LEGAL ISSUE: Criminal conspiracy, circumstantial evidence, admissibility of confessional statements, and sentencing in a terror attack case.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Terrorism
Case Name: Mohd. Naushad vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Judgment Date: 6 July 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 06 July 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 605
Judges: B.R. Gavai J., Vikram Nath J., and Sanjay Karol J.
Can a series of bomb blasts be linked to a larger conspiracy? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case stemming from the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast. This judgment delves into the complexities of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the sentencing of individuals involved in acts of terrorism. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of several accused individuals, emphasizing the importance of establishing a clear chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol, who delivered a unanimous verdict.
Case Background
On May 21, 1996, a bomb blast occurred in the Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, resulting in 13 fatalities and 38 injuries. The incident was initially claimed by the Jammu Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF). Investigations led the police to trace calls made to media outlets back to two telephone numbers in the Kashmir Valley, registered to Farooq Ahmed Khan (A1) and Farida Dar (A2).
Further investigation led to the arrest of Javed Ahmed Khan (A9) on June 1, 1996, in Ahmedabad. His disclosure statement revealed a larger conspiracy involving several individuals, including Bilal Ahmed Beg (A11), Juber @ Mehrazuddin (A12), and others. Following this, Mohd. Naushad (A3) and Mirza Iftqar (A4) were arrested at the New Delhi Railway Station on June 14, 1996. Recoveries of explosives and other materials were made based on A3’s statements. Mirza Nissar Hussain (A5) and Mohd. Ali Bhatt (A6) were subsequently arrested from Mussoorie and Gorakhpur, respectively.
The prosecution’s case was that a stolen Maruti car was used in the blast. The car was stolen on the intervening night of 17-18 May, 1996. The accused procured different materials from different places to prepare the bomb. They made an unsuccessful attempt on 19 May, 1996 and succeeded on 21 May, 1996.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 17-18, 1996 | Maruti car stolen from Nizamuddin East. |
| May 19, 1996 | Unsuccessful bomb blast attempt. |
| May 21, 1996 | Bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi at 6:30 PM. |
| May 24, 1996 | Arrest of A1 and A2 by Jammu and Kashmir Police. |
| June 1, 1996 | Arrest of A9 in Ahmedabad. |
| June 14, 1996 | Arrest of A3 and A4 at New Delhi Railway Station. |
| June 15, 1996 | Recovery of explosives from A3’s residence. |
| June 16, 1996 | Arrest of A6 and A7 in Gorakhpur. |
| June 17, 1996 | Arrest of A5 in Mussoorie. |
| July 19, 1996 | Judicial confession of A9 recorded in Jaipur. |
| July 26, 1996 | A9 and A10 formally arrested by Delhi Police. |
| April 8, 2010 | Trial Court convicts A3, A5, A6, and A9. |
| November 22, 2012 | Delhi High Court partly upholds and partly overturns the trial court judgment. |
| July 6, 2023 | Supreme Court upholds the convictions of A3, A5, A6 and A9. |
Legal Framework
The case involved charges under several key legal provisions:
- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertains to criminal conspiracy.
- Sections 302, 307, and 436 of the IPC: Relate to murder, attempt to murder, and mischief by fire or explosive substance, respectively.
- Section 411 of the IPC: Deals with dishonestly receiving stolen property.
- Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act: Addresses offenses related to causing explosions.
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: Concerns the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of a fact.
The Supreme Court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence, highlighting that each link in the chain of evidence must be clearly established to prove guilt.
Arguments
Submissions on behalf of A3, Mohd. Naushad:
- The prosecution’s case incorrectly started with A9’s arrest, whereas it actually began with the arrest of A1 and A2.
- Circumstantial evidence must establish each link of the chain through reliable evidence.
- A9’s confession cannot be used against A3, as it was recorded in another case and does not mention A3’s role.
- The prosecution failed to prove A3’s arrest on June 14, 1996, and that he was arrested earlier from his residence.
- Recovery of explosives from A3’s residence cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
- Pointing out (discovery of fact) is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- There is no direct evidence linking A3 to the bomb blast.
- The present case does not fall under the rarest of rare cases to warrant the death penalty.
Submissions on behalf of A9, Javed Ahmed Khan:
- A9 was arrested by the Rajasthan Police in connection with another case and his confessional statement in that case cannot be used against him.
- There has been no confession of A9 in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case.
Submissions on behalf of A5 and A6:
- The High Court rightly acquitted both the accused as none of the circumstances alleged by the prosecution are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- In case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused and that the judgment of acquittal can only be set aside if it is perverse in the eyes on the appellate court.
Submission on behalf of the State (NCT of Delhi):
- The prosecution established the guilt of each of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
- The acquittal of A5 and A6 is erroneous and contradictory.
- The Court ought to have considered the material in its entirety, rather than deciding the issues in a perfunctory manner.
- Testimonies of police officers should not be rejected merely because independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Accused |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest | A3 was arrested on the intervening night of 28/29 May, 1996 and not on 14 June, 1996. | A3 |
| A9 was illegally detained at Ahmedabad on 24 May, 1996 and not arrested on 1 June, 1996. | A9 | |
| Confession | Confession of A9 cannot be used against himself or other co-accused as it was recorded in another case. | A3, A9 |
| Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution failed to prove the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. | A3 |
| Prosecution failed to lead cogent evidence, ocular or documentary against A5 and A6. | A5, A6 | |
| Recovery | Recovery of explosives from A3’s residence cannot be the sole basis of conviction. | A3 |
| Recovery of Rs. 1 Lakh from Mangal Chand is not an incriminating circumstance against A3. | A3 | |
| Pointing Out | Pointing out is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. | A3 |
| Pointing out is not an incriminating circumstance against A5 and A6. | A5, A6 | |
| Sentence | The present case does not fall in the category of the rarest of rare cases to warrant the death penalty. | A3 |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:
- Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the conviction of A5 and A6 by the trial court?
- Whether the conviction of A3 and A9 by the High Court is correct?
- Whether the confessional statement of A9 is admissible as evidence against co-accused?
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete to prove the guilt of the accused?
- Whether the sentence awarded by the High Court is appropriate?
- Whether the accused are liable to be convicted under Section 411 IPC?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in overturning the conviction of A5 and A6 by the trial court? | No. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal of A5 and A6. | The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence. The chain of circumstances was complete to establish the guilt of A5 and A6. |
| Whether the conviction of A3 and A9 by the High Court is correct? | Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of A3 and A9. | The High Court had correctly assessed the evidence against A3 and A9. |
| Whether the confessional statement of A9 is admissible as evidence against co-accused? | Yes. | The court held that the confessional statement of A9 was admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete to prove the guilt of the accused? | Yes. The Supreme Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete. | The court stated that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. |
| Whether the sentence awarded by the High Court is appropriate? | No. The Supreme Court modified the sentence. | The Supreme Court sentenced all the accused to life imprisonment, without remission, extending to natural life. |
| Whether the accused are liable to be convicted under Section 411 IPC? | Yes. The Supreme Court convicted A3, A5 and A6 under Section 411 IPC. | The Supreme Court held that A3, A5 and A6 stole the car and used it in the commission of the crime. |
Authorities
| Authority | Legal Point | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra (1963) 2 SCR 405 | Circumstantial Evidence | Supreme Court of India | Explained the principle that circumstantial evidence can be the basis of conviction if it is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. |
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 | Circumstantial Evidence | Supreme Court of India | Laid down the five golden principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Hanumant v. State of M.P., (1952) SCR 1091 | Circumstantial Evidence | Supreme Court of India | Cautioned against conjecture and suspicion in cases based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, (1964) 6 SCR 623 | Confession of a co-accused | Supreme Court of India | Stated that the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can only be used in support of other evidence. |
| Ram Singh v. Sonia & Ors, (2007) 3 SCC 1 | Circumstantial Evidence | Supreme Court of India | Stated that the chain of circumstances must be complete for conviction. |
| Dharam Das Wadhwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1974) 3 SCR 607 | Circumstantial Evidence | Supreme Court of India | Stated that the chain of circumstances must be complete for conviction. |
| Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Balochi v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 11 SC 625 | Recovery of Explosives | Supreme Court of India | Held that recovery of explosives cannot be the sole basis for conviction under Section 302 IPC. |
| Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249 | Discovery of Fact | Supreme Court of India | Held that pointing out (Discovery of fact) of several shops is not a special knowledge acquired by the Police by the factum of pointing out. |
| Pulukuri Kotayya & Others v. King-Emperor (1946) SCC Online PC 47 | Discovery of Fact | Privy Council | Held that the information supplied by accused is not the direct and immediate cause of the discovery. |
| Venkatesh Alias Chandra & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC Online SC 765 | Disclosure Statement | Supreme Court of India | Held that the disclosure statement is an extract of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and not an evidence of the prosecution. |
| Hanumant v. State of M.P., (1952) SCR 1091 | Circumstantial Evidence | Supreme Court of India | Cautioned against conjecture and suspicion in cases based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, (1964) 6 SCR 623 | Confession of a co-accused | Supreme Court of India | Stated that the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can only be used in support of other evidence. |
| Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67 | Discovery of Fact | Privy Council | Explained the meaning of ‘fact discovered’ under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609 | Criminal Conspiracy | Supreme Court of India | Explained the concept of criminal conspiracy under Sections 120-A and 120-B of IPC. |
| State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253 | Criminal Conspiracy | Supreme Court of India | Culled out principles governing the law of conspiracy. |
| Esher Singh v. State of A.P., (2004) 11 SCC 585 | Criminal Conspiracy | Supreme Court of India | Stated that the circumstances must indicate a meeting of minds for an intended illegal act. |
| Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 | Circumstantial Evidence | Supreme Court of India | Explained that in a case entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence, the responsibility of the prosecution is more. |
| Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47 | Confessional Statements | Privy Council | Explained the admissibility of confessional statements and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159 | Confessional Statements | Supreme Court of India | Clarified how the confession of a co-accused can be used against another accused. |
| Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra 1969 (2) SCC 872 | Discovery of Fact | Supreme Court of India | Explained the essential ingredients of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
| Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2011 (11) SCC 347 | Confessional Statements | Supreme Court of India | Explained the admissibility of confessional statements. |
| Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216 | Confessional Statements | Supreme Court of India | Held that the general trend of the confession is to be substantiated by evidence. |
| Subramania Goundan v. The State of Madras (1958) SCR 428 | Confessional Statements | Supreme Court of India | Held that the general trend of the confession is to be substantiated by evidence. |
| Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 3 SCC 435 | Confessional Statements | Supreme Court of India | Held that the general trend of the confession is to be substantiated by evidence. |
| Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1988) Supp SCC 241 | Independent Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Observed that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed. |
| Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr. (1999) 9 SCC 525 | Independent Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Observed that different witnesses react differently under different situations. |
| Birendra Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2005) 9 SCC 719 | Independent Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that non-examination of an Investigating Officer would not make the prosecution case to be false. |
| Muthu Naicker & Ors. Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1978 (4) SCC 385 | Partisan Witness | Supreme Court of India | Held that the evidence of a partisan witness need not necessarily be discarded. |
| Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2011 (11) SCC 347 | Confessional Statements | Supreme Court of India | Explained the admissibility of confessional statements. |
| Tahir v. State (1996) 3 SCC 338 | Police Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that the evidence of police officials can form the basis of conviction if found trustworthy. |
| Parasram v. State of Haryana (1992) 4 SCC 662 | Police Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that the evidence of police officials can form the basis of conviction if found trustworthy. |
| Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (1995) 4 SCC 255 | Police Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that the evidence of police officials can form the basis of conviction if found trustworthy. |
| Balbir Singh v. State (1996) 11 SCC 139 | Police Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that the evidence of police officials can form the basis of conviction if found trustworthy. |
| Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat (1996) 1 SCC 427 | Police Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that the evidence of police officials can form the basis of conviction if found trustworthy. |
| Anil alias Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1996 S.C 2943 | Police Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that the evidence of police officials can form the basis of conviction if found trustworthy. |
| Kalpnanth Rai v. State (through CBI) (1997) 8 SCC 732 | Police Witnesses | Supreme Court of India | Held that there is no legal proposition that evidence of police officer, unless supported by independent witnesses is unworthy of acceptance. |
| State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil & Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652 | Police Records | Supreme Court of India | Held that the Court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. |
| Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 145 | Witness Testimony | Supreme Court of India | Held that quality and not quantity of the witness is what matters with overwhelming evidence available on record. |
| Simon & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2004) 2 SCC 694 | Test Identification Parade | Supreme Court of India | Held that it is neither application in law nor a right of the accused to claim a Test Identification Parade. |
| Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295 | Test Identification Parade | Supreme Court of India | Held that evidence regarding identification of accused before Court should not ordinarily form the basis of conviction unless corroborated by any other evidence. |
| Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649 | Witness Testimony | Supreme Court of India | Explained that minor variation with the former statements would not amount to contradictions. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Smt Kalki & Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752 | Witness Testimony | Supreme Court of India | Explained that material discrepancies are those that are “not normal, and not expected of a normal person”. |
| Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala, (2000) 5 SCC 197 | Witness Testimony | Supreme Court of India | Observed that a witness cannot be straightway condemned and their evidence discarded in its entirety unless the discrepancy and contradiction are so material and substantial. |
| Musheer Khan v. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 748 | Section 313 Cr.P.C. | Supreme Court of India | Held that it is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him. |
| Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 9 | Section 313 Cr.P.C. | Supreme Court of India | Held that it is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 | Section 313 Cr.P.C. | Supreme Court of India | Held that a false answer offered by the accused when his attention was drawn to the aforesaid circumstance renders that circumstance capable of inculpating him. |
| Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 14 SCC 641 | Sentencing | Supreme Court of India | Held that a Court may choose to give primacy to life imprisonment over death penalty in cases which are solely based on circumstantial evidence. |
| Swamy Shraddhanand v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 | Sentencing | Supreme Court of India | Held that there is a good and strong basis for the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment. |
| Union of India v. V. Sriharan & Ors; (2016) 7 SCC 1 | Sentencing | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the law laid down in Swamy Shraddhanand v. State of Karnataka. |
| Sundar v. State through Insp. of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine 310 | Sentencing | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the law laid down in Swamy Shraddhanand v. State of Karnataka. |
| B.A. Umesh v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 1528 | Sentencing | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the law laid down in Swamy Shraddhanand v. State of Karnataka. |
| Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 81 | Sentencing | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the law laid down in Swamy Shraddhanand v. State of Karnataka. |
| Gurcharan Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460 | Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act | Supreme Court of India | Explained the concept of common intention under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, delivered the following judgment:
- The Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal of A5 and A6, finding them guilty of the offenses they were charged with.
- The Court upheld the conviction of A3 and A9, affirming their guilt in the conspiracy and execution of the bomb blast.
- The Court found that the confessional statement of A9 was admissible as evidence against co-accused under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it was part of a larger conspiracy.
- The Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and pointed towards the guilt of the accused.
- The Court convicted A3, A5 and A6 under Section 411 IPC.
- The Court modified the sentence, sentencing all the accused to life imprisonment, without remission, extending to natural life.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused through a chain of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of confessional statements. The court also underscored the importance of maintaining public safety and ensuring justice in cases involving acts of terrorism.
Flowchart of Events
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Mohd. Naushad & Others vs. State case is a significant ruling that reinforces the importance of establishing a clear chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court’s decision to uphold the convictions of the accused underscores the gravity of acts of terrorism and the need for a thorough investigation and prosecution. The judgment also highlights the admissibility of confessional statements and the principles of criminal conspiracy under Indian law.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in prosecuting terror-related cases and the critical role of the judiciary in ensuring that justice is served while upholding the principles of law. The Supreme Court’s detailed analysis of the evidence and legal arguments provides valuable insights into the application of criminal law in such sensitive matters.
Source: Mohd. Naushad & Others vs. State