New Delhi: A 2-rupee note, a spare tyre and a set of car keys. These were part of the evidence that led the Supreme Court to reverse the acquittals of two men in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case, and sentence them and two others to life in prison.
On Thursday — 27 years after an explosion in one of the national capital’s busiest markets killed 13 people and left scores wounded — a three-bench judge of the apex court dismissed the appeals filed by Mohammad Naushad and Javed Ahmed against the Delhi High Court’s 22 November 2012 ruling that upheld a trial court order sentencing them to life imprisonment.
In the same judgment, the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol allowed the Delhi Police’s appeal against the acquittal of two more accused — Mirza Nisar Hussain and Mohammad Ali Bhatt — reversing the HC’s findings with regard to them, and directing them to surrender before the authorities.
The SC also sentenced all four to life imprisonment without remission, ensuring that they can’t apply for premature release — a remedy available to convicts who spend more than 14 years in jail.
In its 190-page ruling, the Supreme Court held that unavailability of public witnesses should not, “ipso facto”, lead the court to discard prosecution or testimonies of police witnesses. The court reviewed “unrebutted” police statements, circumstantial evidence and the confession statements of the accused to conclude that the four were a part of the conspiracy executed to carry out the blasts.
Under such circumstances, the court said, absence of public witnesses could not cast a shadow of doubt over the “overwhelming” circumstantial evidence available on record, which, according to it, was established through “truthful” testimony of police witnesses. Statements of police officers recording during the investigation as well as trial inspired “confidence” in the probe, the bench held.
“Quality and not quantity of the witness is what matters with overwhelming evidence available on record,” said the bench as it drew curtains on the blast that occurred on 21 May 1996.
The investigation of the case was handed over to the Delhi Police’s Special Cell, which filed the charge sheet naming 17 persons as accused. While one of the 17 died, seven never faced trial and were declared as proclaimed offenders.
Of the 10 who were tried by the trial court, four were acquitted while two were partially convicted and sentenced to jail time that they had already undergone during the trial.
No appeals were filed against these decisions.
The same trial court, however, held Naushad, Hussain, Bhat and Ahmad guilty. While the first three were sentenced to death, Ahmad was handed life term.
All four eventually appealed their conviction before the HC, which, while overturning the lower court’s findings in the case of Hussain and Bhat, commuted the death sentences of Naushad and Ahmad to life imprisonment.
While Naushad and Ahmad assailed their conviction, the Delhi Police questioned the HC’s reasoning to reduce their sentence and also sought reversal of its judgment on Hussain and Bhat.
Car keys, spare tyres — what court relied on
According to the Delhi Police, there was a breakthrough in investigations into the blast case with the Gujarat Police’s arrest of Ahmad on 1 June 1996 — almost a week after the blasts. While the agency had already arrested two others from Kashmir in connection with the case, it was Ahmad’s disclosure to the Gujarat Police that, according to the prosecution, eventually helped them crack the case.
Among the several detentions made after this was Naushad, who was arrested on 14 June 1996 — 24 days after the blast. According to the police, Naushad, who was arrested from New Delhi Railway Station, where he was about to board a train to Gorakhpur, was instrumental in the conspiracy.
In its verdict, the Supreme Court extensively relied on Ahmad’s confession to the Gujarat Police, also recorded before a magistrate — according to the bench, the recoveries that were eventually made corroborated the statement.
Among these were the RDX supplied by Javed and found from the house of Naushad and one of his neighbours, who was cited as a public witness, but turned hostile during the trial, the court said.
It also cited other crucial evidence — a spare tyre of the stolen car in which the bomb was planted, the original registration plate of the vehicle that was found on the instance of the accused, the car’s spare keys found after the incident, a Rs 2 note used to collect hawala money from someone in northwest Delhi, and a drill machine that was used to punch holes in a cylinder used for the blast.
Moreover, the court noted, the accused had also identified important spots, such as the locality from where they stole the car, the place where the car was parked for the blast, and the different shops from where they purchased the things needed to make the bomb.
‘Circumstantial evidence complete’
In their defence, the accused argued they cannot be convicted on the basis of only circumstantial evidence and that at no point of time did the police have independent witnesses in their team — whether it was at the time of making arrests or recoveries. Even those who were cited as public witnesses never supported the prosecution case in the court, they argued.
The prosecution had examined 107 witnesses during the trial, of which 28 were police officers.
The court, however, dismissed the argument saying that circumstantial evidence was fully established against the accused in the case and turned down the defence’s argument that no conviction can be sustained in the absence of an independent witness.
“We find ourselves to be in agreement with the reasoning of the high court on this aspect as observed that courts cannot completely overlook the fact that in matters involving serious offence, members of the public are reluctant to associate with police proceedings either for fear of persecution or for the sheer harassment of having to attend numerous and interminable court hearings,” the SC bench said.
In the current case, many witnesses were from the Turkman Gate area, where one accused, Naushad, lived, the court said, accepting Delhi Police’s version that not many residents of the area were willing to join the police probe.
A similar observation was made by the subordinate courts as well, the bench observed, saying the former had recorded that such witnesses had not deposed the truth during trial.
“Courts have, on several occasions, lamented this phenomenon and at the same time stated that unavailability of public witnesses should not, ipso facto, lead the court to discard prosecution, or the testimonies of police witnesses,” the bench said, while regretting the general public’s “apathy” in not associating with police prosecution.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)