on 14.6.96 at Delhi. A8 was not arrested in
pursuanceofdisclosurestatementofA1andA2andthey
didnotleadthepoliceteamathisresidencetogetrecoveryof
anyincriminatingarticle.A1andA2intheirinitialdisclosure
statementsdidnotassignanyroletoA8intheincident.
605 A9in hisconfessionalstatement Ex.PW100/A
also did not at all name A8 to have any concern with the
incident.NopublicwitnesstestifiedagainstA8tohaveever
450
accompaniedcoaccusedpersonsatthetimeofpurchaseof
any article required for manufacturing/preparation of the
bomb. A8neverparticipatedintheroleplayedbytheco
accusedpersonsatanytime.Thereisnothingonrecordto
inferifA8hadremainedintouchwithcoaccusedpersonsor
hadprovidedanyfinancialassistance. NoneighbourofA8
wasexaminedbytheprosecutiontoinferifthereusedtobe
any unusual activities at his residence or that coaccused
persons involved in the incident used to have visits at his
residence.Nocomplaintwhatsoeverwaseverlodgedbythe
neighboursofA8showinghisillegalactivities.A8wasnot
thebeneficiarywhatsoeverandhadnoapparentmotivetojoin
the conspiracy. Prosecution did not collect any evidence to
showifA8hadprovidedsheltertoanycoaccusedpersons
atanytime orhadfacilitatedthemtocarryouttheir plan.
451
Prosecution only based its case to connect A8 with the
commissionoftheoffencefortheallegedrecoveryofstepney
Ex.P1whichitmiserablyfailedtoprove. Thereisnoother
evidencewhatsoeveronrecordtoprovetheguiltofA8inthe
incident.ArticlesofA1allegedlyrecoveredfromthehouse
searchofA8werenotprovedtobelongingtoA1andwere
not connected with the incident. This circumstance has
alreadybeendiscussedascircumstancesnumber15&16.
606 Antecedents of A8 were not ascertained by the
police. NothingwasshownifA8hadevervisitedJ&Kor
GorakhpurorNepalinconnectionwiththeincident.
607 Meresuspicionhowever strongcannottakethe
placeof legal proof. Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of
'State Vs Navjot Sindhu' (supra) observed that on facts,
though there was a serious suspicion as to complicity of
452
appellant/accused S.A.R.Gilani in the conspiracy to attack
Parliament House, court could not condemn him in the
absence of sufficient evidence pointing unmistakably to his
guilt.
608 Inthepresentcase,thecircumstancesreliedupon
bytheprosecutionagainstA8donotleadtoanyinference
beyondreasonabledoubtofhisinvolvementintheconspiracy.
The circumstances do not even remotely far less definitely
and unerringly point towards guilt of A8. A8 deserves
benefitofdoubtinthiscase.
(I)InvolvementofA9:
609 FromtheconfessionalstatementExPW100/Amade
byA9voluntarilybeforetheLd.ACJMincaseFIRNo.39/96,PS
Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan u/s u/s 307/427/120B IPC
coupled with incriminating circumstance regarding his stay at
Satyam Hotel, Delhi on 14.5.96, it stands established that A9
453
conspired for the commission of the incident at Delhi.
ConfessionalstatementofA9ledtotheunfoldingofthedastardly
actcommittedbyaccusedpersonsinvolvedintheconspiracy.In
the confessional statement Ex PW 100/A A9 categorically
confessedthathehaddeliveredthe'ammunition'attheresidence
ofWazidKasai.Thesaid'ammunition'wasmeanttobedelivered
to A5. Intheconfessionalstatement,A9narratedthathewas
askedbycoaccusedJavedSeniortodelivertheammunitionat
theresidenceofWazidKasai.Hegavegraphicdetailsastohow
on13.5.96,helefttheborderforDelhiandreachedinthemorning
th
of14 MayandcameattheresidenceofWazidKasai,friendof
Naza(A5).ThereWazidKasaiandNazadidnotmeethim.Some
childrenandladiesmethimthere.Hecouldnothandoverthesaid
bagtoA5andhandedoverthesaidbagtoladiesandtoldthe
ladies that there were clothes in the said bag. He further
confessedthathedeliveredthebagon14.5.96andreturnedto
th
Kathmanduon15.5.96andreachedatKathmanduon17 May.A
454
9furtherconfessedthatcoaccusedJavedSenior,A6andA13
hadalreadyreachedatKathmandupriortohisreachingthere.He
inquiredfromthemasto whathappenedtotheirworkatDelhi.
Accused further confessed that on 19.5.96 A6 and A13 came
backtoDelhiandheinquiredfromJavedSeniorastowhythey
hadgonebacktoDelhi.JavedSeniorconfirmedthatworkcould
notbedoneduetosomedefect.
610 Case of the prosecution is that coaccused persons
wereinconspiracywithA9andtheammunitionusedintheblast
wasdeliveredattheresidenceofPWWazidKasai.WazidKasai
could be suspect in this case having some connivance with
conspirators. However, for the reasons best known to the
prosecution he was cited as a prosecution witness. PW Wazid
Kasai was not expected to support the prosecution and turned
hostile.Hedenieddeliveryofanyarmsandammunitionsathis
residencebyA9.
611 Confession made by A9 is in consonance with the
455
caseoftheprosecution.ThisconfessionalstatementmadebyA9
regardinghisparticipationintheincidentinDelhiwasrecordedby
ShBhagwanDass,Ld.ACJM,JaipurevenpriortothearrestofA
9 inthiscasebyDelhiPolice.ItshowsthatA9was underno
pressuretomaketheconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A.In
caseFIRNo.39/1996,PSGandhiNagar,Jaipur.A9namedA6,
JavedSeniorandA13whohadmethiminthiscase.
612 The facts disclosed by A9 are corroborated by his
actualstayatSatyamHotelon14.5.96.HispresenceatSatyam
Hotel at Delhi on 14.5.96 has already been established by the
prosecutionwitnessesincludingPW46RajanArora. Thevisitto
DelhiandstayatSatyamHotel,Delhion14.5.96fullyprovesthe
contents of the confessional statement made by A9 as true,
otherwiseA9hadnobusiness/purposetovisitDelhiandtostay
atSatyamHotelatDelhion14/5/1996.HissuddenvisittoSatyam
Hotel,Delhi andearlydeparturefromtheretoKathmandufully
establisheshisinvolvementintheconspiracyhatchedalongwith
456
coconspirators.
613 Thelawisveryclearonthisaspect. Aconfessional
statement,asiswellknown,isadmissible inevidence. Itisa
relevantfact.Thecourtmayrelythereuponifitisvoluntarilygiven.
Itmayalsoformthebasisoftheconviction,whereforthecourtmay
only have to satisfy itself in regard to voluntariness and
truthfulness thereof and in given cases, some corroboraton
thereof.Aconfessionwhichisnotretractedevenatalaterstageof
thetrialandevenacceptedbytheaccusedinhisexaminationu/s
313CrPCcanbefullyreliedupon.(AIR2007SUPREMECOURT
848).
614 Confessions are considered highly reliable because
no rational person would make admission against his interest
unlesspromptedbyhisconscioustotellthetruth.
615 Incase State(NCTofDelhi)VsNavjotSandhu@
Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600, Hon'ble Supreme Court
457
observedinparano.32,
'' As to what should be the legal

approachofthecourtcalledupontoconvicta
personprimarilyinthelightoftheconfession
oraretractedconfessionhasbeensuccinctly
summarized in Bharat V State of UP 1972
SCC (Crl) 198, Hidayatulla, CJ, speaking for
thethreeJudgeBenchobservedthus:
Confession can be acted upon if the
courtis satisfiedthatthey arevoluntary and
thattheyaretrue.Thevoluntarynatureofthe
confessiondependsuponwhethertherewas
anythreat,inducmentorpromiseanditstruth
is judged in the context of the entire
prosecutioncase.Theconfessionmustfitinto
theprovedfactsandnotruncountertothem.
When the voluntary character of the
confessionanditstruthareaccepted,itissafe
to rely on it. Indeed a confession, if it is
voluntary and true and not made under any
inducementorthreatorpromise,isthemost
patent piece of evidence against the
maker,..... Therefore, it can be stated that a
trueconfessionmadevoluntarilymaybeacted
uponwithslightevidencetocorroborateit,...''.
616 InthepresentcasetheconfessionalstatementofA9
wasrecordedbyLd.ACJM,Jaipuru/s164CrPC.Theprocedure
prescribedu/s164oftheCodewasdulyadheredtobytheLd.
458
ACJM. Ld.ACJMwas oftheopinionthatA9was makingthe
confessional statement without threat or pressure or undue
influencefromany personorauthority. Thecourthadsatisfied
itselfthattheconfessionbeingmadebyA9wastrulyvoluntarily.
A9wasnotunderpressuretomaketheconfessionalstatement
regarding theincidentin Delhi as hewas not inthe custody of
DelhiPoliceatanytimeandwasnotevenasuspectatthattime.
Involvement of A9 in the incident came to light only after the
confessional statement was made by him. The detailed facts
narrated by the accused disclosing the names of coaccused
personsalsomakehisconfessiontruthful.Investigatingagencies
at Delhi came to know about PW Wazid Kasai only from the
confessionalstatementofA9.Priortothat,Delhipolicewasnot
aware of the name and address of PW Wazid Kasai at Delhi.
Existence of name and address of PW Wazid Kasai lends
credencetotheconfessionmadebyA9.Itfurthersubstantiates
theprosecutionstorythatduetoweakbatteryexplosioncouldnot
459
take place earlier and A6 and A13 had to come to Delhi to
removethedefect.ThevividdetailswhichEx.PW100/Acontains
would in all probabilities have been supplied by A9 himself
becausehealoneknewwhatallhedid;whereallhewentand
whomallhemet.
617 In State Vs. Navjot (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Courtquoted ShankariVs.StateofRajasthan1978SCC(Crl)
437 whichindicatedonebroadmethodbywhichaconfessionan
beevolved.
The court should carefully

examine the confession and
compare it with the rest of the
evidence, in the light of
surrounding circumstances and
probabilitiesofthecase.Ifonsuch
examination and comparision, the
confession appears to be a
probable catalogue of events and
naturallyfitsinwiththerestofthe
evidence and the surrounding
circumstances,itmaybetakento
havesatisfiedthesecondtest.
460
618 IdonotsubscribetothecontentionoftheLd.Counsel
fortheaccusedthatthisconfessionoftheaccusedcan'tbetaken
intoconsiderationasitwasnotrecordedinthecaseinhand.No
such law has been produced on record by the Ld. Defence
Counseltoshowthatconfessionalstatementaboutanyincidentis
notadmissibleifithasbeenrecordedinsomeothercase.Court
isconcernedaboutthesubstanceoftheconfessionalstatement
recordedbytheLd.ACJM. Ithardlymatters ifwasrecordedin
someothercase.Ratherrecordingofconfessional statementof
thiscaseinsomeothercaselendscredencetothetruthfulnessof
thestatementasitwaswithoutanypressurefromtheinvestigating
authoritiesofthiscase.
619 Accused did not give plausible explanation to the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC. He merely stated that
confessionalstatementwasnotmadebyhim.
620A9didnotleadanyevidenceindefencetocontrovert
461
theincriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainsthim.Hedidnot
adduceanyevidenceonrecordifhewaspresentatsomeother
specificplaton14.5.96orhad notvisitedDelhi. A9failedto
adduce any evidence to show his apparent motive to stay at
SatyamHotelon14.5.96.ApprehensionofA9atAnukulHotelat
AhmedabadhasbeenprovedintheproceedingsinthecaseFIR
No. 39/96. A9 failed to give reasons/motive about his stay at
AnukulHotel,Ahmedabad. Alltheseincriminatingcircumstances
appearing against A9 fully establish that he alongwith co
conspiratorshatchedcriminalconspiracy,intheincidentatDelhi.
Notonlythatinpursuancetothecriminalconspiracyhetookactive
partanddeliveredtheammunitionfromKathmandu,Nepalatthe
residenceofPWWazidKasaiatDelhi whichwassubsequently
usedinthecommissionoftheincident.
621 It is well settled that it is not necessary that all the
conspiratorsshouldparticipatefromtheinceptiontotheendofthe
conspiracy;somemayjointheconspiracyafterthetimewhensuch
462
intentionwasfirstentertainedbyanyoneofthemandsomeothers
may quit from the conspiracy. Where in pursuance of the
agreementconspiratorscommittedoffences,individuallyoradopt
illegalmeanstodoalegalactwhichhasanexustotheobjectof
conspiracy,allofthemwillbeliableforsuchoffencesevenifsome
ofthemhavenotactivelyparticipatedinthecommissionofthose
offences.
622 Mostly, the conspiracies are proved by the
circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open
affair.Usuallyboththeexistenceoftheconspiracyanditsobjects
havetobeinferredfromthecircumstancesandtheconductofthe
accused.Inmostofthecasesitisdifficulttogetdirectevidenceof
theagreement.
623 In the present case circumstances established on
record by the prosecution give rise to conclusive or irresistible
inferenceofagreementbetweentheaccusedandothermembers
of conspiracy to commit an offence. The circumstances rather
463
proveovertactwhereA9notonlymadeconfessionalstatement
Ex.PW100/AbutalsotravelledfromNepaltoDelhisolelyforthe
purposeofdeliveringammunitionattheresidenceofPWWazid
Kasaiwellknowingthepurpose/userofammunitionsbyA5and
hisassociates. HisstayatSatyamHotel,Delhiforthatpurpose
corroborates his confession. Even on return, he made inquiries
fromJavedSenioraboutcoaccusedA6&A13returningtoDelhi.
ItprovesthatthroughoutA9wasawareoftheincidentofbomb
blast at Lajpat Nagar. He was one of the conspirators and
participatedintheexecutionoftheplantocausebombblastby
playingaveryactiverole.Theactiveandpositiveinvolvementof
A9intheconspiracyloomslargeinthesaidconfession.
J.InvolvementofA10:
624 The only circumstance brought on record by the
prosecutionagainstA10toproveconspiracyishisarrestincase
FIRNo.12/96u/s120B/121/122IPCalongwithA9,Rashidand
464
Zulfikaron1/6/1996. Whenspecificallyaskedfromtheld.SPP
for the State as to how this circumstance itself was enough to
provetheconspiracy,theld.SPPpointedoutthatthisaccusedhas
beenchargesheetedalongwithcoaccusedpersonsashisname
findsmentionintheconfessionalstatementmadebyA9recorded
by PW100 Shri Bhagwan Dass. No other incriminating
circumstancehasbeenattributedtoA10.
625 In my considered view, even if both these
circumstances are taken into consideration, they do not even
primafaciepointouthatchingofconspiracybythisaccusedwith
coconspirators.Asdiscussedabove,prosecutionversionincase
FIRNo.12/96inwhichA10alongwithotherswasapprehended
was not believed by the court and vide judgments in SC No.
220/98dated9/1/2002 andSCNo.89/08dated8/9/2008,A10
along with coaccused persons therein was acquitted. Mere
presenceofA10alongwithcoaccusedA9andothersatAnukul
HotelatAhmadabadpriorto1/6/1996andtheirstayinthesaid
465
guest house does not show his involvement in the incident at
Delhi.Noincriminatingarticlewasrecoveredfromthepossession
ofA10atthetimeofhisapprehensionandevensubsequentto
that at his instance. There is nothing in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses if A10 ever remained in touch with co
conspiratorsatanytimeorhadparticipateddirectlyorindirectlyin
thecommissionoftheoffence.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshow
if A10 had ever visited Delhi or Srinagar and had any
conversationregardingtheincidentwithcoaccusedpersonsthere.
ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA10wasevenawareabout
theincidentatDelhi priortohisarrestincaseFIRNo.12/96at
Ahmadabad.ThearticlesrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA
10 at the time of his arrest were not connected with the
commissionoftheincident.
626 Itistruethatnameofthiswitnessfindsmentioninthe
confessionalstatementofA9.Butthataspectitselfisnotenough
to prove conspiracy by A10 with coaccused persons. In the
466
confessionalstatementA9didnotattributeanyrolewhatsoeverto
A10. A10 never instructed A9 or other accused persons to
carryouttheincident.
627 Law regarding use of confessional statement of
accusedagainstcoaccusedisveryclearaslaiddowninthecase
ofState(NCTofDelhi)Vs.NavjotSandhu,AIR2005Supreme
Court3820Hon'bleSupremeCourtreferringthecaseofHari
CharanKurmiVs.StateofBihar(1964)6SCR623 observed
that,
In dealing with a case against an

accusedperson,thecourtcannotstartwith
the confession of coaccused person; it
mustbeginwithotherevidenceadducedby
theprosecutionandafterithasformedits
opinionwithregardtothequalityandeffect
ofthesaidevidence,thenitispermissible
toturntotheconfessioninordertoreceive
assurancetotheconclusionofguiltwhich
the judicial mind is about to reachon the
saidotherevidence.
628 Itfurtherobservedinpara39
467
The crucial expression used in section 30 is, the court
maytakeintoconsiderationsuchconfession.Thesewordsimply
that the confession of a coaccused cannot be elevated to the
status of substantive evidence which can form the basis of
convictionofthecoaccused.Theimportofthisexpressionwas
succintlyexplainedbythePrivyCouncilinBhuboniSahuVs.R
AIR1949PC257inthefollowingwords:
The court may take the

confession into consideration and
thereby, no doubt, makes its evidence
on which the court may act; but the
sectiondoesnotsaythattheconfession
is to amount to proof. Clearly there
mustbeotherevidence.Theconfession
isonlyoneelementintheconsideration
ofallthefactsprovedinthecase;itcan
beputintothescaleandweighedwith
theotherevidence.'
629 Inthepresentcase,eveniftheconfessionalstatement
ofcoaccusedA9isconsideredandactedupon,intheabsenceof
any role attributed to A10 regarding the incident in question, it
468
can'tbesaidthatmerementionofthenameofA10isenoughto
provehisinvolvementinthecommissionoftheincidentortobea
memberoftheconspiracy.ConfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A
containsnamesofotherpersonslikeRashidandZulfikaralsowho
were apprehended along with A9 and A10 but were never
arrestedbyDelhipoliceinthiscase.
630 Mereassociationwithoneoftheconspiratorsoreven
knowledge of conspiracy is not enough in the absence of
agreementofconspiracy.InthecaseofStateVs.Nalini(supra)
whiledealingwithA4(Shankar)observed:
..............so merely because a

personisshowntobeanactiveworker
of LTTE that by itself would not
catapult him into the orbit of the
conspiracy mess to murder Rajiv
Gandhi. It cannot be forgotten that a
conspiracy forthatpurposewouldbe
strictlyconfinedtoalimitednumberof
persons,lestanytinyleakageenough
to explode the entire bubble of the
cabal...
631 Noovertactregardingtheincidentwasassignedto
469
A10. There is nothing if any criminal act was done by A10
regarding the incident in question. No circumstance has been
provedagainstA10toinfermeetingofmindwithconspirators.
632 Thereisnoworthwhileevidenceonrecordexceptthe
above two referred circumstances which are apparently very
scantytopointanaccusingfingeragainstA10. A10 deserves
benefitofdoubtonthisscore.
Conclusion
633 On discussing the circumstances referred above
brought on record by the prosecution and scanning the
involvementoftheaccusedpersonssentfortrialbeforethecourt,
theprosecutionhasbeenabletoproveitscaseagainstsomeof
theaccusedpersonsandhasfailedtoestablishtheguiltofothers.
The offences proved against particular accused are detailed as
under:
(
A1FarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat)

470
634 Onperusalofthecircumstancesatsl.no.4,8&46
(A)Iamof the view thatprosecutionhas failed to prove ifA1
hatched criminal conspiracy alongwith coaccused persons to
causebombblastatLajpatNagarmarketon21.5.1996.
635 The prosecution has, however, established beyond
doubt that after his apprehension in this case in pursuance of
disclosure statement made by him. A1 got recovered
arms/ammunitionsandexplosivesfromhisresidenceasdiscussed
atsl.no.5.
636 Inthestatementrecordedu/s313CrPCA1didnot
give plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances
appearingagainsthim.Healsofailedtoproduceanywitnessinhis
defencetoshowhisinnocenceintheincidentorthatarmsand
ammunitions/explosiveswerenotrecoveredfromhispossession.
Sincearmsandammunitionsetcwererecoveredinpursuanceof
disclosurestatementofA1fromahiddenplaceathisresidence,it
wasonlyA1hewashavingspecialknowledgeastowherearms
471
and ammunitions/explosives had been concealed by him. No
evidence has come on record to show if there was any joint
possessionofthepremisesinquestion.A1alsofailedtoexplain
thepurposeofretaininglethalweaponsinhispossessionwhich
arenotordinarilyavailableinthemarket.A1failedtojustifythe
possessionofthesearmsandammunitions/explosiveswithoutany
legalauthority.
637 The court was having lurking doubt if A1 could be
convictedu/s25oftheArmsActforwantofsanctionu/s39ofthe
Act.However,recentauthorityStateofWestBengalVsMohd.
JamilluddinNasir&Ors,deliveredon5.2.10inDeathreference
2of2005inSessionsCaseNo.79/2002,CRANo.425/2005came
toremovethedoubt.Inthisauthoritythereisspecificmentionthat
such type of weapons like AK47 and AK57 are 'prohibited'
weaponsandtheirpossessionisincontraventionofSec.7ofthe
ArmsAct. Sanctionu/s39oftheArmsActisrequiredifthereis
472
violationofSec.3oftheArmsAct.SinceAK57recoveredfrom
thepossessionofA1is'prohibitedarms'u/s2(i)oftheArmsAct
anditspossessionisprohibitedu/s7oftheAct,hencenosanction
isrequiredu/s39oftheArmsActfrom Ld.DistrictMagistrate.
Hon'bleHighCourtinparaNo.149hasobservedasunder:
On a composite reading of the

aforesaidprevisions,inourconsideredview,
ifany offenceis committedby any person
foracquisitionorpossessionofanyordinary
firearm, discretion is left to the District
Magistratewhetherhewouldbeproceeded
withornot,despitecommittingsuchcrime.
Thissafeguardis howevernotavailableto
any other offences under the said Act
includingdealingwithprohibitedarms.
638 Sanctionu/s7oftheExplosivesSubstancesActhas
alreadybeenprovedonrecordbytheprosecutionwhichhasnot
been disputed/challenged. CFSL reports also favour the
prosecutiononthisaspect.
639 Prosecutionhas thus establishedcommissionofthe
offencepunishableu/s25oftheArmsActandunderSection5of
473
ExplosiveSubstancesActagainstA1beyondreasonabledoubt.
Heisheldguiltyandconvictedforthesaidoffencesaccordingly.

A2(
FaridaDar@Bahanji)

640 On going through the circumstance pertaining to A2,
discussedatSl.No.4,8,7&46(B),itrevealsthattheprosecutionhas
miserablyfailedtoprovethatA2hatchedcriminalconspiracyu/s
120BIPCtocauseanybombblastatLajpatNagar,Delhi.
641 Prosecutionhashoweverprovedbeyondreasonable
doubt that A2 in pursuance of her disclosure statement got
recoveredRDXslabsandfivetimersfromherresidence.Sincethe
explosiveswererecoveredbyDelhiPolicewhenA2wasintheir
custodyinpursuanceofherdisclosurestatement,inmyview, it
was only Delhi Police who had jurisdiction to prosecute A2 for
havingconsciouspossessionoftheexplosives atherresidence
whichwerewithinherspecialknowledge.ItwasonlyA2whowas
474
awareastowhere shehadconcealedtheexplosives. Thereis
nothinginthestatementu/s313CrPCofA2ifanyotherperson
washaving constructivepossessionofthesaidexplosives.A2
didnot produce any evidenceinher defenceto controvert the
specificcaseoftheprosecutionregardingrecoveryofexplosives
atherinstance.Sanctionu/s7oftheExplosivesActhasalready
beenprovedonrecordbytheprosecution.CFSLexperthasgiven
its opinion that the RDX slabs got recovered by A2 are
'explosives'withinthemeaningofExplosivesSubstancesAct.
642 Prosecution has thus established commission of
offenceu/s5oftheExplosivesSubstancesActagainstA2beyond
reasonable doubt. She is held guilty and convicted for the said
offenceaccordingly.

A3(
Mohd.Naushad)

643 On analysis of circumstances discussed at serial
475
numbers9,10,23,26,30,31,32&46(C)andintheabsenceof
evidence to the contrary, the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that A3 alongwith his associates not only
hatchedcriminalconspiracytocausebombblastatLajpatNagar
market,Delhibutalsoactively participated inprocuringvarious
articles to execute the plan. He remained in touch with the co
conspiratorsandtraveledtoGorakhpur.A3wasanativeofDelhi
andheprovidedallthesupportandlogisticstotheassociatesto
carry out the object of conspiracy for financial gains and
succeededinaccomplishingtheobjectcausingheavylossoflife
andproperty.
644 Inthestatementu/s313CrPC,A3failedtojustifythe
incriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainsthim. Healsodid
notexamineanyevidenceinhisdefenceforhisfalseimplication.
OnlyoneMukeshfromNationalHumanRightsCommissionhas
beensummonedonbehalfofA3toprovethatfatherofA3had
sentone complaintintheirofficeon3.6.96.The complaintwas
476
receivedfromAbdulRashid. Afterinquiryoneletterwassentto
Abdul Rashid, photocopy of which is marked PW100/D1.
Computerizedauthenticcopyoftheproceedingsofthecomplaint
isEx.DW1/A.
645 PW2ArunKumarSharmafromtheGOPtestifiedthat
thereisletterNo.010268indicatingdepositofcashofRs.20/for
transmission of Hybrid Mail Service. Attested photocopy of the
sameisEx.DW2/A. Ithasbeencorelatedinthephotocopyof
extracts of cash register of DW2/1. Similarly, in the said cash
registeratitemno.4,HybridMail.No.10317withcashdepositof
Rs.20/ismentionedon6.6.96.PhotocopyofwhichisEx.DW2/2
andphotocopyofreceiptismarkedDW2/B.Thedateandnumber
ofHMMail10317isatpoint'A'inmarkDW2/B.
646 ByexaminingthesetwowitnessesA3attemptedto
provethathewasnotarrestedbythepoliceon14.6.96asalleged
orthathisfatherhadalreadysenttelegramtovariousauthorities
on3.6.96disclosingthatA3hadbeenpickedupbythepoliceon
477
theinterveningnightof28/29.5.96.
647 Testimony of both these witnesses examined in
defence of A3 is not helpful to him. A3 has failed to prove
beyondreasonabledoubtthathewasliftedfromhishouseonthe
interveningnightof28/29.5.96andwasfalselyimplicatedinthis
caseon14.6.96.InthistelegramthereismentionthatoneMohd.
Irshad,brotherofA3wasalsoliftedbyDelhiPolicealongwithA3
onthe interveningnightof28/29.5.96.However,Mohd.Irshad,
brotherofA3wasneverimplicatedinthiscase.A3didnotbother
toexaminehisbrotherMohd.Irshadinhisdefencetojustifythe
contentsof markDW2/Athathealongwithhisbrotherwaslifted
ontheinterveningnightof28/29.5.96.A3evendidnotexamine
hisfatheratanystagetoprovethecontentsofthetelegrammade
by him. No other witness on his behalf was also examined in
defence to prove as to how and under what circumstances
telegramwassent. Had A3beenliftedonthe intervening
nightof28/29.5.96,therewasnooccasionforhisfathertosend
478
telegramafterdelayofabout4or5daysonlyon3.6.96. Even
after sending thetelegrametc, fatherof A3never pursued the
matterwiththecompetentauthorities.Hedidnotfileanycomplaint
beforetheLd.MetropolitanMagistratewherecoaccusedpersons
werebeingproducedinthiscase.
648 Since A1 and A2 had already been arrested on
25.5.96 at Sri Nagar and involvement of A3 had come into
knowledge of the Delhi Police in view of the confessional
statementmadebyA9,possibilityoffabricatingtheevidencein
advancebysendingtelegramcan'tberuledout.Defenceversion
inspiresnoconfidence.
649 Prosecution has thus established commission of
offencebyA3u/s120BIPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.302IPC,u/s
120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436IPC
beyondreasonabledoubt. ConductofA3beforeandafterthe
incident leaves no doubt that he was a member of conspiracy.
Circumstancesratherprovethathewasinthethickofconspiracy.
479
650 Prosecution has further proved commission of the
offencepunishableu/s5oftheExplosivesSubstancesActagainst
A3beyondreasonabledoubt.A3isaccordinglyheldguiltyand
convictedforthesaidoffences.

A4(
MirzaIftqarHussain@Saba)

651 Inviewofthecircumstancesatsl.no.4,9,17&46(D),Iam
oftheviewthatprosecutionhasfailedtoproveitscaseagainstA4
beyondreasonabledoubt.BenefitofdoubtisgiventoA4andhe
isacquittedoftheoffences.

A5(
MirzaNissarHussain@Naza)

652 As per circumstance referred at Sl. No. 46 (E)
prosecution has proved its case against A5 for hatching
conspiracy alongwith his associates for causing bomb blast at
Lajpat Nagar Market, Delhi on 21.5.96. A5 not only shared
intentionwithcoconspiratorstohatchcriminalconspiracybutwas
instrumental in its execution by playing predominent role . He
480
traveledfromNepaltoassisthisassociatestocarryouttheobject
ofconspiracyatDelhi.
653 A5 could not give justifiable explanation to the
incriminatingevidenceprovedonrecordagainsthim.Hedidnot
examineanydefencewitnesstofalsitythepositivetestimoniesof
the prosecution witnesses. He failed to explain as to how and
underwhatcircumstanceshehappenedtovisitDelhiandhowhe
was identified by some of the shopkeepers from whom he had
purchasedthearticlesforcausingbombblast.HealongwithA3
andA6madenecessarypreparationsequippedthemselvesand
successfullyachievedtheobjectoftheconspiracy.
offencespunishable u/s120BIPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.302
IPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.
436IPCagainstA5beyondreasonabledoubt.

A6
(
Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey)

481
655 OnperusalofthecircumstanceatSl.No.46(F),Iam
oftheviewthattheprosecutionhasestablishedbeyonddoubtthat
A6wasactivememberofthecriminalconspiracy. Hetraveled
fromNepaltoDelhifortheexecutionoftheplan.Hisnamefinds
mentionintheconfessionalstatementofA9. Healsoprocured
articles forpreparation of theexplosives. HewithA3andA5
madeelobaratearrangementstoprocurethearticles.Healongwith
A3andA5tookvariousstepsforexecutionoftheplan.Thereis
notevenaspeckofdoubtthatA6wasnotanactivememberof
criminalconspiracy.
656 A6 did not explain the incriminating circumstances
appearingagainsthiminthestatementrecordedu/s313CrPC.
Healsodidnotproduceanyevidenceinhisdefencetoestablish
hisinnocenceortofalsifythecaseoftheprosecution. healso
failed to explain as to how and under what circumstances his
closed associate A9 having no enmity named him in his
confessionalstatementfortheroleintheincident.A6didnotlead
482
anyevidence inhisdefence toprovehispresenceduringthe
relevantdaysatsomeotherplace.Hedidnotexaminehisfamily
memberstoprovehispresenceathisresidenceorplanofwork
duringrelevantdatewhenhispresenceatDelhiwasclaimedby
theprosecution.
offences punishableu/s 120B IPC,u/s 120B IPC r/w Sec. 302
IPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436
IPCagainstA6beyondreasonabledoubt.A6isaccordinglyheld
guiltyandconvictedforthesaidoffences.

A7(
LatifAhmedWaza)

658 Ondiscussingthecircumstancesatserialnumber46
(G),pertainingtoA7,Iamoftheviewthatprosecutionhasfailed
toproveitscaseagainsthimbeyondreasonabledoubt.Benefitof
doubtisgiventoA7andheisacquittedinthiscase.

SyedMaqboolShah)
A8(
483
659 Asperthecircumstancediscussedatserialnumber
46(H),againtheprosecutionhasfailedtoconnectA8withthe
commission of offence. No inference can be drawn with a
reasonabledegreeofcertaintythatA8washavinganyroleinthe
incident. Scantyevidencedoesnotjustifyhisevidence. A8is
alsogivenbenefitofdoubtinthiscaseandisacquitted.
(
A9JavedAhmedKhan@JavedJunior@

ChhotaJaved)

660 Ondiscussingthecircumstancesatserialnumber46
(I), I am of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that A9 hatched criminal conspiracy with his
associates and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, he
participatedintheexecutionoftheplanbydelivering'ammunitions'
usedintheincidentwhiletravellingfromNepaltoDelhi.
484
661 Inthestatementu/s313Cr.P.CA9failedtogiveany
explanationtotheincriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainst
him.A9didnotleadanyevidenceindefencetocontrovertthe
testimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnessesadducedonrecordbythe
prosecution. A9failedtoprovethatconfessionalstatementEx.
PW100/Awasnotmadebyhimorthatitwasretractedatany
stage. Healsofailedtoexplainhis presenceatSatyamHotel,
Delhi.
662 Inthelightoftheabovediscussion,Iamoftheview
that circumstances established by satisfactory evidence are
clinching and unerring to conclude that A9 was a party to the
conspiracyalongwithcoaccusedheldguilty.
663 Prosecutionhasthusprovedcommissionofoffence
punishable u/s120BIPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.302IPC,u/s
120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436IPC
againstA9beyondreasonabledoubt.
485
A10
(
AbdulGani@Assadullah@Nikka)

664 Asperthecircumstancereferredats.no.46(J)there
isnoevidencewhatsoeveragainstA10toprovehiscomplicityin
thecommissionoftheincidentinthiscase.Theevidencecollected
bytheprosecutionagainstA10ishighlyscantyanddeficientand
isnotenoughtoprovetheseriousallegationslevelledagainsthim
forhatchingconspiracytocausebombblastatLajpatNagaron
21/5/1996.A10isgivenbenefitofdoubtandisacquitted.
FIRNo.286/96,PSNizamuddin,
S.C.No
.41/09

665 On perusal of the circumstances referred above
pertainingtoA3,A5andA6theprosecutionhasbeenableto
establishthatMaruticarbelongingtoPW8AtulNathwasstolenon
theinterveningnightof18/1951006.Thisverycarwasusedin
the bomb explosion on 21/5/1996. The prosecution witnesses
486
have categorically testifiedthat A3,A5andA6were found in
possession of the said vehicle on 19/5/1996. The said car was
parkedinfrontoftheshopofPW61SumitKumarrunninghisshop
underthenameandstyleof'DulhanDupatta'.Accusedpersons
failedtoleadanyevidencetocontrovertpossessionofthecarwith
them. They also failed to prove as to how and under what
circumstances, they happened to have the car in question.
Apparently all these accused persons received or retained the
Maruti car used in the explosion knowing or having reasons to
believe the same to be stolen property owned by PW8 Atul
Kumar. Prosecutionhas establishedcommissionofoffenceu/s
411IPCagainstA3,A5andA6.
666 ThereisnolegalevidenceagainstA8toprovetheft
of the Maruti car along with his associates. Prosecution has
further failed to prove if A8 had ever received or retained the
Maruticarinquestionknowingorhavingreasonstobelievethe
sametobestolenproperty.A8deservesbenefitofdoubtinthis
487
regardandisacquittedincaseFIRNo.286/96
RESULT:
667 InviewoftheabovediscussionaccusedMirzaIftqar
Hussain@Saba(A4),LatifAhmedWaza(A7),SyedMaqbool
Shah(A8)and AbdulGani@Assadullah@Nikka(A10)are
acquittedofallchargesincaseFIRNo.517/96.
668 Accused Syed Maqbool Shah (A8) is further
acquittedofchargeu/s411IPCincaseFIRNo.286/96.
669 Accused Mohd. Naushad (A3), Accused Mirza
NissarHussain@Naza(A5), Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey (A6)
andJavedAhmedKhan@JavedJunior@ChhotaJaved(A9)
are held guilty and convicted for the commission of offence
punishableu/s 120BIPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.302IPC, u/s
120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436IPC.
670 Accused Mohd.Naushad(A3)isfurtherheldguilty
488
andconvictedforthecommissionofoffencepunishableu/s5of
ExplosivesSubstancesAct.
671 AccusedFarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat(A1)
andFaridaDar@Bahanji(A2)areheldguiltyandconvictedfor
the commission of offence punishable u/s 5 of Explosives
SubstancesAct.
672AccusedFarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat(A1)
isfurtherconvictedforthecommissionofoffenceu/s25ofthe
ArmsAct.
673 Accused Mohd. Naushad (A3), Mirza Nissar
Hussain@Naza(A5)and Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey (A6) are
furtherheldguiltyandconvicted forthecommissionofoffence
punishableu/s411IPCinFIRNo.286/96.
674 Proceedings against accused Bilal Ahmed Beg (A
11), accused Juber @ Mehrazuddin (A12), accused Mohd.
AshrafBhatta(A14),accusedJavedKariwar@JavedAhmed
489
Goojri(A15),accused IbrahimAbdulRazakMenan@Muslaq
@ Tiger Menan (A16) and accused Daud Hassan Sheikh
Kaskar @ Daud Bhai@ DaudIbrahim (A17) being proclaimed
offenders are ordered to be consigned to record room u/s 299
Cr.P.C.
Announcedinopencourt
ondated8/4/2010 (S.P.GARG)
DISTRICTJUDGEIV,
PHC,NEWDELHI

Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

Arms Act. Accused A11 to A17 could not be arrested during

investigation and they were got declared P.Os. However,

2 The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details

6.30 p.m. at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar. On receipt of WT

message, Sh Anand Prakash, Addl. SHO , PS Lajpat Nagar

in the incident. Some were lying in injured condition and were

persons to different hospitals in different vehicles. With the

distance of about 10 ft from his shop. The photo frames and

wooden panelling in his shop fell down due to explosion. He

immediately came out of the shop and saw 45 ladies lying

to remain in the market as 'Chowkidar'. His name could be

was not aware of the registration number of the car in which

6 During further investigation, Crime team,

in the bomb blast was seized and necessary memos were

prepared. Some number plates were also seized at the spot.

PS Lajpat Nagar. On the spot the IO recorded statements of

7 On 22.5.96, Sections under TADA were removed

8 In the explosion, in all 13 persons expired; 38

collected. Metalic plates recovered from the spot were sent to

ascertained as DL2CF5854 from the Transport Office. During

PS Nizamuddin and a case vide FIR No. 286/96 had been

10 Further case of the prosecution is that on 21.5.96

terrorists of Jammu & Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) took

making telephone calls to press/media. On tracing of the

police was informed to develop the information. On getting

information from J&K police, on 24.5.96 A1 and A2 were

11 Further case of the prosecution is that on getting

A1 and A2. Both A1 and A2 were arrested by Insp. Jasbir

Singhandhisteam atSriNagaron25.5.96. On26.5.96, they

both were produced before Ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate at

taken responsibility of Lajpat Nagar bomb blast by making

telephone calls to media. He claimed himself to be Chief

Spokesmanof JKIF. A2alsoconfessed her involvement in the

having STD facility. On checking normal billing record, it was

were made to PTI, NDTV, Zee TV etc. from telephone number

22135. It was also found that on 21.5.96, A1 had made 31

telephone calls to A2 on phone no. 32221 installed at her

14 On 2.6.96 Insp. Rajinder Prasad and SI Harinder

Chander alongwith his staff reached at Ahmedabad on 3.6.96.

Insp.Rajinder Prasad , who had reached at Sri Nagar was

15 On 3.6.96 Insp. Rajinder Prasad conducted house

search at the residence of A9, A14 and A15 and recovered

16 On 4.6.96 A1and A2 were again interrogated and

recover explosives and ammunitions lying at their residences.

magazines, 59 rounds, two RDX slabs and some incriminating

documents from his residence. Necessary seizure memos were

Harinder Singh brought the pullandas containing explosives by

from the residence of Wazid in Turkman Gate area. On 2.6.96

to Gorakhpur. They were interrogated and their disclosure

interrogated. On 14.6.96 disclosure statement of A4 was

21 On 14.6.96 Insp. Ram Chander collected required

22 On 16.6.96 Insp.Rajeshwar arrested A7 and

recovered Re. two note bearing No. 66M571634 from his

the possession of A7. A6 was also arrested alongwith A7 by

Insp.Rajinder Prasad from Gorakhpur on 16.6.96. They were

Hazrat Nizamuddin was also transferred to Operation Cell and

25 On 17.6.96 A8 was arrested in this case and on

also recovered at his residence which was seized. A8 was

5854. On 19.6.96 they also pointed out the place at Dulhan

27.5.96 in which there was mention of name of A3. He also

29 Further case of the prosecution is that during

examined. Statements of various witnesses from where these

pencil type detonators, fuse wire 165cms, one binocular, one