Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, Sameer Jain, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.- Petitioner
Versus
Mohd. Salman S/o Shakeel Ahmed - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2020, D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 21, 56, 213, 253 of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - 120-B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 121A, 124A, 153A - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Section 3 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 4, 5 & 6 - Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 - Section 3/10, 20 and 38 – Offence of Criminal Conspiracy - Murder – Attempt to murder – Charged - An Email was received by TV Channels and News Agencies-India TV and by which Indian Organization took responsibility of serial bomb blasts - Along with Email, one video clip was also received, which pertained to bicycle and a bag on that bicycle - In first part of Email, there is mention about bicycle with frame No., which was placed near Police Station, - In operation, two terrorists, were killed and one Police Officer, Inspector- expired - Whether such a confessional statement is admissible in evidence or not - When a person is in police custody, confession made by him even to a third person, that is other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible. Para 17
Finding of Court :
Court hold that Investigation Agency in given case should be made responsible/accountable for their negligent, cursory and inefficient actions - In given case, for reasons stated above, in spite of case being of heinous nature, 71 persons losing their lives and 185 persons sustaining injuries, causing unrest in lives of every citizen, not just in city , but all across country, Court deem it appropriate to direct Director General of Rajasthan Police to initiate appropriate Enquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings against erring officers of Investigating Team - Case is a classic example of institutional failure resulting in botched/flawed/shoddy investigation – Court fear this isn’t first case to suffer due to failure of investigation agencies and if things are allowed to continue way they are, certainly won’t be last case in which administration of justice is affected due to shoddy investigation - Court direct State, Chief Secretary in particular, to look into matter, which is in larger public interest.
Result : Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present D.B. Criminal Death Reference No.1/2020 has been moved by Court of Special Judge, Jaipur Bomb Blast Cases, Jaipur for confirmation of Death Sentence awarded by the Court vide judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2019 to accused Mohammad Salman in Sessions Case No.8/2010 – State Versus Shri Shahbaz Hussain & Ors., FIR No.133/2008, Police Station, Manak Chowk, Jaipur City (North). Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 20.12.2019, accused Mohammad Salman preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.56/2022, Saifur @ Saifurrehman & Sarvar Azmi @ Rajhans Yadav preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.213/2022 and Mohammad Saif @ Kairion also preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.21/2022. By the aforesaid judgment dated 18.12.2019 Shahbaz Hussain @ Shahbaz Ahmed @ Shanu was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. State of Rajasthan has also preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.253/2022 against the acquittal of Shahbaz Hussain @ Shahbaz Ahmed @ Shanu and for enhancement of sentence of other accused.
2. Accused Mohammad Salman has been acquitted for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 3/10, 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 and other accused namely Saifurrehman Ansari, Mohammad Saif and Sarvar Azmi were acquitted for the offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with Section 120-B IPC and Sections 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120-B IPC, Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 3/10, 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967. Accused Mohammad Salman, Saifurrehman Ansari, Mohammad Saif and Sarvar Azmi were convicted for the following offences:
Mohammad Salman:-
| Offence | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of fine |
| U/s 302 IPC | Death penalty | Rs.50,000/- |
|
| U/s 307 IPC | 7 years R.I. | Rs.10,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 326 IPC | 5 years R.I. | Rs.10,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 324 IPC | 3 years R.I. | Rs.5,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 427 IPC | 1 year S.I. | Rs.1,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 121-A IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 124-A IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 153-A IPC | 3 years R.I. | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 | Life Imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | 7 years R.I. | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 16(1)A of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Death Penalty | Rs.50,000/- |
|
| U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Life Imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 120-B IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Sarvar Azmi @ Rajhans Yadav, Mohammad Saif @ Kairion and Saifur @ Saifurrehman:-
| Offence | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of fine |
| U/s 302/120-B, 307/120-B, 121-A, 124-A/120-B IPC, Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 326/120-B IPC | 5 years R.I. | Rs.10,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 324/120-B IPC | 3 years R.I. | Rs.5,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 153-A/120-B IPC | 3 years R.I. | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | 7 years R.I. | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
| U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Life Imprisonment | Rs.50,000/- | 3 months |
All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a spate of explosions took place in the crowded market, places of the walled pink ci
The prosecution failed to establish the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural irregularities in identification parades.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
