2023 Supreme(SC) 614

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Mohd. Naushad – Appellants
VERSUS
State (Govt. OF NCT OF Delhi) - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1269 of 2013 With Criminal Appeal Nos.1270-1271 of 2013 And Criminal Appeal Nos. @ SLP (Crl.) NOS.6447–6451 of 2013
Decided On : 06-07-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Court may choose to give primacy to life imprisonment over death penalty in cases which are solely based on circumstantial evidence or where High Court has given a life imprisonment or acquittal.
(2) Presumption of innocence of accused strengthened by their acquittal – Supreme Court under Article 136 is slow to interfere but where approach adopted by High Court has resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and reasoning of High Court is wholly against weight of evidence, making findings impossible of being approved, Court is duty bound to interfere as is so warranted under law.
(3) Mere fact that co-accused stand acquitted through evidence against all of them would not be a ground to acquit all.
(4) It is neither application in law nor a right of accused to claim a Test Identification Parade – Mere absence of same would not, ipso facto, render prosecution case to be false or unsustainable in law.
(5) Evidence of partisan witness need not necessarily be discarded.

Headnote:

(A) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 4 and 5 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 436, 411 and 120B – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Delhi bomb blasts – 13 deaths and 38 injuries – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – It is incumbent upon prosecution to establish that accused persons agreed to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means as part of conspiracy and thereby caused death or attempted to cause death of persons – There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability, act must have been done by accused – Magistrate was duly empowered to record confession – It was without any inducement, threat or promise and was relevant for adjudication of issues/subject matter of trial – Same led to a discovery of fact – Accused has given detailed description of larger conspiracy of causing bomb blasts at Delhi – Non-examination of Investigating Officer, where testimonies of independent witness inspire confidence, would not make prosecution case to be false – A circumstance can be proved through a truthful witness with his testimony fully inspiring confidence – Quality and not quantity of witness is what matters with overwhelming evidence available on record – Evidence of partisan witness need not necessarily be discarded – Knowledge of place where car was parked prior to blast, was in exclusive knowledge of accused persons – Mere fact that co-accused stand acquitted through evidence against all of them would not be a ground to acquit all – Incident took place 27 years ago; present accused acting at behest of principal conspirators; are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding sentence of death even though it falls within category of rarest of rare cases – It is a fit case to award life imprisonment without remission, extending to natural life of accused. (Paras 27, 31, 46, 51, 71, 73, 76, 117, 156, 208 and 209)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Fact discovered – Discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in custody of a Police Officer must be deposed to, and thereupon so much of information as release distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved – Fact discovered embraces place from which object is produced and knowledge of accused as to this, and information given must relate distinctly to this fact. (Para 34)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy – It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about date of formation of criminal conspiracy, about persons who took part in formation of conspiracy, about object, which objectors set before themselves as object of conspiracy, and about manner in which object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this is necessarily a matter of inference – 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 – Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy – It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. (Paras 36 and 37)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 24 to 30 – Confession – It is not necessary that each and every circumstance mentioned in confession regarding complicity of accused should be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after confession was made – It would be sufficient if general trend of confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in confession. (Para 52)

(E) Criminal Law – Test Identification Parade – It is neither application in law nor a right of accused to claim a Test Identification Parade – Mere absence of same would not, ipso facto, render prosecution case to be false or unsustainable in law – Even if test identification parade is not held and witnesses identify accused for first time before Court, evidence regarding identification does not become inadmissible and cannot be discarded on the ground of not being proceeded by test identification parade, when Court finds the same trustworthy – However, such evidence of identification of accused before Court should not ordinarily form basis of conviction unless corroborated by any other evidence. (Paras 122 and 123)

(F) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by special leave – Supreme Court has power to interfere with findings of fact, no distinction being made between judgments of acquittal and conviction, though in case of acquittal it will not ordinarily interfere with appreciation of evidence or on findings of fact unless High Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly – Presumption of innocence of accused is strengthened by their acquittal – But where approach adopted by High Court has resulted into gross miscarriage of justice and reasoning of High Court is wholly against weight of evidence, making findings impossible of being approved, Court is duty bound to interfere – Where findings of fact returned by courts below are bordering on perversity and result in miscarriage of justice, Supreme Court under Article 136 would intervene to prevent such miscarriage of justice – Merely because another view is possible, court would not interfere. (Paras 159, 161, 162 and 163)

Facts of the case:

A bomb blast took place in Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, at 6.30 PM. This incident resulted in 13 deaths and 38 injuries, besides extensive loss to properties. Death sentence awarded against three of accused was referred for confirmation to jurisdictional High Court which stand decided vide common judgment dated 22.11.2012 rendered by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in terms whereof, accused were either acquitted and/or their conviction affirmed only in relation to certain offences.

Findings of Court:

In view of severity of offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. Accused, if on bail, are directed to immediately.

Result : Appeals dismissed.