2012 Supreme(Raj) 74
[Citation : 2012(1) RLW 782 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi (Dattu, J.)
HON'BLE H.L. DATTU, J.
HON'BLE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. 1091 of 2006, decided on 11.01.2012
Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 303, 304; Constitution of India, Art. 21, 22 & 39 — Legal aid to accused at State expenses — Accused is to be represented by a pleader and if he has no sufficient means the Court shall assign a pleader for his defence at the expenses of State — Held — The right of a person charged with crime to have the services of a lawyer is fundamental and essential to fair trial — Conviction and sentence of the appellant is vitiated, not on merit but on the ground that his trial was not fair and just. (Paras 14 to 17)
Appeal allowed.
na-iz-la-] 1973] /kkjk 303] 304( Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 21] 22 o 39 & ljdkjh [kpsZ ij vfHk;qä dks fof/kd lgk;rk & vfHk;qä dh iSjoh IyhMj }kjk djuh gksrh gS rFkk ;fn mlds ikl i;kZIr lk/ku u gks rks U;k;ky; ljdkjh [kpsZ ij mldh izfrj{kk gsrq dksbZ IyhMj fu;qä djsxk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu"i{k fopkj.k ds fy, vijk/k ls vkjksfir O;fä dks fdlh vf/koäk dh lsok,W miyC/k djuk mldk ekSfyd vf/kdkj gS rFkk vko';d gS & vihykFkhZ dh nks"kflf) ,oa ltk u dsoy xq.kkxq.k ij nwf"kr Fkh cfYd bl vk/kkj ij Hkh nwf"kr Fkh fd mldk fopkj.k fu"i{k ,oa U;k;ksfpr ugha FkkA ¼in la- 14 ls 17½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
2. The convict, (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") is charged, convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/307 of Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and also under Section 3 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the High Court, which appears to be accurate statement of facts, proceeds on these lines :
"2. On 30-12-1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one blueline bus No.DL-IP-3088 carrying passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at the Ram Pura Bus Stand on Rohtak Road for passengers to get down. The moment that bus stopped there an explosion took place inside the bus because of which its floor got ripped apart. Four passengers of that bus, namely, Ms. Tapoti, Taj Mohd. Narain Jha and Rajiv Verma died and twenty four passengers including the conductor of that bus were injured due to that explosion. Two policemen (PWs 41 & 52) were on checking duty at that but stop at the time of blast. On their informing the local police station police team reached the spot. Crime team and bomb disposal squad were also called and the damaged bus was inspected and from the spot debris etc. were lifted and sealed.
3. On the basis of the statement of Head Constable Suresh (PW-41), who was one of the two policemen on duty at the bus stop of Rampura, a case under Section 307 IPC and Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered at Punjabi Bagh police station. Investigation commenced immediately. With the death of some of the injured persons on the day of the incident itself Section 302 IPC was also added. Hunt for the culprits responsible for that macabre incident also started. However, for over two months nobody could be nabbed.
4. It appears that as a result of different incidents of bomb blasts in Delhi including the present one the intelligence agencies became more active and started gathering information about the incidents of bomb blasts in the city. It came to light that some persons belonging to terrorist organizations were actively operating in the city of Delhi for causing terror by killing innocent people and causing damage to public property by exploding bombs. On the basis of secret information the police raided some houses in different parts of Delhi on 27.02.1998 and from those houses hand grenades and material used for making bombs was recovered in large quantity. The chemicals recovered were sent to CFSL, which confirmed that the same were potassium chlorate and sulphuric acid and were opined to be constituents of low explosives. Some persons were arrested also and during interrogation they had disclosed to the police that they were members of a terrorist organization and their aim was to create terror and panic in different parts of the country by exploding bombs to take revenge for the killings of innocent muslims (sic.) in India and further that they had come to India for Jehad. On 27.02.1998 itself the police had registered a case vide FIR No.49 of 1998 under Sections 121/121-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Main Delhi Railway Station. On the basis of information provided by the apprehended terrorists the police made more arrests including that of one Mohd. Hussain (who now is the appellant before us in Crl. A. No.41 of 2005 and reference to him will now onwards be made as 'the appellant'). The appellant was apprehended whe