| Headnote |
Terrorism and Organized Crime: Explosive Substances Act –s.5 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 307, 411, 436 and 120B – Criminalconspiracy – Crime destabilising the country – Bomb blasts – LajpatNagar Bomb Blast Case of 1996 – Bomb blast at a crowded centralmarket, Lajpat Nagar in New Delhi, which resulted in death of 13persons and injuries to 38 persons – Also, damage caused tolivelihood of shopkeepers, whose shops were burnt down due tothe bomb blast – 17 accused – Case based on circumstantial evidence– A11 to A17 were declared as proclaimed offenders – Remainingaccused persons faced trial – Recovery from residence of A3 –Confessional statement of A9 – Trial Court convicted A3 under ss.302, 307, 436, 411 and 120B IPC as well as under ss. 4 r/w s.5 ofthe Explosive Substances Act – A5 and A6 were convicted under ss.302, 307, 436, 411 and 120B IPC but acquitted under ExplosiveSubstances Act – A9 was convicted u/s.302, 307, 436 and 120BIPC – A4, A7, A8 and A10 were acquitted on all counts while A1and A2 were convicted under Explosive Substances Act and ArmsAct but acquitted under IPC – Neither the Accused nor the Statepreferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal and/orconviction and corresponding sentence in relation to A1 to A2 –Equally, no appeal was preferred against the judgment of acquittalof A4, A7, A8 and A10 – Trial Court had imposed Death Sentenceon A3, A5 and A6 but the High Court acquitted A5 and A6, andcommuted the death sentence awarded to A3 to life imprisonment –A9 was awarded life imprisonment concurrently by the High Courtand the Trial Court – Role of A3, A5, A6 and A9 – Held: On facts,having considered the circumstances alleged by the prosecutionagainst the accused persons A3, A5, A6 and A9, it is clear that theprosecution has proved the guilt of the abovementioned accused inthe commission of the crime – All these accused persons were partof a conspiracy u/s.120B IPC – The blast was planned at the behest of other accused persons who never faced trial – From an evaluationof the evidence on record including the judicial confession of A9, itis evident that all these accused persons were known to each otherand were participating with the common objective to carry out theblast in Delhi in furtherance of an international conspiracy to causedisruptive activities in India – All the proven circumstances takentogether form a chain of events that implicates the accused persons– A9 specifically named A5 and A6 – A5 in furtherance of thisobject arrived in Delhi on 10.05.1996 from Kathmandu, whichstands proved – A9 carrying the RDX to Delhi and A6’s arrival hasalready been proved – A3, A5 and A6 proceeded to prepare thebomb in Delhi for which they procured various articles includingbattery, gas cylinder, duplicate key, fake number plates etc.; stole acar and made two attempts for the blast, out of which the secondone came to be successful – This preparation came to the knowledgeof the police through pointing out proceedings carried out at theinstance of these accused persons – Pertinently, the material whichcame to be recovered from the residence of A3 in the form of RDX isthe same explosive material used in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast,as has come through the CFSL Reports, Ex.PW101/C and Ex.PW101/G – Importantly, the factum of the failed attempt is only broughtabout by the joint pointing out proceedings by these accused persons– Therefore, it is evident that A3, A5, A6 and A9 were part of acriminal conspiracy to cause the blast in the capital city, New Delhi– In view of the recovery from the residence of A3 and theconfessional statement of A9, it is evident that these accused personswere part of the plan for future blasts in the nation as well – A3convicted u/ss.302, 307, 411, 436 and 120B IPC as well as s.5 ofExplosive Substances Act; A5 and A6 convicted u/ss.302, 307, 436,411 and 120B IPC while A9 convicted u/ss.302, 307, 436 and 120BIPC – However, the incident took place on 21.05.1996, i.e.,approximately 27 years ago; the Trial Court awarded the sentenceof death on 22.04.2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago; and the presentaccused acting at the behest of the principal conspirators; are allmitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death eventhough it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases – In viewof the conspiracy, and the facts at hand, including mitigatingcircumstances as against the punishment of death penalty, it is a fitcase to award life imprisonment without remission, extending tonatural life of A3, A5, A6 and A9 – Sentence / Sentencing. Evidence – Confession – Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case of1996 – 17 accused – Judicial confession of A9, if recorded as perthe mandate of law or not – Held: On facts, the testimony of judicialofficer PW100 is evidently clear – Two days’ time for such purposeswas given to the accused and that too, after apprising him of theconsequences of making such statement and only after finding himto have voluntarily chosen to depose, was such a confessionalstatement recorded – That apart, it was not the case of the saidaccused that a judicial confession was got extracted under threat,extortion, promise or as a result of blackmail – Hence, the statementwas totally voluntary in nature – A conjoint reading of s.164 CrPCand ss.24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, makes the confession made byA9 to be entirely admissible in evidence and by virtue of s.10 of theEvidence Act, in a given case also against a co-accused – TheMagistrate was duly empowered to record the confession, though,it would not matter whether he had the jurisdiction in the case ornot – It was without any inducement, threat or promise and wasrelevant for adjudication of the issues/subject matter of trial – Thesame led to a discovery of fact and the disclosure statements of theco-accused also resulted into discovery of fact – The statement wasneither retracted nor its credibility and veracity ever doubted – Itwas voluntary and truthful, reliable and beyond reproach and hence,an efficacious piece of evidence – Establishing the guilt of theaccused, the said confession falls squarely within the contours laiddown in Ram Singh case – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –s.164 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.10, 24 to 30.Evidence – Confession – What is – Meaning of – Held: Aconfession is an admission made at any time by a person chargedwith an offence, stating or suggesting the inference that he hascommitted the offence – In law, such confession can be made before“any” metropolitan magistrate or judicial magistrate, whether ornot, he has jurisdiction in the case.Evidence – Confession – Corroboration, if necessary – Held:It is not necessary that each and every circumstance mentioned inthe confession regarding complicity of the accused should beseparately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential thatcorroboration must come from facts and circumstances discoveredafter the confession was made – It would be sufficient if the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence whichwould tally with what is contained in the confession.Sentence / Sentencing – Life imprisonment vis-à-vis deathpenalty – Rule of prudence – Held: A Court may choose to giveprimacy to life imprisonment over death penalty – Considering thefacts at hand and evidence on record, in the case at hand (LajpatNagar Bomb Blast Case of 1996), one has to be conscious of thefact that the bomb blast caused at the behest of the accused personsresulted in the death of 13 persons and 38 persons suffered injuries– There was further damage caused to the livelihood of theshopkeepers, whose shops were burnt down due to the said bombblast – However, the incident took place on 21.05.1996, i.e.,approximately 27 years ago; the Trial Court awarded the sentenceof death on 22.04.2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago; and the presentaccused acted at the behest of the principal conspirators; whichare all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence ofdeath even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases– Fit case to award life imprisonment without remission, extendingto natural life of A3, A5, A6 and A9.Administration of Criminal Justice – Criminal Trial –Expeditious Trial – Need for – Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case of1996 – Held: On facts, the record reveals it is only on the proddingon the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed aftermore than a decade – The delay, be it for whatever reason,attributable to the judge incharge or the prosecution, has certainlycompromised national interest – Expeditious trial of such cases isthe need of the hour, especially when it concerns national securityand the common man – Enough vigilance was not displayed by theinvestigating as well as the judicial authorities – The matter oughtto have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels.Criminal Law – Law on interference against acquittal by HighCourts – Discussed – Constitution of India – Art. 136.Evidence – Hostile Witness – Admissibility and evidentiaryvalue of – Discussed.Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Evidentiary Value –Conviction on its basis – Discussed. |
