Patna High Court
Md. Mujibullah Ansari vs The Union Of India ( N. I. A. ) on 7 September, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DEATH REFERENCE No.10 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
The State of Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari S/o Kamaluddin Ansari R/o Sithiyo, P.S. - Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. Haider Ali S/o Md. Alam Ansari R/o Line Mohalla, Doranda, P.S. - Doranda,
District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. Numan Ansari S/o Sultan Ansari R/o Niche Mohalla, Sithiyo, P.S. - Dhurwa,
Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. Md. Mujibullah Ansari S/o Md. Zabir Ansari R/o Chakla, P.S. - Ormanjhi,
District - Ranchi (Jhakhand).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 757 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Azharuddin Qureshi S/o- Shakeeruddin Qureshi R/o Nai Basti, Raja Talab,
P.S.- Civil Line, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India (N.I.A.) New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 769 of 2021
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
2/83
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Numan Ansari S/o Sultan Ansari R/o Niche Mohalla, Sithiyao, P.S.- Dhurwa,
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India (N.I.A.) New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 18 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari S/o Kamaluddin Ansari R/o Sithiyo, P.S.- Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 48 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Umer Siddiqui S/o Md. Safi Siddiqui R/o Noorani Chowk, Raja Talab, P.S.
- Civil Line, District - Raipur (Chhaitisgarh).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
3/83
The Union of India (N.I.A.) New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 58 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Md. Mujibullah Ansari S/o Md. Zabir Ansari @ Md. Jabir R/o- Chakla, P.S. -
Ormanjhi, District - Ranchi (Jhakhand).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India (N.I.A.) New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 83 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- NIA District- Patna
======================================================
Haider Ali S/o Md. Alam Ansari R/o Line Mohalla, Doranda, P.S. - Doranda,
District - Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The Union of India (N.I.A.) New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In DEATH REFERENCE No. 10 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Xxxxx
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
4/83
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Xxxxx
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 757 of 2021)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansul, Advocate
Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Shahbaj Alam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. PP (NIA)
Mr. Pramod Kumar, PP (NIA)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 769 of 2021)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ansul, Advocate
Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Shahbaj Alam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. PP (NIA)
Mr. Pramod Kumar, PP (NIA)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 18 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Shahbaj Alam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. PP (NIA)
Mr. Pramod Kumar, PP (NIA)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
5/83
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 48 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Prakhar Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. PP (NIA)
Mr. Pramod Kumar, PP (NIA)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 58 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Prakhar Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. PP (NIA)
Mr. Pramod Kumar, PP (NIA)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 83 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Shahbaj Alam, Advocate
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
6/83
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh, ASG
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. PP (NIA)
Mr. Pramod Kumar, PP (NIA)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, AC to ASG
Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 11-09-2024.
1. We have heard the afore-noted appeals as also
the Death Reference No. 10/2021 together, which are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Out of ten accused persons (who would be
referred to in the judgment by their serial number
before the Trial Court) put on Trial in Special Case No.
05 of 2013 (arising out of R.C. Case No.
10/2013)/CIS No. 5600/2014, the learned Special
Judge NIA, Patna has convicted nine of them and has
acquitted one, viz., Fakhruddin Ansari (A-8).
3. Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari (A1) [Cr. APP. (DB) No.
18 of 2022] has been held guilty for the offences
under Sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act,
1908; 120B read with 302, 121, 121A of the IPC; 16,
18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
7/83
1967 and under Section 151 of the Railways Act,
1989.
4. Haider Ali (A2) [Cr. APP. (DB) No. 83 of 2022],
Numan Ansari (A3)[Cr. APP. (DB) No. 769 of 2021]
and Md. Mujibullah Ansari (A4) [Cr. APP. (DB) No. 58
of 2022] have been found guilty under Sections 3 and
5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Sections 121,
121A, 120B read with Section 302, 302 read with
Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of
the IPC; and Sections 16, 18 and 20 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
5. Md. Umer Siddiqui (A5) [Cr. APP. (DB) No. 48
of 2022] and Azharuddin Qureshi (A6) [Cr. APP. (DB)
No. 757 of 2021] have been held guilty under
Sections 121, 121A, 120B read with Section 302 of
the IPC and Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
6. By order dated 1st of Nov. 2021, Imteyaz Ansari
(A1) has been sentenced to death for the offences
under Sections 120B read with 302 IPC; Section 121
of IPC and Section 16 (a) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967. Under each of the three
counts, he has been saddled with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one
month. For the offence under Section 121A of the IPC;
4(ii) and 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908;
Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
8/83
1967 and Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, he has been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for life to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for
each count and in default of payment of fine, to
further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. He
has further been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for five years for the offence under
Section 151 of Railways Act, 1989.
7. Similarly, Haider Ali (A2), Numan Ansari (A3) and
Mujibullah Ansari (A4) also have been sentenced to
death for the offences under Sections 120B read with
302; 121 ; 121A ; 302 read with 34 of the IPC;
Section 3(b) of the of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908; and Section 16 (a) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 along with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- each under each counts and in default, to
suffer simple imprisonment for one month. For the
offence under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC;
Section 5(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908;
Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, they have been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000 and in default thereof, to further suffer simple
imprisonment for one month.
8. Md. Umer Siddiqui (A5) and Azharuddin Qureshi (A6)
have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
9/83
for the offence under Sections 120B read with Section
302 IPC and imprisonment for life for the offence
under Section 121 IPC along with a fine of Rs.
10,000/- each under each count and in default of
payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment
for one month. They have further been sentenced to
undergo R.I. for ten years for the offences under
Sections 121A IPC; imprisonment for ten years under
Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967; imprisonment for ten years for the offence
under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 and; imprisonment for ten
years for the offence under Section 20 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under each count and in
default, to further suffer simple imprisonment for one
month under each count.
9. Only the afore-noted six persons have preferred
separate appeals.
10. For compensation to the families of the victims
(deceased), the issue was referred to District Legal
Services Authority to decide the quantum of
compensation of law according to law, keeping in mind
the previous compensation given, if any.
11. Six persons died and 89 were injured in a
macabre incident of serial bomb blasts which had
taken place at Platform No. 10 of the Patna Junction
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
10/83
Railway Station and Gandhi Maidan, Patna respectively
on 17.10.2013
12. A brief recapitulation of the incidents would be
necessary for a proper understanding of the facts of
the case.
13. On 27.10.2013, a "Hunkar Rally" was organized
by Bharatiya Janata Party at Gandhi Maidan, Patna in
which Shri Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of
Gujarat had to address the gathering. At about 9.30
A.M., there was an incident of bomb explosion at
Sulabh Sauchalaya, a public facility adjoining platform
no. 10 of Patna Junction Railway Station. After about
two hours at 11.40 A.M., another blast was reported
at Gandhi Maidan, Patna at the rally venue. This was
shortly followed by five more blasts successively.
14. For the incident at Patna Junction Railway
Station, a case vide Patna G.R.P. Case No. 361 of
2013 was registered for investigation by Rampukar
Singh (PW1)/Inspector of Police, Patna G.R.P.
15. For the blasts at rally venue, Gandhi Maidan
P.S. Case No. 451/2013 was also registered for
offences under Sections 324, 326, 307, 302, 120B,
121 and 121A of the IPC; 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908; Section 18 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 16, 18
and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
11/83
Act by Shri Raj Bindu Prasad (PW2)/Inspector cum
SHO of Gandhi Maidan P.S. against six accused
persons, namely, (i) Monu @ Tahseen @ Meman; (ii)
Haider Ali @ Black Beauty ;(iii) Tareeq; (iv) Taufique;
(v) Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari ; and (vi) Numan Ansari.
Out of these, Tarique had become a victim of his own
doing and had died because of bomb injuries while
under treatment at Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical
Science (IGIMS). Haider, Imteyaz and Numan, out of
the named accused, persons faced trial and were
sentenced to death.
16. The afore-noted accused persons were also
named in the G.R.P. Case No. 361/2013.
17. Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari was apprehended at
Platform No. 10 of Patna Junction Railway Station,
who was interrogated. He revealed that along with
other accused persons, he had come from Ranchi to
Patna for effecting bomb blasts at the rally at Gandhi
Maidan. The other associate of his was Tarique who
had received bomb injuries at Sulabh Sauchalaya. Both
of them belonged to village - Sithio in Ranchi.
18. On the information provided by Imteyaz Alam @
Ansari, his residential premises at Ranchi was searched
and from there, one a pressure cooker bomb, glass
bombs, table clocks of lotus company, explosives and
some incriminating documents were recovered and
seized. Within a short span of time, because of the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
12/83
disclosures made by him and the search at his village
home at Ranchi, the perpetrators and conspirators of
the crime were located.
19. The first lead to the police, therefore, was based
on the disclosures of Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari.
20. Mujibullah Ansari was found to be staying as a
tenant in one of the rooms in Eram lodge at Ranchi.
That room was also raided by the Ranchi Police on
04.11.2013
in presence of the caretaker and one of
the uncles of Mujibullah Ansari, namely, Md. Altaf,
when nine live bombs attached with lotus company
clocks, 25 pieces of gelatin rods wrapped in plastic
sheets, 14 pieces of detonators with red colour wire, 4
pieces of lotus clock timer clocks, a polythene bag
containing approximately 2kgs of iron nails, electric
wires, a political map of India with the sketch of
Gandhi Maidan drawn by pencil on its reverse,
photocopy of Voter ID cards of Mujibullah Ansari and
Salim Ansari and other documents were recovered and
seized.
21. Based on such search and seizure, Ranchi Police
also registered a case vide FIR No. 985/2013 at
Hindpidhi (Kotwali) Police Station under Sections
120B, 121, 121A/34 IPC, Section 3 and 4 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 18 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section
16, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
13/83
(Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 17 of the CLA Act,
1908.
22. All the three of F.I.Rs were transferred to NIA
sometimes in the month of December, 2020.
23. The raids at Ranchi and the investigations
pursuant to F.I.R. No. 985/2013 revealed that Haider
Ali had taken a room in Eram Lodge on rent on a fake
Voter ID in the name of Salim Ansari, on which the
photograph of Haider was pasted. Mujibullah Ansari
had offered his own Voter ID card with his name and
photograph. It was found during the investigations
that Imteyaz, Tarique (deceased), Haider, Numan,
Taufique and Mujibullah had conspired to target the
election rallies of Shri Narendra Modi. In furtherance
of that conspiracy, the appellants had made
reconnaissance at various places in the country and
had also collected explosives from Ranchi, Mirzapur,
Allahabad and Raipur. They had fabricated improvised
explosives at Sithio village and at Eram lodge at
Ranchi. Those bombs/IEDs were used in the Patna
serial blasts on 27.10.2013. The reason for the
investigators to say so was on the basis of forensic
examination of those bombs by Central Forensic
Science Laboratory, Kolkata, which had reported that
the explosive recovered at Sithio village and at Eram
Lodge and the spent over bombs at Gandhi Maidan
and Patna Railway Station contained ammonium
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
14/83
nitrate, improvised gun powder and aluminium
chloride.
24. Umer Siddiqui, a resident of Raipur was found to
be an active member of SIMI, a banned organization
and had provided shelter to terrorists. It was also
found out that with respect to Umer having given
shelter to the terrorists, a case vide Raipur Civil Lines
P.S. Case No. 740 of 2013 dated 14.11.2013 was
registered at Raipur. He was subsequently arrested in
that case. During the interrogation, he had made a
very clear disclosure that along with the cadre of SIMI,
he had, in the past organized terrorist camps and
imparted training to the sleeper cells. According to his
version, Haider, Numan, Taufique and Mujibullah had
stayed at Raipur after the bomb blasts at Patna. He
was assisted by Azharuddin Qureshi. He knew about
the conspiracy for effecting blasts at Patna as he was
part of the planning team. The reason for selecting
Patna as the target place was the perception that Mr.
Modi was responsible for post Godhra riots in Gujarat
and that riots at Muazaffarnagar were orchestrated at
the behest of BJP. Because of all this, Haider Ali had
gone to many of the election rallies of Mr. Modi and
finding the security arrangements to be very tight at
all such places, a decision was taken to target not Mr.
Modi in particular but his election rallies so that a
bomb blast at a site where many people would
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
15/83
converge, a stampede would take place and then it
would be easy to target one particular person. With
this idea in mind, the rally at Gandhi Maidan, Patna
was found to be the most suitable occasion for the
accused persons to carry out their agenda. Before the
blasts, Imteyaz and Mujibullah had come to Gandhi
Maidan, Patna sometimes before 20th of October 2013.
Numan, Tarique (deceased ) and Taufique had also
come to Patna earlier. At Patna, Haider had met
others, namely, Tarique, Numan and Taufique at Jama
Masjid near Patna Railway Station. Thereafter, they
had all gone to Gandhi Maidan to see the exit and
entry points.
25. During the long drawn investigations, it was also
found that the Umer had been associated with Student
Islamic Organization in his youth and had become a
regular member of SIMI in 1997. When SIMI was
banned in 2001, he, after joining Safdar Nagori Camp
continued with his agenda of organizing monthly and
weekly meetings of the cadre. It was only in 2010 that
Haider Ali was introduced to Umer Siddiqui by one of
the members of the SIMI cadre. A one day programme
in the house of one of the members of the cadre was
organized by Umer Siddique in which Haider Ali had
spoken about the life of Prophet Mohammad and the
justification for violent Jihads. In these speeches,
frequent references were made about the incident at
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
16/83
World Trade Centre, New York, USA and the
involvement of Al-Qaida in that attack where many
persons had lost their lives. Haider Ali had given
money to Umer Siddiquie also for helping out
members of the SIMI cadre who were incarcerated and
were facing trial.
26. Azharuddin, another resident of Raipur had been
closely associated with Umer Siddiqui and Haider Ali.
The trio regularly delivered takreers with copious
references to the utility of violent Jihad. They also
trained the members of the cadre in assembling
bombs. Azharuddin even harboured the idea of
escaping to Afghanistan after carrying out bomb blasts
in India.
27. Startling revelations were made during the
investigations that serial blasts at Bodh Gaya
sometimes in the recent past i.e. on 27.07.2013 was
also carried out by Haider, Imteyaz and others. After
the Bodh Gaya serial bomb blasts, Haider had gone to
Raipur and had met Umer Siddiqui at his residence.
28. The plan for carrying out serial blasts at Patna
was made by Haider Ali and Umer Siddiqui. The initial
plan was to commission a suicide bomber, who was
selected also but then he developed cold feet.
Thereafter, the plans were changed, pursuant to
which, reconnaissance was made at some of the
election rallies.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
17/83
29. Azharuddin Qureshi and one more person was
given the task of targeting Shri Modi. Haider Ali had
also prepared a suicide jacket with explosives but the
same was not found to be suitable for the purpose.
There were definite indications of Umer Siddique
having prior knowledge of Patna blasts as he was
involved in its planning and execution.
30. Both Umer and Azharuddin gave their
statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C in Bodh Gaya
blast case. After the Patna serial bomb blasts,
Mujibullah visited Umer on 29th of October 2013.
Later, Haider and Taufique also joined them. All of
them were provided accommodation at different places
at Raipur. On 10th of November 2013, Haider Ali,
Numan, Taufique and Mujibullah took a house on rent
which belonged to one of the uncles of Azharuddin
Qureshi. After the arrest of Umer Siddiqui, Azharuddin
Qureshi cautioned Haider Ali and his associates, who
thereafter came to Raipur bus stand and proceeded for
Ambikapur.
31. Haider Ali too was arrested on 21.05.2014 at
the Bus Stand at Ranchi. He was found to be in
possession of two Voter ID cards and in the names of
Vivek Sinha and Alik Tirke and on both the ID cards,
Haider’s photograph was pasted. He also disclosed that
he was a member of SIMI and after Bodh Gaya and
Patna serial blasts, he kept changing his location along
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
18/83
with his associates. After the blasts at Patna, the
unused bombs and its peripherals were handed over to
one Ejaz Hashmi who was occupying a room in Idris
Medical College/lodge at Ranchi. With this disclosure,
the room of Dr. Ejaz Hashmi was searched where one
Samsung Laptop, batteries and other peripherals were
recovered. The Laptop and Pen-drive which were
seized were sent to CERT- IN at Delhi for its opinion.
The extracted data from the Laptop revealed that
there were various rich text files (RTF) regarding the
rallies of Mr. Modi and his participation in various
religious congregations. In the extracted data, there
was a copy of a magazine called “Inspire” where the
process of making elbow bombs was described.
“Inspire” incidentally is an on-line magazine of “Al-
Qaida”.
32. Numan and Taufique were arrested from
Daltonganj in the district of Palamu (Jharkhand). From
their possession also, several incriminating documents
like literature about violent Jihad and a list of political
leaders of BJP, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrag Dal
were found. Perhaps, they were on the hit list of the
accused persons.
33. Further leads in the investigations led to the
discovery that raw materials for making IEDs were
procured by Haider Ali with the help of Ahmad and
Fakhruddin. For that purpose, they had visited
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
19/83
Allahabad and had made the purchases from Johnson
Ganj area. The materials so purchased were kept at
the house of Ahmad where also an attempt was made
to manufacture elbow bombs.
34. Haider was in constant contact with Ahmad (co-
convict), which fact was discovered in the CDR.
35. The appellants were in touch with each other
which fact also could be established with the CDR of
their telephone numbers.
36. With respect to the modus of causing the blasts,
the investigations revealed that Haider, Imteyaz,
Tarique (deceased), Numan, Taufique and Mujibullah
proceeded from Ranch on 26.10.2013 by Aditya Vijay
Bus Service and reached Patna in the early hours of
27.10.2013. They disembarked from the bus near
Patna By-pass road and from there went to Jama
Masjid located near Patna Railway Station. Two groups
were formed. Imteyaz and Tarique took up the
responsibility of planting bombs somewhere near the
Railway Station whereas the others straightaway
proceeded to Gandhi Maidan via Exhibition Road.
Haider and Taufique planted IEDs inside the toilet
complex near Gandhi Maidan and also at the venue of
the rally, somewhere near the dias which was to be
adorned by Mr. Modi for addressing the crowd.
37. Numan and Mujibullah activated the IEDs inside
the toilet campus.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
20/83
38. With respect to Firoz (a co-convict), it was found
that he was distantly related to Haider and was also in
contact with Mujibullah. They often met at a mosque
at Ranchi. Firoz helped Haider in disposing off gold
ornaments, stolen by Abu Faizal and his associates
from various places at Madhya Pradesh. Firoz melted
those gold jewellery and sold it in the local market.
That is how the terrorist activities were funded. During
the investigation, Firoz had disclosed such things
before independent persons and had also pointed out
the places where he had exchanged the gold. Firoz
was also found to have removed some of the
explosives from room no. 8 of Eram lodge sometimes
in the first week of November, 2013. Some of it were
kept in the shop of one Md. Ikram. On his disclosure,
detonators, batteries, electrical testers and mechanical
devices with clock mechanism, pencil batteries etc.,
were recovered from the shop of Md. Ikram.
39. Md. Ikram gave his statement before the Judicial
Magistrate, Ranchi under Section 164 Cr.P.C. affirming
all the above developments.
40. After the closure of the investigation, two
chargesheets were submitted by the NIA. The first of
the chargesheets (1/2014) dated 24.04.2014 in R.C.
No. 10 and 11 of 2013 under various sections of IPC,
Explosive Substances Act and UAP, Act, Railways Act
and Criminal Law Amendment Act was filed against
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
21/83
Imteyaz. Since Traique had died in the occurrence;
therefore his name was not there in the chargesheet.
Tarique had died during treatment at IGIMS on
01.11.2013. The second chargesheet 1(A)/2014 dated
22.08.2014 under the same sections was filed in R.C.
12/2013/NIA/DNI under the same sections against
Haider, Numan, Taufique, Mujibullah, Umer,
Azharuddin, Ahmad Hussain, Fakruddin, Firoz and Md.
Iftekhar Alam.
41. As noted, one of the accused persons, namely,
Tarique had died and the other, namely, Taufique
Ansari was found to be a juvenile and, therefore, his
trial was separated and sent to Juvenile Justice Board,
Patna.
42. The NIA had taken up the composite
investigation for the reason that all the three F.I.Rs: at
Patna Railway Station; Gandhi Maidan; and Ranchi
related to the same conspiracy.
43. The Special Court, after having examined 187
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, but no one on
behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the
appellants as aforesaid.
44. Out of the afore-noted witnesses, three were
examined as protected witnesses for ensuring their
safety by keeping their identity and address secret in
view of Section 17 of the NIA Act, 2008 and Section
44 of UAPA, 1967.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
22/83
45. Approximately, 205 exhibits were also brought
forth as evidence.
46. Delving further, it would be necessary to first
discuss the evidence of the three informants of this
case, namely, Rampukar Singh (PW1), the informant
in RC No. 10/2013 (G.R.P. Case No 361 of 2013), Raj
Bindu Prasad, the informant (PW2) in RC Case No.
11/2013 (Gandhi Maidan Police Station Case No.
451/2013) and Bashistha Narayan Singh (PW3)/ the
informant of RC Case No. 12/2013 [FIR No.
985/2013 at Hindpidhi (Kotwali) Police Station].
47. PW1 supported the prosecution case in its
entirety till the time accused Imteyaz was arrested
and Tarique who had been left injured was sent to
IGIMS for treatment. He was posted in G.R.P. at
Patna Railway Station on 27.10.2013. On that day, a
rally was organized by BJP in which many participants
were expected to come by Railways to attend the rally.
At about 9.30 in the morning, while he was on the foot
overbridge of Patna Junction, he heard a sound of
explosion from the southern direction. He along with
his associates rushed to the place which was
somewhere near Sulabh Sauchalaya located at
Platform No. 10. He entered the toiletand found it to
be full of smoke. There was damage all around. One
Md. Ejaz (PW 4), constable in the G.R.P. was standing
there. Ajaz had held back a person carrying a black
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
23/83
bag. PW1 saw an injured person lying on the floor of
the toilet. Beneath him lay two live bombs fixed to a
wathc, which were seized. The injured was
immediately sent to Railway Hospital for treatment.
The person who was apprehended by Ejaz, was found
to have come along with the person who was injured in
the occurrence. On questioning him, he disclosed his
name as Imteyaz and the one who had been injured as
Tarique. He also disclosed before PW1 that both he
and Tarique had come to explode bombs at Gandhi
Maidan, Patna. Tarique had entered the toilet for
installing the batteries in the bombs; in which process
one of the bombs exploded, severely injuring Tarique.
Imteyaz had told him that he had concealed a bomb in
flush of the toilet. That was also recovered. It was
Imteyaz who gave information to PW1 that many of
his associates had already proceeded to Gandhi Maidan
for planting bombs for disrupting the rally. Imteyaz
had disclosed before him about the conspiracy hatched
at Ranchi. The seizure list of afore-noted seized items
(Ext.1) was identified by him. The arrest was made in
presence of Gautam Kumar, A.S.I. (arrest memo is
Ext. 2). Based on the disclosure made by Imteyaz,
PW1 promptly informed the Ranchi Police about it and
requested to inform the relatives of Tarique
(deceased) about his having been injured at Patna
Junction Railway Station. It was at platform no. 10
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
24/83
only at 11.25 A.M. that he recorded his self
statement, on the basis of which, the GRP Case No.
361/2013 was registered. He also identified Imteyaz
in the dock. The Ranchi police was informed about the
arrest of Imteyaz on the same day by fax (Ext. 6). He
also identified the black bag which was being carried
by Imteyaz (Ext. A/96 and other seized items (Ext.
A/38, A/97, A/100, A/101, A/102, A/103, A/104,
A/108, A/110, A/133, A/136, A/137, A/175, A/177,
A/178 and A/179).
48. He had taken the photograph of the P.O. had
and identified that also (Ext. A/181). However, he
admitted in the cross-examination that there was no
CCTV Camera installed outside the toilet.
49. Similarly, Raj Bindu Prasad (PW2) in R.C. Case
No. 11/2013 (Gandhi Maidan Police Station Case No.
451/2013) told the Trial Court/Special Court that as
ordered by the Administration on 25.10.2013, a
number of police personnel were deployed at Gandhi
Maidan for the Rally as participants in lakhs were
expected to arrive. At about 11.40 A.M., the first of
the explosions took place in front of Udyog Bhavan. He
went there and saw two persons lying injured near
Mona Cinema. A pandemonium had broken loose. The
injured persons were sent to PMCH for treatment.
Another explosion thereafter took place at 12.05 noon
and thereafter there were four other explosions within
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
25/83
five minutes of each blasts. At all places of explosion,
many persons were injured who were immediately
forwarded to the PMCH for treatment. He had gone to
PMCH and had learnt that six injured persons had
died. Out of whom, four, namely, Gauri Shankar
Singh, Vikash Kumar, Bharat Rajak and Munna
Srivastava could be identified whereas the identity of a
middle aged and a young deceased person could not
be established. From the list of injured persons
provided by PMCH, he learnt that they were 89 in all.
It was only then that he learnt that a explosion had
taken place at the Karbigahia side of Patna Railway
Station at 9.30 A.M. only in which one person,
namely, Imteyaz was apprehended. He had also given
his self statement at 9.00 P.M. on 27.10.2013 and
after returning to the police station, had registered the
F.I.R. vide Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 451 of 2013
and had handed over the investigation to the Dy.
Superintendent of Police (City) Patna, namely, Manoj
Kumar Tiwary.
50. The third of the Investigating Officers, viz.,
Bashishth Narain Singh (PW-39), the informant in RC
12 of 2013 (Ranchi) has deposed before the Trial
Court that on 27.10.2013 only, he had received
information that at Patna Junction and Gandhi Maidan,
serial blasts had taken place and one Imteyaz, resident
of village Sithio under the territorial jurisdiction of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
26/83
Dhurva Police Station (Ranchi) had been arrested. He
was asked to conduct search of the house of Imteyaz
as also to verify his name and address. After entering
such information in the Station Diary (Station Diary
No. 763 dated 27.10.2013), he proceeded to village
Sithio and came to the house of Imteyaz. In presence
of the father and elder brother of Imteyaz, his room
was searched from where three CDs, mobile phone of
Reliance Company, 370 pieces of glass balls, a
hammer, a pressure horn, many pieces of plastic,
many fibre type covers, a small cooker and brown
coloured gun powder, weighing approximately 250
gms, which was attached to the fuse, were recovered.
60 pieces of posters in Urdu, syringes, blades etc.
were also found. He identified the seizure-list which
was counter-signed by father and brother of Imteyaz.
Thereafter, he returned to the police station. Since he
had also been informed and requested to inform the
relatives to Md. Tarique @ Ainul, son of Ataullah of
village Sithio that he had been injured while planting a
bomb on platform No. 10 of Patna Railway Station and
who was under treatment, he did so. He gave
information to the relatives of Tarique about his death
on 01.11.2013. The information was signed by the
brother of Tarique, viz., Tauhir Alam and an Up-
Mukhiya by the name of Sajid Ansari.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
27/83
51. He has further deposed before the Trial Court
that a team was constituted by the then ADG, Special
Branch comprising him as well for conducting search in
the house of Mujibullah in village Chakla, P.S. Manjhi
in the district of Ranchi.
52. During investigations, he further revealed, it
was learnt that Mujibullah resided in a lodge at
Hindpidhi. Along with his team and police officers of
the concerned police station he came to Eram Lodge
where he met the uncle of Mujibullah. He was
informed that Mujibullah resided in room No. 8 which
was found to be locked since 24.10.2013. He broke
open the lock of room No. 8 and found three cartons
covered with paper containing live elbow bombs which
were connected with Lotus watches. He immediately
sent information to the Head Office for sending bomb
disposal squad. The bombs were then deactivated.
From that room, several explosives were recovered. A
map of India, on the reverse of which there was a
sketch of Gandhi Maidan was also found. Newspapers
of earlier days, which had reported about serial blasts
at Bodh Gaya were also found stacked in the room.
There was evidence of the occupant of the room being
involved with the activities of SIMI.
53. Based on the aforenoted information collected
during the search and seizure at Eram Lodge, a self
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
28/83
statement was lodged by him which formed the basis
for the registration of Hindpidhi P.S. Case No. 985 of
2013 dated 04.11.2013. The seized articles from the
house of Imteyaz were handed over to the Dy.S.P. of
the NIA on 20.11.2013.
54. Thus, from the depositions of PWs. 1, 2 and 39,
it has clearly been proved that immediately after the
bomb blasts at Patna Railway Station, Imteyaz was
arrested and Tarique (deceased) was found to be
injured, who was sent first to Railway hospital and
then to IGIMS for treatment, who died while
undergoing treatment. Bombs were recovered at Patna
Junction. Two hours later, there were series of blasts
at Gandhi Maidan, leaving six dead and 89 injured and
that those injured persons were sent to PMCH for
treatment.
55. On the basis of disclosure of Imteyaz at Patna
Junction Railway Station, the appellants were named in
Gandhi Maidan police case also. Simultaneously,
Hindpidhi (Kotwali) Police Station case at Ranchi also
was lodged. All these facts stand completely proved
with Imteyaz as the main person giving all the leads
for the police to act upon in one go.
56. PWs. 11 to 24, 43, 53 to 57, 71, 73, 74, 77,
78, 80, 118, 119, 124, 125, 126, 128 and 130 are
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
29/83
the persons who were injured in the occurrence. They
have deposed about their having received splinter
injuries. They are either pedestrians or persons who
had come to attend the rally.
57. Dr. Arun Kumar Singh (PW 34) an Associate
Professor at PMCH in the Department of FM & T has
proved that he had conducted the postmortem
examination on the bodies of Rajesh Kumar,
Bindeshwari Choudhary, Bharat Ranjan, Munna
Srivastava, Raj Narayan Singh and Guddu Kumar
Singh @ Vikash Kumar Singh. All of them had
received bomb injuries which proved fatal. The deaths
were between 12 to 24 hours approximately of the
postmortem examination. The postmortem
examinations were held on 28.10.2013 at 11:45 AM.
He had also conducted the postmortem examination of
Tarique, the accused who had received splinter injuries
while fixing a bomb at Patna Junction Railway Station.
PW-34 was one of the members of the Medical Board
comprising Dr. Satendra Narain Singh and Dr. B.N.
Prasad. Tarique’s postmortem was done on 1st of
November 2013. It was found by the Board that the
deceased had burnt scalp hairs, beard, eyes, neck and
several parts of the body. Burning and blackening
were found on the entire body. There was a massive
bruise on the upper and lower parts of the body. A
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
30/83
small metallic ball (splinter) was taken out from below
the right knee which was preserved, labelled, sealed
and handed over to the police officials. The cause of
death was the injuries received in a close range bomb
blast. On further cross-examination, PW-34 has
proved that such kind of injuries would take place if
the deceased carried the explosives himself.
58. The injured persons were examined by Dr. Ranjit
Kumar (PW-26) who has deposed that the injuries on
all the injured persons were caused by the splinters in
bomb blasts.
59. The postmortem and injury reports as also the
depositions of the doctors fully confirm and establish
that it was the blast at Patna Junction Railway Station
and Gandhi Maidan that six persons had died and 89
were injured, who all had received splinter injuries
because of the bomb blasts.
60. The other set of witnesses relied upon by the
prosecution to prove its case against the appellants are
the police officials other than the officers of NIA.
61. Shyam Sundar Kumar (PW-3), a Sub-Inspector
posted at Patna Junction on 27.10.2013, confirms of
his being a witness to PW-1 interrogating Imteyez at
the Railway Station. He has also identified his
signature on the seizure-list (Exhibit-1/1).
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
31/83
62. Md. Ejaj Hussain (PW-4), the constable who had
held back Imteyaz, confirmed that Imteyaz and
Tarique had come together and Imteyez had made
attempts to run away from the place after the
accidental blasts.
63. Similar supporting statements have been made
by Navin Kumar Sah (PW-5), America Ram (PW-28),
Vinay Kumar Rai (PW-32), Rakesh Kumar Chauhan
(PW-41), Sunil Kumar (PW-52), Manoj Kumar Tiwary
(PW-81), Pramod Kumar Singh (PW-83), Rajesh
Kumar (PW-84), Devesh Kumar Sathpati (PW-93),
Deepak Kumar Ambastha (PW-98), Nilesh Kumar
(PW-108), Ram Lalan Kumar (PW-154), Sanjay
Dinkar Deosthale (PW-162) and Rakesh Bhatt (PW-
166).
64. That accidental blast had taken place at 9:30 AM
on the day of the occurrence in Sulabh Sauchalayay
has further been proved by Subodh Jha (PW-23) and
Birendra Ram (PW-25), the independent witnesses.
65. Manzar Alam @ Manzar Imam (PW-29) has
proved the fact of Mujibullah residing in Eram Lodge.
66. Two of the three protected witnesses, viz., PWs.
45 and 46 have also supported the prosecution case.
67. PW-45, the owner of a watch shop at Ranchi,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
32/83
deposed that in October 2013, one Mujibullah was
brought to his shop by the NIA. He identified him
(Mujibullah) having come to his shop along with
another person in the month of July 2013. Mujibullah,
according to him, had purchased around 12 to 15
watches from his shop which were of Lotus Company.
He had also questioned Mujibullah about his procuring
so many watches at a time, to which he had replied
that he would gift it to the farmers. He had identified
Mujibullah in the dock. It may be noted that the IEDs
used in the blasts were all connected with watches of
Lotus brand.
68. PW-46 certified that he had met Haider in the
year 2005-06 at Ansar Nagar mosque in Ranchi, who
was introduced to him by one Tabish. Haider had once
taken him to a programme where the participants had
discussed about their bad experience in jails. It was at
that time that PW-46 had learnt that the programme
was conducted under the aegis of SIMI. He has also
deposed that Haidar gave Takreers (speeches) which
were volatile in nature. On one occasion, at the behest
of Haider, he had met Imteyaz, Naushad and Numan.
Haider instigated all of them for Jihad. He had also
given bait to him to get trained in Naxal arms training
camp which was promptly refused by him.
69. Md. Adil (PW-60), a lathe technician, has
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
33/83
deposed that sometimes in June 2013, Ayub Ansari
had come to him with GI elbow pipes and had asked
him to make holes in those pipes. Ayub had
masqueraded himself as a plumber. Md. Sakil (PW-
61), brother of Adil, has confirmed that Adil has a
lathe machine shop at Ranchi where Ayub Ansari had
come with GI pipes and wanted Adil to drill holes in
those pipes. Faiaz Ahmad (PW-63), nephew of
accused/Numan Ansari, has further confirmed that
Numan had come to his house on 27.10.2013 at
around 10:00 PM with a black coloured bag which he
left behind. Later, after about 7 to 8 months, when
confronted by NIA, he handed over that black bag to
the NIA police.
70. Md. Gyas (PW-64) has confirmed that Numan
Ansari, who is his brother-in-law, stayed overnight in
his house on 27.10.2013. He had come with a bag
and then left for some unknown destination. Similar
supporting statements have been made by Md. Ikram
(PW-65), Vikash Sharma (PW-86), Ashraf Alam (PW-
88), Durga Sharan (PW-90), Md. Chand Ansari (PW-
96), Md. Sakil (PW-97), Irshad Bari (PW-100), Satpal
Singh (PW-105), Naveen Khowal (PW-106), Satendra
Budhaiya (PW-107), Sayeed Ejaj Hashmi (PW-109)
and Ved Prakash Singh (PW-121).
71. With respect to the prosecution version of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
34/83
purchasing of explosives from Mirjapur and the
appellants converging at Raipur, post the occurrence,
the prosecution has relied upon eight witnesses.
72. Sheikh Khurshid (PW-47) has deposed before
the Trial Court that he runs an NGO dealing with social
services. It has an email called
[email protected]. He was called to Katra
Police Station along with his brother where he was
interrogated by NIA. He had told the NIA that Abdul
Shakur (Haider was known as Abdul Shakur at
Mirjapur) had come to him to purchase a CD for
recording Takrirs. Abdul Shakur had come to him later
also with his laptop and he was told about Jihad.
73. Sheikh Amjad (PW-48) identified the
photographs shown to him in February 2014 by NIA to
be of Abdul Shakur. However, he could not identify
Haider in the dock; rather he pointed at Numan Ansari.
74. Shankar Lal Vishkarma (PW-49) had drilled
holes in elbow pipes brought by some person, on cost
being paid to him.
75. Faizan Latif (PW-37) claims to have been taken
to the Takrir at the house of Umer by his senior in
school viz. Azharuddin. He heard the participants there
talking about making of bombs. Abdullah, Haider and
Umer Siddiqui had demonstrated before the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
35/83
participants how to make bombs. They had also played
videos of bomb making to the curious ones.
76. The last of the protected witnesses, viz., PW-44,
an auto driver at Raipur, claims to have met Umer at
the shop of his friend Raju Mistri. Umer had invited
him too in one of such meetings at his house. This
witness started attending those meetings and in one of
such gatherings, he had met Azharuddin. There, video
clips and pictures on laptop were shown outlining the
necessity of Jihad. When specifically asked as to his
understanding of the word Jehad, PW-44 clarified that
it means taking revenge for the killings of the muslims
of Gujarat. He also identified Umer and Abdullah in the
dock.
The forensics
77. Ashu Kumar Jha (PW-38), who was posted as
Senior Scientific Officer at FSL, Patna, has deposed
that on the orders of his Director, he had gone to
Sulabh Shauchalaya at Platform No. 10 of Patna
Junction as also the public facility at Gandhi Maidan
and had collected samples of different objects marked
as A, B, C and D which was handed over to the I.O.
(Exhibits 21 and 21/1).
78. Argha Bandhopadhya (PW-66), who had been
working as Scientist B as an explosive expert at
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
36/83
Kolkata, claims to have received on 4th of July 2013 a
forwarding letter sent by Special Judge, NIA along
with a sealed box through a Sub-Inspector of NIA for
examination and forensic analysis as well as the expert
opinion. The box contained 11 packets (Exhibits- A/58
to A/95). He certified that the materials analysed were
similar to the materials collected in connection with RC
No. 12 of 2013 and both the samples tested positive
for the explosive. Similar report was given by K.P.S.
Kartha (PW-67) who was posted as Deputy Director,
Explosives at CFSL, Kolkata.
79. The entire process of investigation by the NIA
was also sought to be proved through Rafi Ahmad
Siddiqui (PW-99), Sushil Kumar Upadhaya (PW-101),
Dinesh Pratap Singh (PW-102), Md. Salim Khan (PW-
103), Raj Kumar Singh (PW-104), Arpan Saha (PW-
142), Prabhat Kumar Awasthi (PW-146), Ram Lalan
Kumar (PW-154), Ram Gopal Sharma (PW-155),
Bishwas Kumar Singh (PW-157), Jasveer Singh (PW-
159), Praveen Kushwaha (PW-168), Prabhat Kumar
Bajpai (PW-170), Chandrakant Chaturbedi (PW-171),
Kanchan Mitra (PW-172), Vishal Garg (PW-174), Braj
Bhushan Pathak (PW-175), Rakesh Bakshi (PW-176),
Sanjay Kumar Malviya (PW-177), Rajesh Sahni (PW-
179), Ashok Kumar (PW-180), Jalaj Srivastava (PW-
181), Anurag Kumar (PW-182) and Santosh Kumar
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
37/83
Singh (PW-183).
80. Thus, it appears from the evidence on record
that appellants/ Imteyaz Alam, Haider Ali, Numan
Ansari, Mujibullah Ansari, Umer Siddiqui and
Azharuddin Qureshi had conspired and had caused the
bomb blasts at Patna Railway Station and Gandhi
Maidan, leaving many dead and several injured.
81. It would be only in the fitness of things that the
law with respect to confessions, conspiracy and
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act be discussed in
order to meet the arguments of the appellants that the
whole case is based on confessions, though never
sought to be retracted and that wrongly confession
leading to recovery of a co-accused has been used
against others and that the roping in of the appellants
is by virtue of evidence which is inadmissible under
Section 10 of the IEA.
82. There is a statutory embargo on confession
made to a police officer being proved against an
accused. Confession is one of the species of admission
as defined under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence
Act. An admission is a statement, oral or documentary,
which enables the Court to draw an inference as to
any fact in issue or relevant fact. Every confession
must necessarily be an admission but every admission
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
38/83
would not necessarily amount to a confession. Sections
17 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with
admissions and the law as to confessions is codified in
Sections 24 to 30 of the IEA. Section 25 bars the
proof of a confession made to a police officer. Section
26, a step further, prohibits proof of confession made
by any person while in custody of a police officer,
unless it be made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate. Section 24 lays down the trite rule that a
confession made under any inducement, threat or
promise becomes irrelevant in a criminal proceeding.
83. Such inducement, threat or promise need not be
proved to the hilt.
84. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as
hereunder :-
“24. Confession caused by inducement,
threat or promise, when irrelevant in
criminal proceeding.
A confession made by an accused person is
irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making
of the confession appears to the Court to have
been caused by any inducement, threat or
promise having reference to the charge against
the accused person, proceeding from a person in
authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the
Court, to give the accused person grounds, which
would appear to him reasonable, for supposing
that by making it he would gain any advantage or
avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference
to the proceedings against him.” (emphasis
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
39/83underlined)
85. The expression ‘appears’ in Section 24 connotes
that the Court need not go to the extent of holding
that threat etc. has in fact been proved. If the facts
and circumstances emerging from the evidence
adduced make it reasonably probable that the
confession could be the result of threat, inducement or
pressure, the Court will refrain from acting on such
confession, even if it be a confession made to a
Magistrate or a person other than a police officer.
86. Confessions leading to recovery of a fact
(Section 27) is an exception to the rule of exclusion of
confession made by an accused in the custody of a
police officer.
87. Consideration of a proved confession affecting
the person making it as well as the co-accused is
provided for by Section 30. According to Taylor’s
treaties on the law of evidence, “confessions are
considered highly reliable because no rational person
would make admission against his interest unless
prompted by his conscience to tell the truth”.
Deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly
proved are among the most effectual proofs in law.
However, before acting upon a confession, the Court
must be satisfied that it was freely and voluntarily
made. A confession by hope or promise of advantage,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
40/83
reward or immunity or by force or by fear induced by
violence or threats of violence cannot constitute
evidence against the maker of the confession. The
confession should have been made with full knowledge
of the nature and consequences of confession. If any
reasonable doubt is entertained by the Court that
these ingredients are not satisfied, the Court would not
consider them.
88. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as
follows :-
“30. Consideration of proved confession
affecting person making it and others
jointly under trial for same offence.
When more persons than one are being tried
jointly for the same offence, and a confession
made by one of such persons affecting
himself and some other of such persons is
proved, the Court may take into consideration
such confession as against such other person
as well as against the person who makes such
confession.”
89. The plain reading of the Section implies that
confession of a co-accused cannot automatically be
elevated to the status of substantive evidence which
can form the basis of conviction of the co-accused.
This is made clear by use of the expression “the Court
may take into consideration such confession”.
90. Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a salutary provision which
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
41/83
lays down certain precautionary rules to be followed by
the Magistrate recording a confession so as to ensure
the voluntariness of the confession and the accused
being placed in a situation free from threat or
influence of the police.
91. In Bhuboni Sahu vs. The King (AIR
1949 PC 257), it has been held that the confession
of a co-accused is only one element in the
consideration of all the facts proved in the case and it
can be put into the scale and weighed with other
evidence.
92. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar
(1964) 6 SCR 623 has clarified the legal position
that in dealing with a case against an accused person,
the Court cannot start with the confession of a co-
accused person. It must begin with other evidence
adduced by the prosecution and after it has formed its
opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said
evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the
confession in order to receive assurance to the
conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to
reach on the said other evidence.
93. The question which has cropped up is whether
confession of an accused which cannot be proved
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
42/83
against a co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence
Act, would be relevant evidence against co-accused
involved in the conspiracy by reason of Section 10 of
the Indian Evidence Act.
94. For the sake of completeness, Section 10 of the
Indian Evidence Act is extracted below :-
“10. Things said or done by conspirator in
reference to common design.
Where there is reasonable ground to believe
that two or more persons have conspired
together to commit an offence or an
actionable wrong, anything said, done or
written by any one of such persons in
reference to their common intention, after the
time when such intention was first entertained
by any one of them, is a relevant fact as
against each of the persons believed to be so
conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving
the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was
a party to it.”
95. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is based
on the principle of agency operating between the
parties to the conspiracy inter se and is an exception
to the rule against hearsay testimony. If the conditions
laid down therein are satisfied, the act done or
statement made by one is admissible against the co-
conspirators.
96. In State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
43/83
@ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600, a question
arose whether the statement of one of the conspirators
who had made the confession, throwing light on the
common intention of all the accused, could be used in
evidence against the co-conspirators or the co-accused
irrespective of the fact that such statements were
made after the conclusion of the conspiracy and after
the accused were arrested.
97. The Supreme Court noted that the Privy Council
in Mirza Akbar vs. King Emperor (AIR 1940 PC
176) had held that there is a distinction between
communications amongst the conspirators while the
conspiracy was going on with reference to the carrying
out of conspiracy vis-a-vis the statements made after
arrest or after the conspiracy had ended, by way of
description of events then past, which is not admissible
under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
98. This enunciation by Privy Council was approved
by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in
Sardul Singh Kaveeshar vs. State of Bombay
(AIR 1957 SC 747) wherein it was held that “thus,
the principle is no longer res integra that any
statement made by an accused after his arrest
whether as a confession or otherwise, cannot fall
within the ambit of Section 10 of the IEA”.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
44/83
99. The law is thus well-settled that the statements
made by the conspirators after they are arrested
cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 10 of
the IEA, because by that time the conspiracy would
have ended.
100. In Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal
(2002) 7 SCC 334], three judge Bench held as
follows:-
“We cannot overlook that the basic principle which
underlies Section 10 of the Evidence Act is the theory ofagency. Every conspirator is an agent of his associate
in carrying out the object of the conspiracy. Section 10,
which is an exception to the general rule, while
permitting the statement made by one conspirator to
be admissible as against another conspirator restricts
it to the statement made during the period when the
agency subsisted. Once it is shown that a person
became snapped out of the conspiracy, any statement
made subsequent thereto cannot be used as against
the other conspirators under Section 10.”
101. Now since conspiracy is one of the primary
charges against at-least six of the appellants, we must
survey the law of conspiracy, its definition, essential
features and proof.
102. Section 120A of the IPC defines criminal
conspiracy. It says :-
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
45/83“120A. Definition of criminal
conspiracy.– When two or more persons
agree to do, or cause to be done,(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an
agreement to commit an offence shall amount
to a criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or
more parties to such agreement in pursuance
thereof.”
103. Section 120-B prescribes the punishment to be
imposed on a party to a criminal conspiracy.
104. Justice Subbarao in Major E.G. Barsay vs.
State of Bombay (AIR 1961 SC 1762) has
explained that the gist of the offence of conspiracy is
an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an
agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though
the illegal act agreed to be done, has not been done.
So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all
the parties should agree to do a single illegal act, it
may comprise the commission of a number of acts.
105. In Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab
(1977) 4 SCC 540, the Supreme Court has very
aptly observed that there must be unity of object or
purpose but there may be plurality of means,
sometimes even unknown to one another amongst the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
46/83
conspirators.
106. Mostly conspiracies are proved by circumstantial
evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair.
Usually, both, the existence of the conspiracy and its
objects have to be inferred from the circumstances
and the conduct of the accused. The well-known rule
governing circumstantial evidence is that each and
every incriminating circumstance must be clearly
established by reliable evidence and the circumstances
so proved must form a chain of events from which the
only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the
accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis
against the guilt is possible.
107. However, as pointed out by the Supreme Court
in V.C. Shukla vs. State (Delhi Administration)
(1980); 2 SCC 665, in most cases, it would be
difficult to get direct evidence of an agreement to
conspire but a conspiracy can be inferred even from
the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or
irresistible inference of an agreement between the two
or more persons to commit an offence.
108. In this context, the observations in Noor
Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin vs. State of
Maharashtra (1970) 1 SCC 696 is very relevant.
“In most cases, proof of conspiracy is
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
47/83largely inferential though the inference
must be founded on solid facts.
Surrounding circumstances and
antecedent and subsequent conduct,
among other factors, constitute relevant
material.”
109. The circumstances before, during and after the
occurrence can be proved to decide about the
complicity of the accused.
110. The Trial Court has very aptly extracted the
summation on the law of conspiracy in State vs.
Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi assassination case) (1999)
5 SCC 253. We, too, deem it appropriate to extract it
for a holistic reading with our own parenthesis :-
“1. Under Section 120-A IPC offence of
criminal conspiracy is committed when two or
more persons agree to do or cause to be done an
illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is
a legal act by illegal means overt act is
necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is an
exception to the general law where intent alone
does not constitute crime. It is intention to
commit crime and joining hands with persons
having the same intention. Not only the intention
but there has to be agreement to carry out the
object of the intention, which is an offence. The
question for consideration in a case is did all the
accused have the intention and did they agree
that the crime be committed. It would not be
enough for the offence of conspiracy when some
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
48/83of the accused merely entertained a wish,
howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be
committed.
2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of the
object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a
particular accused was party to the conspiracy.
Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved,
any subsequent act, which may be unlawful,
would not make the accused a part of the
conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.
3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in
secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the
existence of the conspiracy and its objects have
to be inferred from the circumstances and the
conduct of the accused.
4. Conspirators may for example, be enrolled
in a chain – A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so
on; and all will be members of a single conspiracy
if they so intend and agree, even though each
member knows only the person who enrolled him
and the person whom he enrols. There may be a
kind of umbrella-spoke enrolment, where a single
person at the centre does the enrolling and all the
other members are unknown to each other,
though they know that there are to be other
members. These are theories and in practice it
may be difficult to tell which conspiracy in a
particular case falls into which category. It may
however, even overlap. But then there has to be
present mutual interest. Persons may be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
49/83members of single conspiracy even though each
is ignorant of the identity of many others who
may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of
the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators
need to agree to play the same or an active role.
5. When two or more persons agree to
commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of
making or considering any plans for its
commission, and despite the fact that no step is
taken by any such person to carry out their
common purpose, a crime is committed by each
and every one who joins in the agreement. There
has thus to be two conspirators and there may be
more than that. To prove the charge of
conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime
was committed or not. If committed it may
further help prosecution to prove the charge of
conspiracy.
6. It is not necessary that all conspirators
should agree to the common purpose at the same
time. They may join with other conspirators at
any time before the consummation of the
intended objective, and all are equally
responsible. What part each conspirator is to play
may not be known to everyone or the fact as to
when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and
when he left.
7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the
accused because it forces them into a joint trial
and the court may consider the entire mass of
evidence against every accused. Prosecution has
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
50/83to produce evidence not only to show that each
of the accused has knowledge of the object of
conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the
charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself
against the danger of unfairness to the accused.
Introduction of evidence against some may result
in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By
means of evidence in conspiracy, which is
otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other
substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate
the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but
also in the substantive crime of the alleged
conspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing
the precise contribution of each member of the
conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and
convincing evidence against each one of the
accused charged with the offence of conspiracy.
As observed by Judge Learned Hand “this
distinction is important today when many
prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of
conspiracy all those who have been associated in
any degree whatever with the main offenders”.
8. As stated above it is the unlawful
agreement and not its accomplishment, which is
the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy.
Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even
though there is no agreement as to the means by
which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the
unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the
crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement
which amounts to a conspiracy need not be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
51/83
formal or express, but may be inherent in and
inferred from the circumstances, especially
declarations, acts and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be entered
into by all the parties to it at the same time, but
may be reached by successive actions evidencing
their joining of the conspiracy.
9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy
is a partnership in crime, and that there is in
each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the
prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or
more persons enter into a conspiracy, any act
done by any of them pursuant to the agreement
is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of
them and they are jointly responsible therefor.
This means that everything said, written or done
by any of the conspirators in execution or
furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to
have been said, done or written by each of them.
And this joint responsibility extends not only to
what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant
to the original agreement but also to collateral
acts incidental to and growing out of the original
purpose. A conspirator is not responsible,
however, for acts done by a co-conspirator after
termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a
conspiracy by a new member does not create a
new conspiracy nor does it change the status of
the other conspirators, and the mere fact that
conspirators individually or in groups perform
different tasks to a common end does not split up
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
52/83
a conspiracy into several different conspiracies.
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or
by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a
conspiracy requires more than a merely passive
attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who
commits an overt act with knowledge of the
conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents
to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with
other conspirators, actually standing by while the
others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty
though he intends to take no active part in the
crime”.
111. However, in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot
Sandhu (supra), the Supreme Court was of the view
that the theory of agency cannot be extended thus far.
That is to say, to find all the conspirators guilty of the
actual offences committed in execution of the common
design even if such offences were ultimately
committed by some of them without the participation
of others.
112. The Supreme Court in this instance was of the
view that those who committed conspiracy by indulging
in various overt acts will be individually liable for those
offences in addition of being liable for criminal
conspiracy; but the known participant conspirators
cannot be found guilty of the offence or offences
committed by other conspirators. There is hardly any
scope for the application of the principle of agency in
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
53/83
order to find the conspirators guilty of a substantive
offence not committed by them. Criminal offences and
punishments, therefore, are governed by the statute.
The offender will be liable only if he comes within the
plain terms of the penal statute. Criminal liability for
an offence cannot be fastened by way of analogy or by
extension of a common law principle.
113. Per force, we also need to analyse the provision
contained in Section 27 of the IEA for the reason of
certain pointings by the accused persons and
recoveries made pursuant to the confessions having
been used as evidence by the prosecution.
114. It is very instructive to go through the ex-
position of law on the subject by the Supreme Court in
State (NCT of Dehli) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan
Guru (supra).
115. The issues which had come up for discussion in
Navjot Sandhu (supra) were :-
(i) Whether the discovery of fact referred to
in Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be
confined only to the discovery of a material
object and the knowledge of the accused in
relation thereto or the discovery could be in
respect of his mental state or knowledge in
relation to certain things- concrete or non-
concrete; and
(ii) Whether it is necessary that the discovery
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
54/83of fact should be by the person making the
disclosure or directly at his instance. The
subsequent event of discovery by the police
with the aid of information furnished by the
accused- whether could be put against him
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
116. One strand of argument was that the expression
“discovery of fact” ought to be read with the definition
of “fact” as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act.
This definition comprehends both physical things as
well as mental facts.
117. A sequel to the afore-noted argument was that
the application of Section 27 is not contingent on the
recovery of a physical object. Section 27 embodies the
doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The
fact investigated and found by the police consequent
to the information disclosed by the accused amounts
to confirmation of that piece of information. Only that
piece of information, which is distinctly supported by
confirmation, is rendered relevant and admissible
under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
118. Similarly, a physical object may be recovered
but the Investigating Agencies may not have any clue
as to the “state of things” that surrounded the physical
object. In that case, if such “state of things” or “facts”
are disclosed which are in relation to the physical
object discovered, then that also would amount to
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
55/83
discovery of fact within the meaning of Section 27 of
the Act.
119. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the
judgment of the Privi Council in Pulukuri Kottaya vs.
King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 and by the
Supreme Court in Mohmed Inayatullah vs The
State Of Maharashtra, 1976 (1) SCC 828; State
Of Maharashtra vs Damu S/O Gopinath Shinde
And Others, 2000 (6) SCC 269.
120. The opposite proposition, more favourable to the
defence, was that the scope of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act ought not to be unduly stretched by
importing the definition of “fact” in Section 3 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the contention was that the
fact discovered must basically be a concrete or
material fact but not a mental fact.
121. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is extracted
herein for the sake of completeness:-
“27. How much of information received from
accused may be proved.
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as
discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody
of a police-officer, so much of such information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be
proved”.
122. Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King Emperor, AIR
1947 PC 67 is by far the accepted authority for the
proposition that “discovery of fact” cannot be equated
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
56/83
to only the objects produced or found; it is more than
that. The “discovery of fact” arises by reason of the
fact that the information given by the accused
exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of
the informant as to its existence at a particular place.
123. What does the clause “as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered” mean? The interpretation of
this clause is also well settled. However, the
elucidation by the Supreme Court in Mohmed
Inayatullah (supra) appears to us to be most
succinct. It has been clarified that the rest of the
information, which does not relate distinctly to the fact
discovered has to be excluded. The word “distinctly”
means “directly”, “indubitably”, “strictly” or
“unmistakably”. There could be no guarantee or
assurance about the statement which may be indirectly
or remotely related to the fact discovered.
124. In this legal background, we have examined the
individual cases of the appellant.
125. We have found that the evidence of Ram Pukar
Singh (PW-1), Md. Ejaj Hussain (PW-4), Shyam
Sundar Kumar (PW-3), Navin Kumar Sah (PW-5),
Bashisth Narain Singh (PW-39) and the evidence of
independent witnesses clearly confirm that Imteyaz
was one of the main conspirators and was part of the
team which executed the bomb blasts.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
57/83
126. Against Haider Ali, the evidence starting pouring
in only after Imteyaz had made his disclosure at Patna
Junction Railway Station. This led to the major leads in
investigation. Braj Bhushan Pathak (PW-175) has
deposed before the Trial Court that on 03.06.2014,
Haider had made a disclosure and had pointed out
many places especially the bypass road near Patna
Central School where he along with his companions
alighted from Aditya bus and travelled to Jama Masjid
near Patna Junction. The further disclosure also stood
proved that Imteyaz and Tarique went to railway
station whereas Haider and others proceeded for
Gandhi Maidan where blasts were made. His
conspiracy has been proved by the evidence of Jalaj
Srivastava (PW-181) who has deposed that while
Haider was on police remand, he had pointed out the
shops from where he along with Mujibullah had
purchased raw-materials for making bombs (Exhibit-
73/4) and evidence of Mumtaz Ahmad (PW-134),
owner of Classic Electronics at Ranchi from where
batteries were purchased by him. Md. Shamim (PW-
135), owner of Nice Electronic at Ranchi confirmed
that Haider and Mujibullah had purchased seized
articles from his shop. Similar statements were made
by Ashim Kumar Modi (PW-138), Rajesh Poddar (PW-
147) and Ashok Kumar Fogla (PW-149) as also the
evidence of Pramod Kumar Singh (PW-83), the SHO
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
58/83
of Hindpidhi Police Station who had made search at
room No. 8 of Eram lodge and had recovered
incriminating articles. Exhibit-40/14, which is the DNA
profiling report of CDFD Hyderabad proved that Haider
and Mujibullah were the occupants of room No. 8 of
Eram Lodge.
127. The aforenoted evidence was accepted by the
Trial Court in view of the fact that evidence of DNA
expert is admissible in evidence as it is a perfect
science.
128. Section 43E of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 reads as hereunder :-
43E. Presumption as to offence under
section 15.– In a prosecution for an offence
under section 15, if it is proved–(a)that the
arms or explosives or any other substances
specified in the said section were recovered from
the possession of the accused and there is reason
to believe that such arms or explosives or other
substances of a similar nature were used in the
commission of such offence; or (b) that by the
evidence of the expert the finger-prints of the
accused or any other definitive evidence
suggesting the involvement of the accused in the
offence were found at the site of the offence or
on anything including arms and vehicles used in
connection with the commission of such offence,
the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is
shown, that the accused has committed such
offence.
129. We also deem it necessary to extract Section 15
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
59/83
of the UAPA Act :-
“15. Terrorist act.– [(1)] Whoever does any
act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten
the unity, integrity, security 4[, economic
security,] or sovereignty of India or with intent to
strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people
or any section of the people in India or in any
foreign country,–
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive
substances or inflammable substances or firearms
or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious
gases or other chemicals or by any other
substances (whether biological radioactive,
nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by
any other means of whatever nature to cause or
likely to cause–
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons;
or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of,
property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services
essential to the life of the community in India or
in any foreign country; or
[(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India
by way of production or smuggling or circulation
of high quality counterfeit Indian paper currency,
coin or of any other material; or]
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in
India or in a foreign country used or intended to
be used for the defence of India or in connection
with any other purposes of the Government of
India, any State Government or any of their
agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the
show of criminal force or attempts to do so or
causes death of any public functionary or
attempts to cause death of any public
functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and
threatens to kill or injure such person or does any
other act in order to compel the Government of
India, any State Government or the Government
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
60/83of a foreign country or 5[an international or inter-
governmental organisation or any other person to
do or abstain from doing any act; or]
commits a terrorist act.”
130. Keeping the aforenoted provisions of UAPA in
mind, we have examined Exhibits 40/9 and 40/10,
viz., the CFSL reports of Kolkata which proved that
Lotus quartz watches, splinters and debris of explosion
at all places are similar. We have also referred to the
evidence of Dr. P. Paul Ramesh (PW-68) in this
context.
131. Prabhat Kumar Awasthi (PW-146) had
interrogated Haider Ali after his arrest on 21.05.2014
who had disclosed that after the bomb blasts at Patna,
he had kept the unused materials like control circuit,
laptop, batteries, digital multi-meters etc. with Dr. Ejaj
Hashmi at Edris Medical Hostel, Ranchi. On his
disclosure and pointing out, a Samsung Laptop, ten
pieces of 9 volt batteries, one controlled route auto
circuit and a pen drive were recovered from Edris
Medical Hostel. The recovery is duly corroborated by
the testimonies of Vikas Kumar (PW-58) and Dr.
Sayeed Ejaj Hashmi (PW-109). The inflammatory
passages which were recovered from the laptop were
translated by Dr. Suhel Ahmad Farooqui (PW-161) on
the request of Anurag Kumar (PW-182) which clearly
proves the close association of Haider with SIMI. The
contents of the Takrirs were also proved by the report
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
61/83
of cert-in (Exhibit-40/17).
132. Kanchan Mitra (PW-172) has deposed that on
09.06.2014, Haider had made disclosure that he had
conducted test blasts of the elbow bombs and had also
tested a jacket especially made for fidayeen attack on
Mr. Narendra Modi somewhere near the railway line
crossing Sithio village. All those places were pointed
out by Haider. The remnants of the test blasts were
recovered. The process of recovery was photographed
which finds its corroboration in the evidence of
Dhananjay Gupta (PW-33), an independent witness.
The recovery memo is Exhibit-73/6. All these
statements are either admissible under Section 6 or 8
or Section 27 of the IEA.
133. What could be more strong evidence than these
to prove that Haider was in conspiracy with Imteyaz,
Numan, Mujibullah, Umer and Azharuddin regarding
the blasts at Patna.
134. The conspiracy was hatched at Ranchi and
Raipur.
135. Speaking about Md. Mujibullah Ansari (A4),
Bashishtha Narayan Singh (PW-39) who was part of
the team which was especially constituted by A.D.G.
Special Branch, Ranchi, had gone to the house of Md.
Mujibullah Ansari on 04.11.2013. It was there that
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
62/83
PW-39 learnt from the uncle of Mujibullah, viz., Altaf
Hussain that Mujibullah stays at a lodge in Hindpidhi
area. He (PW-39) along with his team went to Eram
lodge on the pointing of Altaf Hussain. The owner and
care taker of the lodge pointed towards room No. 8
where Mujibullah and Haider Ali were residing. The
owner of the lodge provided the team with the photo
IDs of both Mujibullah and Haider. From room No. 8,
nine live elbow-bombs along with other incendiary
articles were also recovered.
136. Similar statement has been made, corroborating
the prosecution case by Pramod Kumar Singh (PW-
83). The seizure-list of the articles from room No. 8
was identified by both PWs. 39 and 83. The other
members of the team, viz., PWs. 29, 84, 98 and 153
also have supported the prosecution case.
137. Sanjay Kumar Malviya (PW-177) confirmed that
Mujibullah along with Haider had made a disclosure on
26.10.2023 that they had booked the tickets in bus
from Ranchi to Patna for six persons. The staff of the
bus service proved that tickets were in fact booked on
that day and six passengers travelled from Ranchi to
Patna.
138. Md. Chand Ansari (PW-96) has proved that
those tickets were booked in the name of one Sonu.
139. Bishwas Kumar Singh (PW-157), Ram Gopal
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
63/83
Sharma (PW-155) and Anurag Kumar (PW-182) have
proved that Mujibullah pointed out all the places where
he along with his associates had travelled, especially
between Ranchi and Patna and the places where they
met and gave effect to the conspiracy as also the
admission of Mujibullah that he could make IEDs, if
raw materials are given to him. Evidences are replete
that Mujibullah was in contact throughout with Imteyaz
Alam.
140. With respect to Md. Umer Siddiqui and
Azharuddin Qureshi, the Trial Court has noted and
rightly so that it stood as a proved fact that two
successive serial bomb blasts took place in the State of
Bihar, firstly, at Gaya and secondly at Patna Junction
and Gandhi Maidan. The cases were being investigated
locally but only later, NIA pitched in under the orders
of the Central Government.
141. Both Md. Umer Siddiqui and Azharuddin Qureshi
were taken into custody. During their period of custody
they were produced before the Special Judge, NIA on
21.12.2013 and on recording, to the satisfaction of
the Special Judge about the willingness of Umer and
Azharuddin in making statements under Section 164
of the Cr.P.C., both were sent before Mr. Jyoti
Prakash, Judicial Magistrate (PW-184) for recording
their statements in R.C. No. 7 of 2013 (Special Case
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
64/83
No. 1 of 2013).
142. A question had arisen before the Trial Court
during the course of argument, viz., whether a
confession recorded in one case could be legally used
as evidence in another case.
143. The Trial Court has rightly relied upon the
observation of the Supreme Court in State of
Gujarat vs. Mohammed Atik and others; 1998
(4) SCC 351, though in a case involving Section 15
of the TADA, that if the confessions are recorded in
accordance with law, then they can be admissible in
evidence, regardless of the fact that such confession
was recorded in a different case.
144. The 164 Statements of Umer and Azharuddin
have been brought on record as Exhibits-97 and 97/1.
Umer admitted of being an active member of SIMI and
that Haider had purchased the raw materials for
making bombs and along with Tarique, Mujibullah,
Numan and Imteyaz, had made 30 IEDs at the house
of Imteyaz. Out of those 30 IEDs, Umer had disclosed,
18 bombs were kept apart for being used at Patna.
Azharuddin had also disclosed in his statement under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that Umer and Haider were
the heads of the local chapters of SIMI and that he
had also joined the group. He was trained by Haider in
making bombs with ammonium nitrate, potassium
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
65/83
nitrate, sodium chloride, gunpowder, elbow pipes,
detonator and lotus watch as a timer. He also admitted
of actively participating in the bomb blasts at Patna
and later in providing shelter to some his associates at
Raipur.
145. In order to test whether the requirements
preceding the recording of 164 statements were
fulfilled, we have referred to the deposition of Jyoti
Prakash (PW-184), before whom the statements were
recorded. He has deposed that he had ensured that
Umer and Azharuddin were desirous of making
voluntary disclosure. He also found out that they were
produced before him, not from police custody but from
judicial custody. The statements were recorded in the
absence of any policemen in the line of vision. He had
also explained to Umer and Azharuddin that any
statement made by them could be used against them
and, therefore, they could reconsider their decision of
making disclosures without any fear. He has identified
Exhibits- 97 and 97/1.
146. Rajesh Sahni (PW-179) has disclosed before the
Trial court that Umer and Azharuddin had made
disclosures before him that they were part of the
Patna bomb blast conspiracy and that they gave
shelter to Haider, Numan, Taufique and Mujibullah at
Raipur.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
66/83
147. Numan Ansari’s name also came for the first
time in the disclosure of Imteyaz at Patna Railway
Junction. Umer and Azharuddin were arrested before
Numan and in their confession (Exhibits- 97 and 97/1)
Numan was named as an active participant. Evidence
are too many with respect to Numan having come to
the house of his uncle at 10 O’clock in the night on
27.10.2013 i.e. after the blasts and leaving behind a
black bag. This has been proved by Faiaz Ahmad (PW-
63). The bag was seized after some months. This fact
has been proved by Md. Gyas (PW-64), who is none-
else but the husband of the sister of Numan.
148. We would again refer to the evidence of Argha
Bandopadhya (PW-66), an expert witness, who
deposed before the Court that on the forensic
examination of the bag, it was found to be positive for
the presence of potassium nitrate, nitrite ions and
metallic aluminum. This is further proof of the fact
that the leftover explosives were transported by
Numan to his uncle’s house. After comparing the
explosives found in the bag and the ones found at
Patna Junction, Eram lodge at Ranchi and Gandhi
Maidan, it was found that same type of explosives
were used at all places.
149. Firoz Aslam (A9), who has only been found
guilty under Section 40 of the UAPA, had collected one
bag from his relative/Md. Ayub containing books,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
67/83
wires, atlas, map, decoration lights etc. and had kept it
at the shop of Md. Ikram on 06.11.2013 (Exhibit-
71/1).
150. This was confirmed by Anurag Kumar, CIO (PW-
182), who had taken over the charge of investigation
from Rajesh Sahni. He has confirmed that Firoz had
made a disclosure before him admitting that he had
kept the incendiary items in the shop of Md. Ikram.
151. The shop was pointed by Firoz from where the
bag, referred to above, was recovered. It was opened
by NIA team in presence of witnesses and was found
to be containing six detonators, nine old batteries and
100 gms of explosive powder etc. (Exhibit- 67/1).
These facts have also been corroborated by Arpan
Saha and Mukesh Kumar Sinha (PWs. 142 and 59
respectively).
152. Apart from this, we have noticed that Arpan
Saha, Inspector of NIA (PW-142) has deposed before
the Court that on 09.06.2014, Firoz had disclosed
before him that between 2010 to 2012 Haider gave
him gold ornaments for selling in the market after
melting those. He had started selling gold at different
shops at Ranchi. A total of around two and half
kilograms of gold was given to him by Haider, the
estimated cost of which would be around thirty lakhs.
He had also pointed out before the NIA team the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
68/83
ornament shops where he sold the gold and the
prosecution also got him identified by those shop
keepers.
153. Thus, evidence is complete with respect to A1 to
A4 that they were part of the conspiracy and were the
actual participants in the bomb blasts at Patna Railway
Station and Gandhi Maidan respectively. A-5 and A-6
had conspired about the entire attack and, therefore,
they were also responsible for the killings.
With respect to conviction under Sections 121
and 121A of the IPC.
154. Sections 121 and 121A occur in Chapter-VI
(Offences against the State). The public peace is
disturbed and the normal channels of the Government
are disrupted by such offences which are aimed that
subverting the authority of the government or
paralyzing the constitutional machinery.
155. In State (N.C.T of Delhi) vs. Navjot
Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra), the Supreme Court,
after navigating through the English and Indian laws
on the subject found that the expression ‘war’ in
Sections 121 and 121A is preceded by the verb
‘wages’, which admits of many shades of meaning and
defies a definition with exactitude.
156. War, terrorism and violent acts to overawe the
established government have many things in common.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
69/83
It is not too easy to distinguish them. However, one
thing is certain that the general concept of war need
not be imported in Section 121 as if there is an inter-
country war involving military operations between two
hostile nations. War contemplated by Section 121 is
not conventional warfare between two nations. It is
also not only rebellion to the government.
157. The Supreme Court in Navjot (supra) was
conscious of the fact that the acceptable criteria of
“waging war” in the old English and Indian authorities
are way too general tests of attainment of an object of
general public nature or a political object. The
expression ‘waging war’ should not be stretched too
far to hold that all the acts of disrupting public order
and peace irrespective of their magnitude or
repercussions could be reckoned as acts of waging war
against the government. A balanced and realistic
approach is called for in construing the expression
‘waging war’, irrespective of how it was viewed in the
long past.
158. An organized movement attended with violence
and attacks against the public officials and armed
forces while agitating for the repeal of an unpopular
law or for preventing burdensome taxes were in the
past viewed as acts of treason in the form of levying
war.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
70/83
159. The Supreme Court, however, was doubtful of
such construction in the modern day perspective and
standards.
160. In this case, the appellants were roused and
were impelled to action because of strong anti-Indian
feeling.
161. Selecting a crowded place at an election rally to
blast bombs is definitely with a motive to overawe the
administration of the State. This created a war like
situation where so many persons were injured and
eight persons were killed.
162. The damage and devastation could have been
unimaginable. This definitely is an evidence to suggest
that the act was to impinge on the sovereign authority
of the Nation and its government. The target was Mr.
Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujrat at that time and BJP
Prime Ministerial candidate.
163. Even if the conspired purpose and objective fell
short of installing some other government or entity in
place of an established government, it would not
detract from the offence of waging war.
164. The Evidence on record therefore justifies the
conviction of the A-1 to A-6, namely, Imteyaz Alam @
Ansari, Haider Ali, Numan Ansari, Md. Mujibullah
Ansari, Md. Umer Siddiqui and Azharuddin Qureshi
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
71/83
under Sections 121 and 121A of IPC.
165. The common thread in the arguments on behalf
of all the appellants is that the conviction is based
solely on confessions. The discovery consequent upon
confession of one has been used against other. The
tenor of evidence, it has been argued, reflects that
sporadic events/incidents have been adroitly woven
into the narrative of the prosecution. The confession
before the Magistrate also do not reflect that the
necessary requirements ensuring fairness in trial, have
been fulfilled. The search and seizure are defective.
The connection of the appellants with Eram Lodge is
doubtful. The DNA reports ought not to have been
relied upon to prove the identity. DNA report, it has
been argued, could be more useful for the purposes of
investigation but not for raising any presumption of
identity in a Court of Law. Non-admissible evidence
have been relied upon to connect the appellants to the
bomb-blasts at Patna. At the places of seizure, the
scene was compromised. Irrelevant statements of
protected witnesses have unnecessarily been given
undue weightage. The CCTV footage of shops at
Raipur are not admissible piece of evidence.
166. As noted and explained above, the afore-noted
arguments are not sustainable and therefore are
rejected.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
72/83
167. However, a plain and co-referential reading of
the evidence makes it very clear that appellants A-1 to
A-6, viz., Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari, Haider Ali, Numan
Ansari, Md. Mujibullah, Md. Umer Siddiqui and
Azharuddin Qureshi are guilty of offences under
Sections 302 of the IPC; Sections 16, 18 and 20 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and
Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
168. Appellant/Haider has additionally been convicted
under Section 307 of the IPC. Imteyaz has also been
convicted for the offence under Section 151 of the
Railways Act.
Now, to the sentence
169. Since four of the appellants, who have been
sentenced for death, to which we are not readily
agreeable, we deem it necessary to state the reasons
which have weighed with us in our conclusion that the
sentences of A-1 to A-4 are not appropriate.
170. Capital punishment is prescribed in numerous
penal offences including murder, kidnapping for
ransom, rape, waging war against the Government etc.
171. The issue with respect to the constitutionality of
death penalty was considered in Bachan Singh v.
State of Punjab; (1980) 2 SCC 684.
172. Drawing strength from the 35th report of the Law
Commission of India (1967) and the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in Jagmohan Singh v. State of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
73/83
Uttar Pradesh; (1973 ) 1 SCC 20, in which also,
the 35th report was noticed, the death penalty was held
to be constitutionally valid and recognized as an
alternative deterrent punishment.
173. Initially, there was a requirement under law for
written reasons for not imposing death penalty, which
was removed in 1955. In 1973, through insertion of
Section 354 (3) in the Cr.P.C, life imprisonment
became the norm and the imposition of death penalty
required special reasons.
174. Under Section 253 (2) Cr.P.C., sentencing
requires separate consideration by the Courts from the
question of conviction. Nonetheless, as noted above,
the death penalty was upheld to be constitutional.
175. Later, the judgements of Supreme Court in
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State
of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 and Shankar
Kissanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra;
(2013) 6 SCC 546 paved way for 262nd Law
Commission Report on death penalty (2015).
176. Finding indicators of changed circumstances and
new dialectics on the issue, the 262nd report presented
a shift in the approach towards the death penalty in
India and even recommended for abolition of death
penalty in all offences, except those relating to
terrorism.
177. The basis for the Law Commission to come to
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
74/83
such a finding was that the Court’s discretion and
judicial reasoning in sentencing was not always cogent
and consistent. There was an arbitrary application of
Bachan Singh principles and the sentencing in fact
having become judge-centric, based on personal
predilections of the judges.
178. In Bachan Singh (supra), the Supreme Court
was clear that death sentence should be invoked only
in the rarest of the rare cases. In Machhi Singh vs.
State of Punjab 1983 (3) SCC 470 , the Supreme
Court, going further ahead, said that a balance-sheet
of aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be
drawn and full weightage be given to mitigating
circumstances. A balance would be required to be
struck between both sides. A two-pronged approach
was suggested viz.
(a) is there something uncommon about the crime,
which renders sentence of imprisonment for life
inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) are the circumstances of the crime such, that there
is no alternative but to impose death sentence even
after according maximum weightage to the mitigating
circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
179. In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar
(supra), the Supreme Court had again laid down a
“two step” process to decide whether a convict
deserved the death sentence. If the case fell in the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
75/83
category of “rarest of the rare” type and the option of
life imprisonment was inadequate, then only imposing
death sentence should be thought of.
180. The second step, referred to above, would also
include the consideration whether there is or there isn’t
any chance of reformation of the accused, for which
also, it would be the obligation of the State to provide
materials.
181. In Shankar Kishanrao Khade (supra) again,
the theory of R & R (rarest of the rare) test and the
dichotomy between the crime and the criminal was
emphasized. It was found by the Supreme Court in
that instance that there was no serious consideration
about the materials on the possibility of reformation of
the convict.
182. In Rajesh Kumar vs. State (2011) 13 SCC
706, the Supreme Court was of the view that brutality
in itself is not enough to impose death sentence. In
that case, the accused was convicted for murder of
two children without any provocation. Still the Court
was of the view that due consideration had to be given
to the mitigating circumstances which would include a
consideration whether he was beyond reform or
rehabilitation. If that conclusion is not drawn then that
itself would be a mitigating circumstance. No doubt,
the Supreme Court in this case was of the view that
merely recording that a person is a first time offender
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
76/83
and has a family to take care of, would not be a
mitigating circumstance.
183. Thus, a need was felt for an individualized and
principled sentencing, based on the crime and the
criminal approach as also the consideration regarding
achievability of reform or rehabilitation.
184. In the case of Swamy Shraddananda vs.
State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 , the
Supreme Court was beset with the task of deciding the
appropriate sentence to be imposed on the accused.
There was some difference of opinion amongst
members of the Bench with respect to giving the
accused death sentence.
185. Looking at the relevant case laws, the Supreme
Court observed that in many a cases, life
imprisonment with remissions would not be adequate
and therefore the possibility of substituting the death
penalty by punishment of imprisonment for remainder
of the life or imprisonment for a term in excess of 14
years and to put that category beyond the application
of remission, termed as special of fixed term sentence,
was explored.
186. This proposition was further tested in Union of
India vs. Sriharan @ Murugan (2016) 7 SCC 1 .
The Supreme Court approved the alternative third
sentencing option, (fixed term sentence) in case where
the accused would be convicted of serious and grave
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
77/83
crime in which there is an option for capital sentence.
187. However, the Supreme Court was clear in its
declaration that such a third option of a fixed term
sentencing, unless specifically provided in the statute,
is limited to the Constitutional Courts only viz. the
Supreme Court and the High Courts but not the Trial
Courts.
188. It would also be necessary for us now to refer to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Manoj & Ors.
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353 ,
wherein after consideration of the judgments in
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik vs. State of
Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460; Chhanu Lal
Verma vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 12 SCC
438; Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph vs. State
of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69 and several other
decisions as also the Law Commission’s Reports, it was
held that it is imperative to conduct evaluation of
mitigating circumstances at the Trial stage only to
avoid the Court falling backwards into a retributive
response to the brutality of the crime.
189. We are extracting five paragraphs from the
aforenoted judgment which serves as guidelines for
proper considerations while sentencing in individual
cases:
“247. The goal of reformation is ideal, and
what society must strive towards – there are
many references to it peppered in this Court’s
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
78/83jurisprudence across the decades – but what
is lacking is a concrete framework that can
measure and evaluate it. Unfortunately, this is
mirrored by the failure to implement prison
reforms of a meaningful kind, which has left
the process of incarceration and prisons in
general, to be a space of limited potential for
systemic reformation. The goal of reformative
punishment requires systems that actively
enable reformation and rehabilitation, as a
result of nuanced policy-making. As a small
step to correct these skewed results and
facilitate better evaluation of whether there is
a possibility for the accused to be reformed
(beyond vague references to conduct, family
background, etc.), this Court deems it
necessary to frame practical guidelines for the
Courts to adopt and implement, till the
legislature and executive, formulate a
coherent framework through legislation. These
guidelines may also offer guidance or ideas,
that such a legislative framework could
benefit from, to systematically collect and
evaluate information on mitigating
circumstances.
Practical guidelines to collect mitigating
circumstances
248. There is urgent need to ensure that
mitigating circumstances are considered at
the trial stage, to avoid slipping into a
retributive response to the brutality of the
crime, as is noticeably the situation in a
majority of cases reaching the appellate
stage.
249. To do this, the trial court must elicit
information from the accused and the State,
both. The State, must – for an offence
carrying capital punishment – at the
appropriate stage, produce material which is
preferably collected beforehand, before the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
79/83Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and
psychological evaluation of the accused. This
will help establish proximity (in terms of
timeline), to the accused person’s frame of
mind (or mental illness, if any) at the time of
committing the crime and offer guidance on
mitigating factors (1), (5), (6) and (7) spelled
out in Bachan Singh. Even for the other
factors of (3) and (4) – an onus placed
squarely on the State – conducting this form
of psychiatric and psychological evaluation
close on the heels of commission of the
offence, will provide a baseline for the
appellate courts to use for comparison, i.e., to
evaluate the progress of the accused towards
reformation, achieved during the incarceration
period.
251. Lastly, information regarding the
accused’s jail conduct and behaviour, work
done (if any), activities the accused has
involved themselves in, and other related
details should be called for in the form of a
report from the relevant jail authorities (i.e.,
Probation and Welfare Officer, Superintendent
of Jail, etc.). If the appeal is heard after a
long hiatus from the trial court’s conviction, or
High Court’s confirmation, as the case may be
– a fresh report (rather than the one used by
the previous court) from the jail authorities is
recommended, for a more exact and complete
understanding of the contemporaneous
progress made by the accused, in the time
elapsed. The jail authorities must also include
a fresh psychiatric and psychological report
which will further evidence the reformative
progress, and reveal post-conviction mental
illness, if any.
252. It is pertinent to point out that this
Court, in Anil v. State of Maharashtra has in
fact directed criminal courts, to call for
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
80/83additional material :
“33. …Many a times, while determining the
sentence, the courts take it for granted,
looking into the facts of a particular case, that
the accused would be a menace to the society
and there is no possibility of reformation and
rehabilitation, while it is the duty of the court
to ascertain those factors, and the State is
obliged to furnish materials for and against
the possibility of reformation and
rehabilitation of the accused. The facts, which
the courts deal with, in a given case, cannot
be the foundation for reaching such a
conclusion, which, as already stated, calls for
additional materials. We, therefore, direct that
the criminal courts, while dealing with the
offences like Section 302 IPC, after
conviction, may, in appropriate cases, call for
a report to determine, whether the accused
could be reformed or rehabilitated, which
depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
We hereby fully endorse and direct that this should be
implemented uniformly, as further elaborated above, for
conviction of offences that carry the possibility of death
sentence.”
190. The Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence,
assessed that the offence had not been committed
under any pressure; rather it was a well planned act.
Before the actual blasts, test blasts also had been
conducted. Thus, lot of planning had gone into the
execution of the crime. The Trial Court also found that
all the appellants were of the age group of 30-40
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
81/83
years and, therefore, no leniency was required to be
shown to them. Since some of the appellants were also
responsible for Bodh Gaya blasts, it was evident that
they did not have any remorse and, therefore, they
repeated such act with vengeance. This was read by
the Trial Court as an evidence good enough to
demonstrate that A-1 to A-4 were beyond reformation,
entitling the Trial Court to award death sentence to
them.
191. For appellants/Umer Siddiqui (A-5) and
Azharuddin Qureshi (A-6), the fact that they had
confessed before the Magistrate under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. weighed heavily with the Trial Court to
come to the conclusion that they had some remorse in
their hearts for them to have made voluntary
disclosures. This was indicative of their conscience
having been stricken.
192. For the aforenoted reasons, A-1 to A-4, viz.,
Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari, Haider Ali, Numan Ansari,
and Md. Mujibullah Ansari have been sentenced to
death whereas A-5 and A-6 have been sentenced for
imprisonment of life.
193. We do not agree with the aforenoted assessment
of the Trial Court regarding A-1 to A-4 who have been
awarded death sentence.
194. The materials before the Trial Court were
insufficient for him to come to a definite conclusion
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
82/83
that they were beyond reformation. All the four
appellants are persons of young age with no
established trans-border contacts. Their conduct in jail
has also not been brought on record. While they were
in custody, nothing has come to light which would
indicate that they had made it difficult for the
investigators to perform with ease. There was no
attempt by the appellants at provoking their kindred to
take any retaliatory action.
195. For the aforenoted reasons, differing with the
assessment of the Trial Court, we find that a sentence
of fixed term of 30 years would suffice and would
meet the ends of justice for A-1 to A-4 for all the
offences in which death sentence has been imposed
upon them.
196. With respect to the sentence under other heads,
we do not wish to make any interference.
197. So far as the sentences of A-5 and A-6 viz. Md.
Umer Siddiqui and Azharuddin Qureshi are concerned,
we find that the sentences are condign.
198. Thus, all the six appeals are dismissed with
modification in the death sentence of A-1 to A-4.
199. On the same set of grounds, the reference is
disposed off by converting the Death Sentence of A-1
to A-4 (Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari; Haider Ali; Numan
Ansari and Md. Mujibullah Ansari) to one for a fixed
term of 30 years.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.10 of 2021 dt. 11-09-2024
83/83
200. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to
the Superintendent of the concerned jail for record and
compliance.
201. The records of these appeals be also returned to
the concerned Trial Court.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
Sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 25.07.2024 Uploading Date 11.09.2024 Transmission Date 11.09.2024