Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Pat) 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
The State of Bihar - Appellant
Versus
Imteyaz Alam @ Ansari, S/o. Kamaluddin Ansari and Ors. – Respondents
Death Reference No.10 of 2021 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 757 of 2021 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 769 of 2021 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 18 of 2022 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 48 of 2022 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 58 of 2022 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 83 of 2022
Decided On : 11-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ansul, Adv., Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv., Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Adv., Mr. Prakhar Prakash, Adv., Mr. Wasif Rahman Khan, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Shahbaj Alam, Adv.
For the Respondents: 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, Adv., Mr. Sriram Krishna, Adv., Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Adv., Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv.

The court upheld the convictions for conspiracy and bomb blasts, emphasizing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and confessions, while modifying death sentences to a fixed term of 30 years based on mitigating factors.

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 366 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 307/34, 120B, 121 and 121A – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 18 and 20 read with Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3 to 5 – Serial bomb-blast at different places in Patna the "Hunkar Rally" organized by Bhartiya Janta Party at Gandhi Maiden – Six person died and 89 were injured in the incident – The post mortem and injury reports as also the depositions of doctors fully confirm and establish that it was the blast at Patna Junction Railway Station and Gandhi Maidan that six persons died and 89 were injured, all receiving splinter injuries because of bomb blasts – Evidence is complete with respect to A1 (Imteyaz Ansari), A2 (Haidar Ali), A3 (Numan Ansari) and A4 (Mujibullah Ansari) that they were part of the conspiracy and were the actual participants in the bomb blasts at Patna Railway Station and Gandhi Maidan respectively – A5 (Md. Umer Siddiqui) and A6 (Azharuddin Qureshi) conspired about the entire attack and, therefore, they were also responsible for the killings. (Paras 59 & 153)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 121 and 121A – 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 – War contemplated by Section 121 is not conventional warfare between two nations – It is also not only rebellion to the government – 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 preventing burdensome taxes were in the past viewed as acts of treason in the form of levying war. (Paras 153, 154 & 158)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 307/34, 121, 121A, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 18 and 20 and Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3 to 5 – Appellants conspiring to commit offence of serial bomb blast at Patna Junction and Gandhi Maidan during "Hunkar Rally" of BJP – Mostly conspiracies are proved by circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom and 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 circumstances 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 – In the present case 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. (Paras 106 & 153)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 10 & 30 – Confession made by co-accused – 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 co-accused. (Para 95)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 368 – Confirmation of Death Sentence – Materials insufficient to come to a definite conclusion that convicts/Appellant were beyond reformation – All the four appellant are of young age with no trans-border contacts – No attempt by them to provoke their kindered to take any retaliatory action – Death sense modified to fix 30 Yrs. Sentence. (Para 194)
Bhuboni Sahu Vs. King, AIR 1949 PC 257; Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, (1964) 6 SCR 623; State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600; Mirza Akbar Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176; Sardul Singh Kaveeshar Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 747; Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334; Major E.G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762; Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 540; V.C. Shukla Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1980) 2 SCC 665; Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 1 SCC 696; State Vs. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi assassination case), (1999) 5 SCC 253; Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67; Mohmed Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1976)1 SCC 828; State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde, (2000) 6 SCC 269; State of Gujarat Vs. Mohammed Atik, (1998) 4 SCC 351; Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684; Jagmohan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973 ) 1 SCC 20; Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470; Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (2011) 13 SCC 706; Swamy Shraddananda Vs. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767; Union of India Vs. Sriharan @ Murugan, (2016) 7 SCC 1; Manoj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353; Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019 (1) BLJ 84 (SC) : (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 – Relied.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498; Shankar Kissanrao Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 546 – Referred.

JUDGMENT :

(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)

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, 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, 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 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 f