jtsa report-framed damned acquitted-dossiers of a very special cell

7/31/2019 Jtsa Report-framed Damned Acquitted-dossiers of a Very Special Cell

1/202


2/202


3/202


4/202


5/202

Also by Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association

'Encounter' at Batla House: Unanswered Questions (2009)

The Case that Never Was: The 'SIMI ' Trial of Jaipur (2012)


6/202

ContentsPageNo.

Preface 5

Case 1 11State versus TanveerAhmad,ShakilAhmad,Ishtiaq Akhtar Dar, Md.Akhtar Dar, Md. Yusuf Lone, Abdul Rauf and GhulamMd

Case 2 17State versus FarooqAhmed Khan,etc.

Case 3 31State versus Md.AmirKhan

Case 4 53State versus KhongbantbumBrojenSingh &Anr

Case 5 61State versus HamidHussain,Md.Shariq,

Md. IftekharAhsan Malik,MaulanaDilawar Khan, MasoodAhmed, Haroon Rashid

Case 6 75State versus IrshadAhmed Malik

Case 7 87State versusAyazAhmed Shah

Case 8 95State versus SaqibRehman, BashirAhmed Shah,NazirAhmed So, Hazi GulamMoinuddin Dar, Abdul Majid Bhat,Abdul QayoomKhan andBirender Kumar Singh

3


7/202

4

Framed, Damned, Acqui ed

Case 9 103State versus KhurshidAhmad Bha

Case 10 111State versus SalmanKhurshid Kori, andOthers

Case 11 121State versus MaurifQamar and Md. IrshadAli

Case 12 135State VersusGulzarAhmed Ganai and Md.AminHajam

Case 13 143State versus Tariq Dar

Case 14 147State versus ImranAhmed &Anr.

Case 15 157State versus Md. MukhtarAhmad Khan

Case 16 171StateversusMd.Iqbal@AbdurRehman,Nazarul Islam & Jalaluddin

Demands 177

Appendix 1 179(Irshads Le er to PM )

Appendix 2 187 An overviewof the cases

Appendix 3 191Glossary of Criminal Offences:


8/202

Preface

When human rights activists, or families of those arrested on

charges of terrorism, allege foul play on part of the investigatingagencies, the usual response is this: Surely, there must have beensome involvement, or else why would the police arrest him, andnotme?

The ndings of this report counter and contest the complacence ofsuch all too familiar commonsense. We document here 16 cases, inwhich those arrested, in main by the Special Cell of Delhi Police,

were accused of being operatives and agents of various terroristorganizations (Al Badr, HUJI, Lashkar), and charged with themost heinous of crimes: sedition; war against the state; criminalconspiracy, planning and causing bomb blasts; training ofterrorists; collection of arms, ammunition and explosives and thetransfer of funds for terrorist activities. The penalties demanded bythe po l ice and prosecu t ion in these cases were a l so ,

correspondingly, the most severe: in most cases, life sentence or thedeath penalty. However between 1992 and 2012 a large number ofthose arrested were acqui edofallchargesbythecourts.

The report documents the story of these acqui als. It drawsprimarily on the court judgments, but also on media reports of thearrests and the trial that followed. The evidence that the reportpresents shows clearly that the acqui als were not simply for want

of evidence. What judgment after judgment comments on is themanner in which the so-called evidence provided by the police andthe prosecution was tampered with and fabricated, how story afterstory as presented by the prosecution was unreliable, incredulous,andappearedas concocted.

5


9/202

6


The fabrication of evidence is a serious o ff ence under the IndianPenalCode.

You will nd in this report, instances where the courts clearly indictthe Special Cell for framing innocents; reprimanding them forviolating due process and fabricating evidence; ordering a CBIprobe against the Special Cell, as well as directing the ling of FIRandtheinitiation of departmentalenquiriesagainst them.

In the Dhaula Kuan fake encounter case, the Court was of theopinion that, there cannotbeany moreserious orgrave crime thana police o ffi cer framing an innocent citizen in a false criminal case.

Such tendency in the police offi

cers should not be viewed or dealtwithlightlybutneedstobecurbedwithasternhand.

Acqui ing an alleged terrorist of the Peoples' Liberation Army ofManipur, the Court concluded that the police got him targeted to become a victim of this crime.

The CBI investigating the apprehension of alleged operatives ofAlBadr by the Special Cell was withering in its conclusions andsought legal action against SIs Vinay Tyagi, Subhash Vats andRavinderTyagi for fabrication of evidence.

IndianPenalCode(IPC)

Section 195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent toprocure conviction of o ff ence punishable with imprisonment forlifeor imprisonment

Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby tocause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any

person to be convicted of an o ff ence which [by the law for thetime being in force in [India] is not capital, but punishable with[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term of sevenyears or upwards, shall be punished as a person convicted of thatoff encewouldbeliabletobepunished.


10/202

Dossiers of a 'Very' Special Cell

7

Not a single o ffi cer in any of the operations described here hassu ff ered criminal proceedings for the framing of innocents.Adverse observations, strictures and censures from the court havenot come in the way of promotions, gallantry awards and

President's medals. Even after the National Human RightsCommission (NH RC) indictedACP Sanjeev Yadav a gure whowill surface regularly in these pages for staging an encounter inSonia Vihar in 2006, he continues to head probes as crucial andsensitiveasthea ackontheIsraelidiplomatinDelhi.

The paltry rate of conviction in such cases a mere 30 per cent, asrevealed by an RTI enquiry recently is a ributed to ine ffi ciency,

to bad investigating skills or poor infrastructure. A closer lookhowever reveals anuncanny,almost scriptedpa erninthecases:

1) Secret information, which can never be veri ed or disclosed,leadsthepolicetotheaccused.

2) Public and independent witnesses are rarely joined in theactual operation, even when the accused are apprehended in

publicplaceswithpeoplepresent.3) Private vehicles are used in the operation doing awaywith the

need of logs thereby making it di ffi cult to verify if any suchoperationdidreally take place.

In the Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (P&H) 1998(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 164, thecourt observed:

Police offi cials as we know, are interested in the success of thecase detected by them and to achieve success in the case detected by them, they show sometimes vehemence also.

Further, referring to the rampant procedural lapses, the Courtrecalled Peeraswmi Vs. State of NCT Delhi , 2007 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal)339 where the Hon'bleDelhi HighCourt observed:

This procedure is not a mere formality for the sake of it but itprovides thesafeguardagainst false implication of persons.


11/202

8


4) The time and date of the actual 'picking up' of the accused isreveled by the subsequent trial to have beenmuch earlier thanthat alleged in the police story. Illegal detention, a recurrentfeature, is sought to be hidden from the court through

blatantly concoctednarratives.

5) Seizure memos are often made in the PS / Special Cell o ffi ce,and not at the supposed time of seizure, often in the samehandwritingandinkastheFIR

6) Senior offi cers are protected from appearing before the court by not making them witnesses

7) The nexus between Special Cell, central intelligence agenciesand police force of con ict zones, especially Jammu andKashmir, butalso Manipur.

These men whose cases we document here were acqui ed. Yetthey all unjustly su ff ered the most harrowing of experiences for

varying lengths of time: illegal detention and torture (physical andpsychological), incarceration and trial. Acqui als were by nomeans the end of their tragedy for they returned from theirexperience to a di ff erent world: Businesses were destroyed; familymembers were broken having su ff ered the humiliation and traumaof being associated with terrorists ; childrenhad to abandon theirstudies and the normality of everyday life, while parents passedaway in grief and despair. Some cases like that of young Md. AmirKhan, which was a practically open and shut case, where theprosecution had virtually no leg to stand on, got drawn out for 14painful andlong years.

And yet, they have been o ff ered no apology, no rehabilitation.Worse still, none of the o ffi cers guilty of framing them have beenactedagainst.

Part of the trauma of those arrested and their families on suchserious charges results from the reporting in the press, which ismore often than not, tilted heavily in favour of the investigatingagency. Almost without exception, the media has acted as 'faithful


12/202

stenographers' of the police; not only presuming the guilty to beinnocent but also failing to follow cases where innocence isestablished. We have tried to reproduce the reportage thatappeared at the time of arrests in as many cases as possible. Thecases documented below caution us against taking the policeversion at face value. The bombastic claims of 'breakthroughs' and'achievements' by the police must always be subjected toquestioning and independentanalysis.

To those who say, 'there is no smoke without re', we hope that this

report will serve as a grim eye opener. The reasons behind thepolice the Special Cell in this case, but this could be true for anyother investigating agency as well framing innocents can bemany:tose lescores,toteachalesson,tobuyfavours,todisposeofpe y informers past their usefulness, to 'help out' colleagues inotherpartsofthecountry.

The 16 cases we present here are only the proverbial tip of the

iceberg, and simply indicative of the extent of the malaise a ff ectingourpolicingandcriminal justice system.


9


13/202


14/202

Case 1

State Versus Tanveer Ahmad, Shakil Ahmad,Ishtiaq Akhtar Dar, Md. Akhtar Dar,Md. Yusuf Lone, Abdul Rauf andGhulam Md.

FIR No.: 169/92PoliceStation: LajpatNagarUnder Sections: 4 and 5 TADA (P) Act 4 and 5 ExplosiveSubstances Act read with section 120 B IPC, 25/54/59 Arms ActSessionsCaseNo.:50/2001Dae of Judgement:1 August 2002

Judge: S. N. Dhingra,Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi

11


15/202

12


TheProsecution's Story:

The case dates back to 1992. The prosecution held that the Special

Cell of Delhi Police received information that some Kashmiriterrorists had sneaked into the capital with the intention to commithigh pro le terrorist acts. Further, that they had made their basesomewhere in south Delhi in the house of an exports dealer whopossessed one white Maruti Gypsy and one red Maruti van, both bearing J&K numbers and both being used in the service of theterrorists'nefarious designs.

29thApril 1992:Speci c information was received that Kashmiri terrorists had been spo ed driving around in the red Maruti van in CentralMarket, Lajpat Nagar. A raiding party was immediately formedanddispatched.Atabout9pm,whenthepolicepartywasnearShivMandirMarg,LajpatNagarII,closetothewatersupplyo ffi ceofJalVihar, they saw the said vehicle approaching them. They signaled

it to stop. The driver initially sloweddownbut then raced and spedaway. After a chase, during which Inspector Lal Ram redashotinthe air, the occupants, ve in number, were overpowered andapprehended. The ve were revealed to be Tanveer Ahmad, ShakilAhmad, Ishtiaq Akhtar Dar, Md. Akhtar Dar (the driver) and Md.Yusuf Lone.

Recoveries:

A search of the van revealed a blue coloured bag belonging toTanveer Ahmed. It contained the following items: sixphotographs of places like Red Fort, Delhi Gate, India Gate andother such places; six blue coloured plastic explosive stickswrapped in newspaper; one green coloured cloth with Islamicwriting ;Rs20,000incashandadiary.From Shakeel Ahmed was recovered a raxine bag containingthree detonators, ba ery cells, one metre of electric wire,photographs of important buildings, one booklet titled, Cryfor Freedom will not Stop published by Ikhwan Publicationsand issued by Muslim Brotherhood. The booklet allegedly


16/202

13

exhortedMuslimstotakeuparmstoliberateKashmir.2400US dollarsincashwasseizedfromMd.AkhtarDar.

Disclosures:

Tanveer Ahmad disclosed that he could lead the Special Cell to histwo companions, Abdul Rauf and Ghulam Md., who were presentin M 27 Lajpat Nagar. He would also help in the recovery of moreexplosives from various hiding places in Delhi and elsewhere.ShakeelAhmedandIshtiaq Darmade similar disclosures.

30thApril 1992:Based on the information elicited through the disclosures, thepolice party raided the house in Lajpat Nagar and found AbdulRauf and Ghulam Mohammad. Rauf led them to the cupboardwhere the following items were hidden: booklets by IkhwanPublications, press cu ings, diplomatic list, Rs 10,000 in cash, fourplastic explosives, two detonators, four pencil cells with electric

wire and one key. A white Maruti gypsy parked in front of thehouse was also seized. Property documents of the house were alsoseized which showed that the property was registered in the nameofGhulamHaidarDarandAkhtarHussainDar.

2ndMay1992:

The police visited Abdul Rauf's house in Meerut (UP) and seized

one 9mm pistol of Pakistani make with a loaded magazine andthreelive cartridges.

12thMay1992:

Abdul Rauf led the police to to four hand grenades that werehidden in the toilet ush of Tawi Hostel in Regional EngineeringCollege, Srinagar.

13thMay1992:Tanveer Ahmad led the police to a pistol buried in a pit near a treeoutside theLajpatNagar at.



17/202

14


HowtheCaseFellApart:The prosecution produced 14 witnesses, all of whom, barring one,

werepolicepersons.All of themrepeated the storyoutlined above.

Illegal detentionConclusively Proved:

The accused however continued to maintain throughout the trial in their cross examination as well in their statement under Section313 CrPC that they were picked up from their respective placeson the 25th and 26th April 1992, much prior to 29th April 1992,when the police claimed to have arrested them. In the interveningperiod, the Defence argued that they were kept in illegal detentionandafalsecasefoisteduponthem.

The following evidence was placedbefore the Court to substantiatetheDefence'sclaims:

Defence Witness Abdul Quaim (brother of Abdul Rauf andresident of Meerut) testi ed in court that on 26thApril, at about3.00-4.00 am, he found the policeenteringhis house bypu ingaladder onto the roof. The police questioned him about his

brother and forced him to take them to his brother's home,which was in another street close by. Rauf was apprehendedthus in the intervening night of 25th-26th April 1992. The policeassured Quaim and Rauf's wife, Rana Qausar, that Rauf would

be released soon after interrogation. The following day, when

Rauf failed to return home, Rana Qausar, sent a telegram toSenior SP , Meerut, expressing her fears that her husband might be implicated in a false case. The same day, she also moved anapplication before the CJM, Meerut, informing him about thetaking away of Rauf by the police. The CJM repeatedly calledfor a report from the police but no report was submi ed until29thApril 1992. The police report said thatAbdul Rauf had beentaken away by Lodhi Road Lajpat Nagar (Operation Cell) andthathewasnotinthecustodyofMeerutpolice.

The Defence placed before the court, both the telegram (dated26th April 92) and certi ed copies of the proceedings of theCJM Meerut. These, observed the Court, made it abundantly


18/202


15

clear thatAbdul Rauf was not arrestedby the policeon the nightof 29thApril 92 as alleged but hewas apprehended prior to 29thApril 1992.

Defence Witness Ghulam Haider, businessman and owner ofthe house in Lajpat Nagar, which was apparently the scene ofmuch action, testi ed that he returned to Delhi from Kashmiron 25th April 1992. Upon returning, he found his house lockedand his business partner, Akhtar Hussain Dar, as well as hisemployees, Md. Yusuf Lone and Ghulam Md., missing.

Enquiries with the neighbourhood watchmen revealed thatthey had been arrested by the police. The next morning hesubmi ed an application to the Police Station Lajpat Nagar andsent a telegram to the Police Commissioner. He also led ahabeas corpus writ through his counsel. Copies of all three wereplaced before the Court. In his cross-examination, he stated thathe came to know about the arrest of his colleagues from theevening edition of newspaper on 29thApril 1992. Mid Day

Court's Remarks:

The Court noted that these documents led by the Defencewitnesses caused serious dent in the prosecution story . TheProsecution was unable to explain how the Defence witnessescould have led applications and writs against the arrests inadvance if the arrests were actually in fact made on 29thApril 1992.Therefore the rest of the prosecution story about recoveries fromthe accused persons on or at their instance on 29th April or after29thApril92 alsostandsincloudofdoubt.

ThustheCourtacqui edalltheaccused.


19/202


20/202

Case 2

State Versus FarooqAhmed Khan, etc.FIR No.: 517/96PoliceStation: LajpatNagar,NewDelhi

Under Sections: 302/307/12B, 124A, 212 IPC; Sections 3, 4 & 5 ofExplosive Substance Act; Section 25 of Arms ActSessions Case No.: 47/09DateofJudgement:8 April 2010

Judge: S. P. Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, DJ-IV/ New Delhi,District PatialaHouse Courts.

17


21/202

18


Background:

On 21st May 1996, Central Market Lajpat Nagar, (Delhi) was

rocked by a bomb blast. Seventeen people were arrested in this caseand accused of commi ing the terror a ack. Fourteen years later,on the 8th October 2010, the Patiala House Sessions Courtdelivering its 498 paged judgment, acqui ed four of the accused,namely Mirza Iftqar Hussain, Latif Ahmed Waza, Syed MaqboolShah and Abdul Gani, of all charges leveled against them inconnectionwith theblast.

Four of the accused were held guilty and convicted for thecommission of o ff ence punishable 120B IP C, 120B Sec. 302u/s r/wand 307 IPC, and 120B Sec. 436 IPC.r/w

Two of the accused were held guilty and convicted for thecommission of o ff ence punishable under the Explosive SubstancesAct. Since they had already served 14 years in prison, double themaximum sentenceof theAct under which theyweresubsequentlyconvicted, they were released.

TheProsecution's Story:

A powerful explosion took place at about 6.30 p.m. at the CentralMarket, Lajpat Nagar on 21st May 1996 in which 13 people werekilled and at least 38 injured. According to the case that wasregistered by the Delhi Police (FIR No. 517/96, P. S. Lajpat Nagar),

immediately after the blast, Anand Prakash Additional SHO (P. S.Lajpat Nagar) rushed to the spot with his sta ff . Later a case wasregistered on the statement of Subhash Chand Katar, a shopkeeperofPushpaMarketwhodescribedtheblastthattookplaceinawhiteMaruti car, about 10 ft away from his shop. However, he wasunable to either give the registration number of the Maruti car orrecollect about the person(s) who parked the car in front of his

shop. In the course of immediate follow-up investigations, thepolice was able to ascertain the registration number of the Maruticar as DL 2CF 5854. The police also claimed that this car was stolenon the night of 17th/18th May 1996 from A-51, Nizamuddin East,New Delhi and that the owner of the car had registered a complaint


22/202


19

atP.S.Nizamuddin.

The prosecution also claimed that on 21st May 1996 terrorists of

Jammu & Kashmir Islamic Front (J KIF) took responsibility for the bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar through telephone calls made to thepress/media. These calls were traced to a telephone number inAnantnag,Kashmir.

TheArrests:

24th-25thMay1996:

In connection with the blast, on 24th May 1996 with the help of the Jammu and Kashmir Police, Farooq Ahmed Khan and Farida Darwere taken into custody. Later, on being informed by the J&Kpolice about the apprehension of the two accused, Inspector JasbirSingh of the Delhi Police went with a police team to J&K andarrested Farooq Ahmed Khan and Farida Dar from Srinagar on25th May 1996. During their interrogation, both the accused

confessed to their role in the Lajpat Nagar blasts. Further, FarooqAhmed confessed to making the telephone calls to the media as theChief Spokesman of JKIF. The billing records of the telephones ofFarooqAhmed and Farida Dar between 10th May 1996 to 30th May1996 revealed that on 21st May 1996 at about 8.39 p.m., varioustelephone calls were made to PTI, NDTV and Zee TV, amongothers.

14thJune1996:

On the basis of information received from an 'informer', DelhiPolice arrested Md. Naushad and Mirza Iftiqar Hussain on 14th June 1996 from Platform No. 4 of the New Delhi Railway Station asthey were about to board the Varanasi Express to go to Gorakhpur.Their interrogation and disclosure statements revealed that theywere headed for Gorakhpur to collect cash from their associates,Mirza Nissar Hussain and Md. Ali Bha ; both of whom accordingto the prosecution were also involved in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case.


23/202

20


16thJune1996:

Later on the basis of their (Md. Naushad and Mirza Iftiqar)

disclosure statement, Inspector Rajinder Singh arrested Md. AliBha and Latif Ahmed Waza from Gorakhpur on 16th June 1996and brought themto Delhi.

17thJune1996:

ThepolicearrestedSyedMaqboolShahon17thJune1996.

26thJuly 1996:

Abdul Gani and Javed Ahmed Khan were arrested by the Jaipurpolice and brought to Delhi and later arrested by the Delhi Police.Prior to this on 2nd June 1996, they were picked up ('apprehended') by theAhmedabadATS, Gujarat who suspected their involvementintheLajpatNagarblasts.

Recoveries:

During the course of further interrogation (on 4th June 1996) anddisclosure, the accused Farooq Ahmed and Farida Dar admi edthat there were explosives and ammunitions lying at theirresidences. Thus a police team consisting of AC P P.P. Singh andInspector Pawan Kumar accompanied the accused to theirresidences in Srinagar. Besides recoveries allegedly made fromtheir Srinagar residence, further recoveries were allegedly made by

the policefromother accused.Following recoveries, over a period of time, were shown by thepolice:

One AK 56 assault ri e, two magazines, 59 rounds, two RDXslabs andsome incriminating documents recovered from Farooq

Ahmed Khan.

A rexin bag containing two RDX slabs and 5 timers recovered from Farida Dar.

Two RDX slabs, one timer, one ironsolder, one wirecu er, twoaraldite tubes, one gas cylinder, one detonator recovered from


24/202


21

Md. Naushad's residence.

A second class railway ticket for two persons seized from Md.

Naushad.A rupee two currency note & two hand grenades recovered

from Latif Ahmed Waza.[The two-rupee note was meant to behanded over to the accused Mirza Iftqar Hussain as a code fordelivery of money; grenades were recovered from Latif'shouse].

Rupees one (01) lakh seized from a house in Shalimar Bagh,Delhi the accused Latif Ahmed Waza allegedly identi ed thesaidhouse.

Documents and clothes of Farooq Ahmed and the stepney tyreof the Maruti car (DL 2CF 5854) used in the blast recovered

from Syed MaqboolShah's residence.

On 10th June 1996 two of the accused, Farooq Ahmed and FaridaDar were produced at Patiala House Courts and then remanded topolicecustody.

Prosecution's Charges:

The alleged recoveries along with the recorded and disclosurestatements of witnesses at di ff erent stages of investigation led theDelhi police to conclude that the Lajpat Nagar blasts incident wasthe result of a conspiracy masterminded by Bilal Ahmed Beg andhis associates to cause and carry out acts of terrorism and

disruptive activities in India by use of bombs explosion so as toscare and create panic by such acts in the mind of the people andtherebytostriketerrorinthepeople .

How the CaseFellApart:

To begin with, the Honourable Judge S. P. Garg remarked: At theoutset, it may be mentioned here that the prosecution case restssolely on circumstantial evidence. . . . No reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the testimony of any eyewitness who hadwitnessed theaccused persons commi ingtheo ff ence .


25/202

22


Below we document the case of four of the accused who wereexonerated by the trial court of all charges levelled against them bythe prosecution. These cases highlight once again the familiar storyofframe-upbytheSpecialCellandruiningoflifeofinnocentduetoinordinate delay in the criminal justice system. After having spentfourteen years a period usually served by murder convicts theywalked free; a freedom that they were wrongly denied for such alongtime.

The Caseof Mirza Iftiqar Hussain:

In his recorded statement Mirza Iftiqar had pleaded that he wasarrested from his residence at Bhogal in the intervening night of27th/28th May 1996 and was kept in illegal con nement at theSpecial Cell at Lodhi Colony, New Delhi, for about 18 days. Healso claimed that nothing had been recovered from him by thepolice.

Acqui ing Mirza Iftiqar, the Judge observed that there were noallegations against the accused that prior to his arrest (14th June1996) or that he remained in contact with any of the accusedpersons or that he participated in the commission of the incident inany manner or that he procured any article used in explosion orthat he provided any nancial assistance to the co accused personsor that he provided any shelter to any of them after the incident . . .no incriminating substance was found in his possession. . . . His

movements prior to the incident and subsequent to the incidentwerenotascertained.

Further the Judge remarked that the apprehension of the accusedwith another accused, Md. Naushad does not simply make anincriminating piece of circumstance to infer his involvement in theincident. He further noted that the collection of Rs. 1 lakh by theaccused from Mangal Dass was also not su ffi cient to establish hisinvolvement as a 'conspirator' in this case. The court alsounderlined the abject failure of the prosecution to put anything onrecord to demonstrate the nexus between the accused, FarooqAhmed Khan and the JKIF or to show that he had participated in


26/202


23

any of the activities of JKIF. The Judge ruled that in the in theabsence of any material evidence, there was no basis for the policetoarrestFarooqAhmedinthiscase.

Citing the case of in which the Supreme Court hadState Vs. Nalinicategorically held that 'mere association with one of theconspirators or even knowledge of conspiracy is not enough', the Judge concluded: Thelaw inthisaspect isvery clear. In view ofthepaucity of any worthwhile incriminating circumstance against A4[Farooq Ahmed], I am of the view that the prosecution has

miserably failed to establish involvement of A4 in the commissionoftheincident.

TheCaseofLatifAhmedWaza:

In his recorded statement, Latif Ahmed Waza had pleaded that hehas been working as a carpet salesman in Naya Bazar near HotelGarden in Kathmandu since 1992. Javed Ahmed Khan (accusedNo. 9), a relative, was the owner of the business establishment.Latifcategorically told the court that he was picked up from Kathmandu by the Nepal police on 7th June 1996 and brought to the P.S. DelhiBazar and despite the requirement of law he was not produced before any magistrate. He was one among the many Kashmiriswho had been brought to the police station. On 9th June 1996 LatifAhmed, along with Mirza Nissar Hussain and Md. Ali Bha werehanded over by the Nepal Police to the Assistant Commissioner of

Police (ACP) P.P Singh (Special Cell, Delhi Police). On 17th June1996 they were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate andmade to sign various papers. Latif Ahmed did not make adisclosure statement. He also claimed that no incriminatingmaterial was recovered from his.

After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defenceand weighing the material evidence placed on record, theHonourable Judge concluded that the prosecution had failed tocollect and place evidence to establish that the accused LatifAhmed Waza had ever remained in 'constant touch' with the co-accused or that he had ever a ended any of JKIF's meetings, etc.


27/202

24


There was also no evidence to establish the he ever provided nancial assistance to any of the co-accused or helped them inprocuringingredients used formanufacturing a bomb.

Further, the Judge noted that in their disclosure statements theother accused FarooqAhmed and Farida Dar, did not a ribute anyrole whatsoever to Latif Ahmed for hatching conspiracy to committhe incident.

The prosecution's case was that a two-rupee currency note had been recovered from Latif's possession which was ostensibly to behanded over to Mirza Iftqar to obtain Rs. 1 lakh from Mangal Dass.However, the Judge noted that such a recovery took place on 16th June 1996 when the conspiracy to cause bomb blast had alreadycome to an end. Thus, the Judge remarked that there was neitherthe occasion nor the need for both Latif Ahmed and Md. Ali totravel to Gorakhpur from Nepal only for handing over a two-rupeecurrency note to Mirza Iftqar. Further, this work could have been

accomplished by a single person. The court was thus inclined todisbelieve the prosecutionversion.

The Judge ruled that even if one were to assume that Latif AhmedWaza had indeed delivered two-rupee currency note to MirzaIftqar Hussain on 16th June 1996, it neither proves anything norestablishes him to be a member of a group hatching conspiracy tocause bomb blast that took place earlier on 21st May 1996, in Delhi.

Moreover, the Judge noted that at the time of Latif's allegedapprehension at Gorakhpur on 16th June 1996, he was not found inpossession of any incriminating article and the alleged recovery ofarms and ammunition from his J&K residence had not beenestablishedbeyondreasonable doubt by theprosecution.

The Judge commented that the testimonies of the witnesses wereriddled with contradictions and inconsistencies and reiterated thatmere association of the accused with one of the conspirators oreven knowledge of conspiracy is not enough. The Judge reliedupon the case, where the Honourable SupremeState vs. NaliniCourt categorically observed that, . . . So merely because a person


28/202


25

is shown to be an active worker of LTTE that by itself would notcatapult him into the orbit of the conspiracy mesh to murder RajivGandhi. It cannot be forgo en that a conspiracy for that purposewould be strictly con ned to a limited member of persons, lest anytinyleakageisenoughtoexplodetheentirebubbleofthecabal.

Delivering the verdict on Latif Ahmed Waza, the Judge remarked: I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its caseagainst him beyond reasonable doubt . Consequently the Judgeacqui edLatifAhmed Waza ofall charges against him.

TheCaseofSyedMaqboolShah:

In his recorded statement SyedMaqbool Shah denied that anyincriminating evidence wasrecovered from him. He deniedthe recovery of the stepney tyrefrom his residence. He disclosedthat he was arrested on theintervening night of 27th/28thMay 1996. He also made nodisclosurestatement.

The Court while delivering theverdict on the culpability of SyedM a q b o o l S h a h y e t a g a i nlamented the fai lure of theprosecution to prove beyond any reasonable doubt hisparticipation in the blast in any manner whatsoever. Regarding thealleged recovery of the stepney tyre of the care used in blast andother articles (like clothes of accused Farooq Ahmed) from hisresidence, the court remarked that the prosecution had failed toestablish that these belonged Farooq Ahmed Khan. Moreover,nothing incriminating was recovered at his residence . . . showinghis connection with JKIF , and there was nothing on record toshow that the accused had any link with or had a ended any of JKIF's meetings with any other members of the said organizationorelsehadeverremainedinconstanttouchwiththem.

The Judge commented that the testimonies of thewitnesses were riddledwith contradictions and

inconsistencies andreiterated that mereassociation of the accusedwith one of theconspirators or evenknowledge of conspiracyis not enough.


29/202

26


The Judge especially noted that the accused Maqbool Shah did notabscond from his place of residence even after two of the keyalleged accused, namely Farooq Ahmed and Farida Dar werearrested by the police. The case against Maqbool Shah also fell at because not a single Public Witness could testify to haveaccompanied the co-accused persons at the time of purchase of anyarticle required for manufacturing/assembling of a bomb. Onceagain nothing was put on record to demonstrate the Shah had beenin touch with any of the co-accused or had provided any nancialassistance to any of them. The court also noted the shoddy mannerof investigation and wondered as to why the police failed toexamine or record statement of any of Shah's neighbour to nd ifthere used to be any unusual activities at residence of the accusedor that the co-accused ever visited his house. The court commentedthat the prosecution did not collect any evidence to show if Shahhad ever provided shelter to any of the co-accused at any time orhadfacilitatedthemtocarryouttheirplan.

Finally the Honourable Judge observed that the prosecution hadmade Maqbool Shah an accused solely by trying to connect himwith another accused Farooq Ahmed on the basis of recovery of astepney tyre allegedly of the Maruti car used in the blast andsome clothesallegedly ofFarooqAhmed, recoveredfromthe houseof the accused. But the prosecution had failed to establish thearticles thus recovered belonged to FarooqAhmedKhan.

While delivering the verdict on Maqbool Shah, the Judge cited theSupreme Court judgement in the caseState vs Navjot Sindhu (supra)where the Court had categorically stated that mere suspicion wasnot enough to prove the complicity of an accused in a criminal actand the Court cannot condemn an accused in the absence of'suffi cient evidence'. In this case nding the evidence non-existentand the prosecution's case very shaky, the Judge while acqui ingSyed Maqbool Shah of all charges against him remarked: In thepresent case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecutionagainst A8 [Maqbool Shah] do not lead to any inference beyondreasonable doubt of his involvement in the conspiracy. The


30/202


27

circumstances do not even remotely far less de nitely andunerringly point towards guilt ofA8.

TheCaseofAbdulGani:Abdul Gani pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this case andthat nothing was recovered from him. On the intervening night of30th May/1st June 1996, he was travelling by the Samtha Expressfrom Vishakhapatnam to Delhi when he was arrested and broughtto Ahmedabad. On 1st June 1996 he was produced before theMagistrate. Hedidnotmake anydisclosure statement.

The Judge noted that the circumstance brought on record by theprosecution against the accused to prove conspiracy, is his arrest incase bearing FIR No. 12/96 [ 120B/121/122 IPC] along with twou/sother men Rashid and Zul kar on 1st June 1996. When the courtspeci callyaskedtheSeniorPublicProsecutor(SPP)astohowthiscircumstance itself was enough to prove the involvement of theaccused in the (blast) conspiracy, the la er pointed out that AbdulGanihas beenchargesheeted along with other co accused, since hisname nds mention in the confessional statement made by theaccused, Javed Ahmed Khan (accused No.9). However, the courtnoted that no other incriminating circumstance has been a ributedto Adul Gani. The Honourable Judge thus remarked: In myconsidered view, even if both these circumstances are taken intoconsideration, they do not even prima facie point out hatching of

conspiracy by this accused with co conspirators. The court alsonoted that neither at the time of the apprehension of the accused,nor afterwards any incriminating article was recovered from him.Besides, the prosecution once again failed to establish that theaccused ifeverhad beenin touch co-conspirators atany timeorhadparticipated directly or indirectly in the commission of the o ff ence.Neither anything was put on record to show that Abdul Gani ever

visited Delhi or Srinagar and had any conversation regarding theincident with any other co-accused. Besides, there was nothing onrecord to show that he was even aware of the blast Lajpat Nagar,Delhi prior to his arrest in case FIR No. 12/96 at Ahmedabad. The Judge also pointed out that the alleged articles recovered in the


31/202

28


personal search of the accused at the time of his arrest were notconnectedwith thecommission of theincident.

Pointing to the clarity of law regarding use of confessionalstatement of an accused against a co-accused, the Judge noted that the confession of a co-accused (in this case accused No.9) cannot be elevated to the status of substantive evidence which can formthebasisofconvictionofthecoaccused.

In the present case, the court argued that even if the confessionalstatement of co-accused Javed Ahmed Khan (accused No.9) was to be considered 'genuine' and acted upon, the fact remains that in theabsenceofanyrolea ributed to theaccused,Abdul Gani regardingthe blast in question, mere mention of his name is not enough toprove his involvement in the commission of the o ff ence or him being a co-conspirator. Mere association with one of theconspirators or even knowledge of conspiracy is not enough in theabsence of agreement of conspiracy . Hence the Judge acqui ed

himofallchargesagainsthim.

Life PostArrest:

Acqui ed Remains Jobless

Mail Today , Srinagar, March 19, 2012

Shah, an accused in the 1996 Lajpath Nagar blast case, wasacqui ed of all charges by the Delhi High Court after spending 14years of his primeyouthinTiharjail.

His acqui al gene-rated a lot of media buzz in the Valleya n d o u t s i d eleading to the chiefminister making agrand promise ofhis rehabilitation.

That was nearly


32/202

two years ago. In a state where even a Matric fail gets agovernment job, why is he being denied one, asks his elder brother PeerHassan.

I don't know what do. I have no job and no hope of ge ing any. Iremember chief minister Omar Abdullah had given a statementwhenI was released that I will be rehabilitated and providedwitha job. But I was not givenany job, Shahsays.

[ ]

To keep Shah engaged and

nd a match for him, his brothers haveopeneda makeshift shop for him outside his residence in Lal Bazar. Wewanthimtose ledown.Butwhowillmarryajoblessperson, asks Peer.

h p://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/acqui ed-lajpat-nagar-bomb-blast-accused-remains-jobless/1/178363.html


29


33/202


34/202

Case 3

State Versus Md.AmirKhan

FIR Nos.: 790/1996; 70; 71; 117/97; 137/97; 249/97; 262/97; 191/97;751/97; 752/97; 379/97; 260/97; 951/97; 752/97; 405/97; 746/97;631/1997

Police Stations: Various Police Stations in Delhi, Ghaziabad,RohtakandSonepatUnder Sections: 34, 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 320, 307, 435, 436 of

IP C; 3,4, 4(B), 5, 7 of Explosive SubstancesAct;150ofRailwayAct

Sessions Case Nos.: 51 of 1998/2004; 25 of 2006/2009; 18 of 2010;111/98; 116/98; 95/98;11/98;100/98; 108/98; 109/98; 128/98; 357/2007;115/98; 137/98; 113/98120/98; 104/1998Dateof Judgements: November2000 to January 2012

Judges: Various Judges of Sessions and District Courts in Delhi,Ghaziabad, Rohtak& Sonepat

31


35/202

32


Background:

Md. Amir Khan's case has been at the centre of public

a ention and for good reasons. It is a prime example of all thatails the policing and criminal justice system. Even the mainstreamcorporate media, usually disinterested in stories of those whoselives are destroyed by our investigating agencies became xatedwith the taleof thisyoung man who had spent moreyears inprisonthan outside. The volume of cases slapped against him 19 inall meagreness of evidence against him, his acqui als one after

another, all brought out starkly the manner in which innocents areframedinthenameof ghting terror.

The cases against Md. Amir were spread across states includingDelhi, U ar Pradesh and Haryana. It was not some joint operationof police of these three states. Rather, Amir was arrested by theDelhi PolicevideFIR no. 49/98 on27 February1998.th

TheProsecution's Story:Offi cials of the Delhi police, Inspector Rajinder Bhati, InspectorDataram andInspector Subhash Tandon statedthefollowing:

Special watch was being kept over House No. 1001, Gali Anarwali,Telwada, Delhi. Two persons later found to be Abdullah aliasHaroon and Matiur Rehman alias Musa of Bangladesh werefound leaving the house under suspicious circumstances. The

police followed these two and overpowered them at the SadarBazar Railway Station. Their search revealed a hand grenade andthe two men disclosed that the house under watchbelonged to Md.Amir Khan. He was the link with Bangladesh/Pakistan-basedAbdul Karim Tunda. Together, they had hatched a conspiracy tocause blasts across the capital and other cities. In this case, an FIR49/98 dated 27 February1998was lodged.th

The prosecution story further proceeds that true to the informationgiven by the two men apprehended, Amir arrived with hisaccomplice Md. Shakil alias Hamza at 6.30 in the evening at SignalNumber 10 of Sadar Bazar Railway Sta ion. They were both


36/202


33

apprehended. Amir's search revealed a revolver, live cartridges, a briefcase containing Rs 80,000, some dollars, diaries with maps andformulae for making bombs. Shakil's search revealed a tin box, aniron box, a thermos containingsome powder. Onquestioning,bothdisclosed that they had executed blasts in various states, includingthe Frontier Mail. They further disclosed that their arms factorywas at Pilkhua. Shakil and Amir then led the police to the factory where they got explosives and materials recovered. They also ledthe police to the shops from where theyhad purchased material formaking bombs. The recoveries were made in the presence of publicwitnesses Abdul Sa ar, landlord of the plot on which the factorystood, and Chandrabhan, who was enlisted into the raiding party by the police when on way to Pilkhua. Both Abdul Sa ar andChandrabhanwere theprimeprosecution witnesses.

According to the prosecution version, upon interrogation, Amirand Shakil revealed their involvement in a series of blasts whichhad rocked Delhi and its neighbouring areas through 1997 and1998, and which had remained unsolved till then. The DelhiPolice through its o ffi cers Inspector Rajender Bhatia, InspectorSubhash Tandon, Inspector Dataram and Inspector RakeshDixit then informed and alerted the police of those states abouttheir involvement, leading to the arrest of Md. Amir Khan and Md.Shakil in eighteen (18) more cases. It appeared that the biggestmastermind and bomber who had eluded the police of various

states had nally been caught. All cases in Delhi were framed andheard in the TADA court.

Below we summarize the details of the various cases in di ff erentstates to show how imsy the prosecution's charges against Amirwere. But before that, it is in order that we produce the gist of Md.AmirKhan'sstatementmadeunder313CrPC:

Md.Amir'sStatementunder313CrPC:One Gupta ji has met him at Pakistan embassy in New Delhi whenhe had gone there to procure a visa to visit his married sister inPakistan. Gupta ji had asked the accused to collect some important


37/202

34


information during his visit but he could not collect the requisiteinformation and upon his return, Gupta ji threatened to involvehiminafalsecase.

On 20 February 1998, when he was going on the Bahadurgarhth

Road, he was taken by some persons in a Gypsy vehicle to someoffi ce where Gupta ji, ACP Ravi Shankar, Inspector RajenderBhatia, Inspector Rakesh Dixit, and Inspector Subhash Tandonwere present. He was tortured by the police o ffi cials there and theyobtained his signature on blank papers and misused the same by

converting those papers into his false disclosure statements andhad implicated him in various cases. The o ffi cials at CIA Sta ff Rohtak had also forcibly obtained his signatures on several blankpapers.

1. State Versus Md.AmirKhan

FIR No.: 790/1996

PoliceStation: City,Sonepat.Under Sections: 307, 120B IPC; Sections 3 & 5 of ExplosiveSubstancesActSessionsCaseNo.:51of1998/2004Dateof Judgement:16 March 2006th

Judge:A. K. Bimal,Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat

On the said date (28 December 1996), there were two blasts inthSonepat. The rst at Baba Cinema, and another at Gulshan SweetCorner, Sonepat Market.

It was not any investigation that led the police to Amir. It was adisclosure made in F IR No. 49/98 dated 27 February 1998th

pending in Inter-state Crime Cell, Delhi Police, that connectedAmir to these two blasts. This was the pa ern in all the cases. Whatwas also uniform in all cases was that none of the prosecutionwitnesses (not belonging to the police, i.e. Public Witness, PW)a estedtohavingseenAmirplantingthebomb.


38/202


35

PublicWitnesses[PW]didnotSupporttheProsecutionStory:

Jyoti Batra (PW3) who su ff ered injury in the blast frankly admi ed

that she does not know as to who triggered the blast. It could becracker blasts also. Gulshan Kumar (PW7) was declared hostilewhen he denied his initial statement. He deposed in the Court thathe had not seen Amir Khan being brought by police and pinpointing the place where he had allegedly planted the bomb.Similarly, Prem Singh (PW9) was also declared hostile when hedenied that he had seen Amir Khan pinpointing to the cinema hall

in hispresence.Chandra Bhan (PW17) did not support the prosecution version inany manner, and infactdeniedhis previousstatement.

SI Ramjit Singh (PW19) had submi ed that accused Amir Khanidenti ed the persons from whom he got the container grilled andalso veri ed the shop from which 25 cylinders of had beendegchun bought, but in the cross-examination he admi ed that he did not join the investigationat all.

Similarly, Inspector Rajender Bhatia, I O (Investigating O ffi cer)Delhi, submi ed that the accused made a disclosure statement inhis presence. But in the cross examination, headmi edthatthecasepropertyhad not beenproducedinthe court onthatday.

The Court also noted that a co-accused in the same case, Md. Alam

(whom Amir never met and whose trial was conductedindependently), was acqui ed on 5 September 2002 by theth

Additional Sessions judge,Sonepat, RK Bishnoi.

The Judge had observed: Simply the disclosure statement of theaccused isofno use to the prosecutionbut the same ishitbySection27 of the Indian EvidenceAct. The prosecution has not been able toproveitscase.


39/202

36



FIR No.:70PoliceStation: City,RohtakUnderSections:4,5and7ofExplosivesAct;307IPCSessionsCaseNo.:25of2006/2009Dateof Judgement:14 March 2011th

Judge: Ms. Meenkashi Mehta,Additional Sessions Judge,Rohtak

On 22 January 1997, there was a blast at the new vegetable marketnd

inRohtakat5.45pm.

Further investigations were carried out and during theinvestigation, it was established that the accused named above, .i.e.Md.AmirKhanhadcommi edano ff ence. Thirty six (36)witnesseswere examined by the prosecution, mainly policemen, injured anddoctors.

While many prosecution witnesses testi ed to having su ff eredinjuries in the blast, none of them deposed that they had seen theaccused planting the bomb that caused those injuries. Even thecomplainant, whose statement formed the basis of the FIR,categorically stated that an unknown and unidenti ed person hadhidden the explosives in the heap of vegetables causing the blast.Again, the medical evidence provided by the various doctors wasfound to be merely corroborative in nature and did not in any wayestablishtheguiltoftheaccused.

The depositions of most of the policemen were of technical andformal nature, dealing with collection of soil, iron scarps from thesiteetc,and not connected with the accused.

The crucial testimonies wereof Inspector Subhash Tandon (PW 12),and Inspector Rajender Bhatia (PW30), both of Delhi Police, whodeposed about the accused's disclosure statement and the recoveryof the articles at his instance from Pilkhua The Court felt it. pertinent to mention...that the only independent witness asallegedly joined during the aforesaid proceedings in the above said


40/202


37

case, i.e., PW Chander Bhan wasdeclaredhostilewhenherefusedto go along with the prosecution story. Moreover, the allegedlyrecovered articles wereneverproduced in theCourt.

Further, the Court held that since no recoveries were e ff ected fromthe accused in this case, the disclosurestatement in this casedid notmean much. The police claim that the accused had himself pointedout and demarcated those areas where the bomb had been plantedcouldnotberelieduponasnowitnessfromthepublicwasjoinedinthe demarcation despite the fact that vegetable market is a

crowded publicplace.


FIR No.:71PoliceStation: City,RohtakUnder Sections: 4,5,7 ofExplosive SubstancesAct;307 IPCSessionsCaseNo.:18/2010Dateof Judgement:9 January 2012th

Judge: Kamal Kant,Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak

On 22 January 1997, around 6.00 pm, Ram Awadh's rickshaw wasnd

hired by a person from Durga Bhawan Mandir up to the Railwaystation. The customer asked Ram Awadh to go via the Quila Roadas he had to purchase some material from there. He got o ff therickshaw leaving his bag on the pretext of buying something atQuila Road.About veminuteslater,therewasanexplosion.

In the course of the investigation, it cameto the noticeof the IO thatthe accused was arrested in FI R 49/98 dated 27 February 1998 inth

Police Station Railway Main, Delhi, and accordingly the transitremand was taken on 24 April 1998 and Md. Amir was producedth

before the court in Rohtak on 25 April 1998 and arrested theth

subsequent day in this case. After that however, the police failed toproduce him in the court on repeated dates, which led to the Courtdeclaring him a 'proclaimed o ff ender' despite Amir being in thecustody of the police!!Amir was next produced incourt almost two


41/202

38


years later on25 March 2010and faced trial since then.th

The Court held a view similar to the Additional Sessions Judge,

who acqui ed Amir in the rst case against him in Rohtak. Lack ofany credible evidence to link him to the crime led to Amir beingacqui ed. It might be mentioned that the Court noted that thecomplainant, the rickshaw puller, Ram Awadh was declareduntraceable and never examined; similarly, several other keymaterial witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, evenwhen they had the opportunity. Indeed, the Court pointed out that

only two independent/ injured witnesses have been examined bythe prosecution. The Court, hence concluded that the prosecutionhad miserably failed to prove itscase

4. StateVersusMd.AmirKhan&Md.Shakil

FIR No.: 117/97PoliceStation: Roop Nagar,Delhi.UnderSections:307/435IPC;Section3ofExplosiveSubstancesActSessionsCaseNo.:111/98Dateof Judgement:30 March 2001th

Judge: M.S. Sabherwal,Additional Sessions Judge,Delhi

On25 February 1997atabout 7.00pm,anexplosion tookplace inath

Blue Line bus (No. DL 1P-3425) near the bus stop ofAmba cinema,Delhi. SI Dagar of Roop Nagar P.S. took the statement of the driverof the bus, Kishore Raj. The statement was simply that the busstarted from ISBT at 6.30 pm and reached Amba Cinema at 7.00pm, when there was an explosion injuringMd. Harun and HoshyarSingh. The investigation was taken over by Inspector Hari RamMalik. On 10 March 1998, Inspector Hari Ram received a messageth

that the accused persons Md. Amir Khan and Md. Shakil werearrested in case FI R No. 49/98 dated 27 February 1998, Policeth

Station Railway Main, Delhi, where they made the disclosureregarding their involvement in this case. Subsequently, achargesheet was led against the two. While Md. Shakil was


42/202


39

discharged vide order date 17 April 1999, Md. Amir Khan wasth

charged under sections 307 and 435 IPC and Section 3 of ExplosiveSubstancesAct.

In this case thirty two (32) witnesses were examined by theprosecution in its support. Neither the driver, nor any of the otherpassengers, deposing for the prosecution, testi ed to seeing thepersonwhohadplantedthebombonthebus.Theonlypersonwhotesti ed in favour of the prosecution story was Md. Harun, one ofthe injured. He deposed that he has seen the accused in the bus

carrying a (bag) in which the box containing bomb was kept.thailaThe accused had left the bag behindand minutes later an explosionoccurred. He also deposed that he went to the police station toidentify the accused as the personwho had planted the bomb in the bus.

However, Md. Harun's testimony collapsed in the course of thecross examination. First, he admi ed that he had not seen the dibba

(box) in the bag but only guessed that the bag contained a . Hedibbacould not remember the colour or the material of the bag. He alsoadmi edthattheboycarryingthebagleftwithhisbag andinfactdid not leave the bag behind. But most important of all, he wasinterrogated and shown the accused in the police station only oneand a half years after the incident, as he had left for his villageimmediatelyaftertheblast,returningonlyayearandahalflater.

The court noted: The very fact that his statement was recordedafter such a long period and he has given the description of theaccused only after seeing him in the police station, creates doubt,whether he has seen the accused Amir Khan placing the in thethela bus.


SessionsCaseNo.:116/98FIR No.: 137/97PoliceStation: Subzi Mandi,Delhi.Under Sections: 307/435 IP C ; Section 3 of the Explosive


43/202

40


SubstancesAct.Dateof Judgement:15 December2000th


According to the prosecution, on 25 February 1997, at about 7.15th

pm, the accused planted a bomb at Shop No. T-85, MurliwalaKunwa, Ghantaghar, Delhi.Thebomb exploded causing injuries toseveral people. The initial investigation was done by SI IshwarSingh of the Subzi Mandi police station and subsequently takenover by Inspector Hari Ram Malik, of the Special Cell, NorthDistrict.MalikarrestedAmirKhaninthiscaseon17 April1998.th

As in the other case of the same date, Md. Shakil was dischargedandtrial was institutedagainstAmir.

In support of its contention, the prosecution examined thirty eight(38) witnesses, includingthose whohadsustained injuries.

Acqui

ing Md. Amir, the court remarked:A perusal of thetestimonies of these witnesses reveals that none of them have

supported the prosecution version and they have even notidenti ed the accused and there is absolutely no evidence whichcould prove the involvement of the accused Amir Khan in thecommissionoftheo ff ences against him.


FIR No.: 249/97PoliceStation: Sadar Bazar,DelhiUnder Sections: 3 ofExplosive SubstancesAct;435/307 IPCSessionsCaseNo.:95/98Dateof Judgement:15 February2001th

Judge: M.S. Sabherwal,Additional Sessions Judge,DelhiAn explosion took place outside Shop No. 6049, Gali Matke Wali,Chawri Bazar, Delhi, at about 1.20 pm. SI B.D Joshi of P.S. SadarBazar proceeded to the spot and recorded the statement of one


44/202


41

Ranjit Singh who worked in Shop No. 6050 selling rice. Herajmastated that at about 1.20 pm, a bag lying on the bench near the shopexploded causing injuries to his customers. During the course ofthe investigation, Md. Amir and Md. Shakil were arrested. Shakeelwas discharged while the trial commenced against Amir. Insupport of its contention, the prosecution examined forty (40)witnesses includingthecomplainant andtheinjured persons.

The Court notedthat the statementof the accused 313 CrPC hadu/snot been recorded as there was no incriminating evidence against

him. Moreover,the evidence on record reveals that there isabsolutely no incriminating evidence against the accused and

even the complainant and the injured persons have not statedanything against him. None of these persons have identi ed theaccused. There is absolutely no evidence to show that he bombwhich explodedon 20/6/97 in Gali Matke Wali was planted by theaccusedAmir Khan.

7. ,State Versus Md.AmirKhan &Anr

FIR No.: 262/97PoliceStation: Chandni Chowk,DelhiUnderSections:3ofExplosiveSubstancesAct;120BIPCSessions Case No.: 11/98Dateof Judgement:18 January 2001th


On 20 June 1997, at about 2.30 pm, an explosion took place in frontth

of Shop No. 5648, Nai Sarak, Delhi. A case was registered on the basis of the statement of the owner of the shop, the police registereda case in the Chandni Chowk P.S. Investigation of this case wassubsequently shifted to Crime Branch, North district and the

accused werearrested.

In support of its contention, twenty four (24) witnesses wereexaminedby theprosecution.


45/202

42


The Court noted that the statement of the accused persons have not been recorded as there is absolutely no incriminating evidenceagainst them. Further, A perusal of the statements of thewitnesses examined by the prosecution shows that they have notstated anything against accused persons, which could connectthem with the commission of the o ff ences alleged against them. Allthe public witnesses have not supported the version of theprosecution and none of them have identi ed any of the accusedpersons.

Importantly, the public witness, Chander Bhan deposed that hehad not seen the accused persons earlier. During the crossexamination, he steadfastly denied the suggestion that theaccused had led the police party to his shop at Pilkhua and pointedout the house ofAbdul Sa ar Teli. The witness stated that he hadnot seen the accused on the night intervening 27 and 28 Februaryth th

1998 and stated that he had seen the accused persons only duringthe trial in the court. He also stated that he had never accompaniedthepolicepartyatPilkhua.


FIR No.: 191/97PoliceStation: LahoriGate,Delhi.UnderSections:435/436IPC

Sessions Case No.: 100/98Dateof Judgement:30 November 2000th

Judge: Additional Sessions Judge, Shri M.S. Sabherwal,Delhi

On 20 June 1997, at about 2.20 pm, Abid Hussain, owner of Shopth

No. 468, Ballimaran, where he sold lo ery tickets, saw sparks andsmoke emanating from a small box placed in his show case. He

threw the (box) on the oor. The IO of the case founddibbaexplosives in the . The prosecution's case is that the accuseddibba(Md. Amir) arrested in another case disclosed his guilt in this case.This led tohis arrestand interrogation in thiscaseaswell.


46/202


43

Twenty ve witnesses were examined in all. None of the publicwitnesses have supported the prosecution version and the accusedwas not identi ed by any one of them .There is absolutely noevidence on the record to show that the accused Amir Khan hadplaced any explosive substance in the showcase of Md. AbidHussain.


FIR No.: 751/97

PoliceStation: Kotwali,DelhiUnderSections:307/435IPC;Section3ofExplosiveSubstancesActSessions Case No.: 108/98Dateof Judgement:10 May2001th


On 14 July 1997 at about 8.15 pm, an explosion took place in ath

public transport bus (No. DL-1P-3093) at Red Fort bus stand,injuring several passengers. In a repeat of other cases, Md. Amirwas implicated in this on the basis of his disclosure statement andagain, none of the public witnesses those who were travelling onthe ill-fated bus that day identi ed Amir as having travelled onthe bus. All of them deposed that they were seeing him for the rsttime in the court. The remaining witnesses were police o ffi cials and

their depositions were of a formal nature, not pointing anythingincriminatingagainst theaccused.


FIR No.: 752/97PoliceStation: Kotwali,Delhi.UnderSections:307/435IPC;Section3ofExplosiveSubstancesActSessions Case No.: 109/98Dateof Judgement:27 April 2001th



47/202

44


At about 8.30 pm, S I Vijay Singh Chandel of P.S. Kotwali receivedinformation that a bomb had exploded minutes ago on a bus (No.DL 1P-7655) on Route No. 839, while crossing Kauriya Bridge. Theinvestigation of the case was transferred to Inspector KrishanKumar, who subsequently arrested the accused on 23 Septemberrd

1998, who followinghis disclosure statement pointed out the shopsfrom where he had allegedly purchased magnesium powder andotherchemicalsetc.

The prosecution examined twenty (23) witnesses in all. Statement

of the accused was recorded under section 313 wherein he deniedthathewasguiltyand statedthathewasbeing framed.

Noneofthepublicwitnessestesti ed to recognizing theaccused.


FIR No.: 379/97

PoliceStation: Sadar Bazar,DelhiUnder Sections: 307/435 IPC; Sections 3/4 of Explosive SubstancesActSessions Case No.: 128/98Dateof Judgement:26 April 2001th


On the said date, between 5.00 and 5.15 pm, there was a suddenexplosion near Pahari Dheeraj. Almost simultaneously, anotherexplosion went o ff in a truck (No. DHL 4700) at Qutub Road. Thetruck was carrying a tableau for the Maharaja Urgasen Jayantiprocession. SI, R.K Rathi,AdditionalSHO of P.S.Sadar Bazar tookover the investigation initially, which was subsequently handedover to the Special Cell Operation branch, Ashok Vihar andinvestigated by Inspector A.Q. Khan. Khan arrested the accusedand the trial started. During the course of the trial, forty three (43)witnesseswere examinedby theprosecution.

Statement of accused under section 313 CrP C denied allallegationsagainsthimandallegedthathewasbeingframed.


48/202


45

None of the public witnesses identi ed Amir. SI, S. K Rathi, saidthat when he reached Bara Tuti road upon receiving informationabout the rst blast, he saw from a distance a tableau on a truck.Prasad was being distributed and he saw a boy aged 23/24 yearshanding over a black polythene to the artists on board the tableau.The blast occurred a few minutes later. He deposed that theaccused Amir Khan resembled that boy. On being cross examinedhowever, he conceded that there was a huge crowd that day and itwas not possible for him to clearly identify the boy. By his ownadmission, he did not try to apprehend the person. His testimonywasnotcorroboratedbyanyotherpublicwitness.

The Court noted that the testimony of this witness did not inspirecon denceandthusdisregardeditandacqui edAmir.


FIR No.: 260/97

PoliceStation:GRP,DistrictGhaziabadUnder Sections: 302, 307, 120B, 121, 121A, 122 IPC; Section 3 ofExplosive SubstancesAct; Section 150of theRailwayActSessions Case No.: 357/2007Dateof Judgement:18 October 2011th

Judge: Sanjeev Yadav, Upar Zila and Sessions Judge, Court

Number7, GhaziabadOnthe said date there was an explosion onFrontier Mail (TrainNo.2903) in the coach S-6 a li le after it left the Sahibabad railwaystation. When the train stopped at Ghaziabad railway station, therewere two moreblasts, one at 8.50 pmand the next at 9.12pm. Manypassengers sustained injuries and two succumbed to their injurieson the next day. On 15 October 1997, the investigation wasth

transferred to CBCID. The CBCID framed charges against Md.Amir, Shakil and one Abdul Karim alias Tunda, who was declaredan absconder. Accused Shakil died an unnatural death during thecourseofthetrial.


49/202

46


The prosecution examined twenty nine (29) witnesses in its favour.Amir reiterated that he was being framed after his visit to his sisterinKarachi, Pakistan.

Publicwitnessdidnotsupporttheprosecution:

SanjayArora(PW14),apassengerdescribedthesequenceofeventsof the day of the blasts and said that he had not seen anyoneplantingthebombashewasasleep,andthathehasnevergivenanystatement to the police claiming to have identi ed Amir or anyoneelse.Likewise,otherpassengers toodidnot identifyAmir.

Public witness Mahmood Alam (PW9), who was presented in thecourt as a relative of Tunda, denied that he was related to Tunda, oreven that he knew him. He denied the prosecution's suggestionthat he had been forced into by Tunda or Shakil, or that he had Jihadever assisted Md. Shakil in making bombs, or even that he hadgivenany statements about these in the presence of a magistrate. Infact, hesaid that he hadbeen made to sign onblank sheets of paper.Hewas declaredhostile.

Similarly,publicwitnessMahendraKumar(PW4),whoranapaintshop denied the prosecution suggestion that Shakil and Amir hadpurchased potassium chloride from his shop, or that the police hadcome to his shop with Shakil or Amir on 28nd February 1998, whohad identi ed the shop for the police. Some Delhi police o ffi cial,whose name he could not recollect, had come alone and got him tosignapaper.

Abdul Sa ar (PW6) also refuted the suggestion that he knew Amiror that the police had brought Shakil or Amir when it supposedlyraided the factory at Pilkhua. No recoveries were made in hispresence.

This clearly contradicted the prosecution claim that the policeparty had taken Shakil and Amir with them to Pilkhua to identifythe factory and shops, and that independent witnesses had been joined in the operation.


50/202


47

Loopholes in theProsecution's Case:

The police witnesses (of the Delhi police) conceded in the court that

they had failed to present the hand grenade and other materialsseized from the accused or the factory in the court; they concededalso that they did not a ach any public witness at the time ofarresting Shakil and Amir, allegedly from the Sadar Bazar RailwayStation; they conceded too that the public witness Chandra Bhanhad turned hostile. He had explicitly deposed that he was notpresent whenthe policeclaimed to have made the recoveries.

The Court noted that except for the disclosure made by the accusedin the presence of the police, the prosecution had no proof againstthe accused. And as such, his disclosure was hit by Sections 25 and26 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and could not be used againsthim.

The Court held that the prosecution was only able to establish that bombs had exploded on the Frontier mail on 1 October 1997, butst

could not in any wayestablish any linkbetween the explosions andAmir.


FIR No.: 951/97PoliceStation: Kotwali,Delhi.

UnderSections:307IPC;Section3ofExplosiveSubstancesActSessions Case No.: 115/98Dateof Judgement:23 March 2001rd


On 10 October 1997, a bomb exploded at Chhata Rail Chowk,th

Railway Colony, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotwali at about

8.00 pm. The investigation was transferred to District Crime Cell,North District and Inspector Hira Lal took over the investigation.He arrested Md. Shakil and Md. Amir and recorded theirconfessional statement. The case was then transferred to InspectorSubhash Tandon. The evidence on record revealed that none of the


51/202

48


witnesses could identify Amir. PW 1, whose statement had beenthe basis of lodging the FIR, refuted the suggestion that he hadprovidedany description of a boy who had planted the bombto thepolice.


FIR No.: 752/97PoliceStation: Darya Ganj,DelhiUnder Sections: 307/120B/34 IPC; Sections 3 & 4(B) of Explosive

SubstancesActSessions Case No.: 137/98Dateof Judgement:27 July2001th


On 10 October 1997, at about 7.50 pm, a bomb exploded in a busth

(No. DEP-5643, Route No. 302) plying between ISBT andKhureji Khas while it was passing near Shakti Sthal on the RingRoad. The investigation was entrusted to Inspector Sardool Singhand in April 1998, md. Shakil and Md. Amir were arrested in thecase.

The prosecution examined thirty three (33) witnesses and theweight of the case rested mainly on the testimonies of PWs1, 2 and3, driver and passengers of the bus. All of them categoricallycontradicted the prosecution version in their insistence that theydid not see anyone planting a bomb in the bus. The shopkeeperswho the prosecution alleged had sold the material for bombs toAmir denied this; Chandra Bhan (PW14) denied having been joined in any raid or having witnessed any recoveries fromPilkhua. Most importantly, public witness Abdul Wahid (PW21),who the policesaid had beenforcedbyAmir to assist in making the

bomb, deposed that he was called to the police station where hewasmadetosignsomedocuments.

Finding no evidence against the accused, the court acqui ed Md.Amir.


52/202


49


FIR No.: 405/97PoliceStation: MukherjeeNagar,Delhi.Under Sections: 302/307/34 IPC; Sections 3 & 4 (B) of ExplosiveSubstancesActSessions Case No.: 113/98Dateof Judgement:26 July2001th


On 10 October 1997, at about 7.35 pm, a bomb exploded in a busth

(Number DL 1P-91n4, Route No. 192) plying between ISBT andSantNagar whenit reached KingswayCampChowk,BurariRoad.

Again, none of the witnesses deposed that they had identi ed the bomber, nor could they recognizeAmir.

16. StateVersusMd.AmirKhan&Md.ShakilSessions Case No.: 120/98FIR No.: 746/97PoliceStation: SaraswatiVihar,DelhiUnderSections:302/307IPC;Section3ofExplosiveSubstancesActDateof Judgement:17 August 2001th


On the said date, at about 7.40 pm, an explosion took place in RaniBagh, which left many injured. The IO initially was InspectorMahender Singh, and then subsequently Inspector Sumer Singh. Itwas he la er who arrested Md. Shakil and Md. Amir in the case. Asmany as fty eight (58) witnesses were examined in the court butagain,noneofthemcouldlinktheblasttoAmir.


53/202

50


17. State VersusAmir Khan

FIR No.: 631/1997PoliceStation: Karol Bagh,DelhiUnder Sections: 302/307/436 IPC; Section 3 of the ExplosiveSubstancesActSessions Case No.: 104/98Dateof Judgement:4 August 2006th

Judge: Shri R.S. Sodhi & Shri P. K. Bhasin, JJ , High Court of Delhi,

DelhiThere was a blast at the popular eating joint, Roshan di Kul atabout 7.00 in the evening on 26 October 1997. Initial recording ofth

statement and registering of FIR was donebySI SandeepGupta ofKarol Bagh P.S., and was subsequently shifted to Crime Branch.WhenMd.Amir Khanwas arrestedon 27 February998 inFIR No.th

49/98 and interrogated, he disclosed his involvement in the bomb blast. The trial court convicted Amir, relying largely on thetestimony of two witnesses who claimed to have seen Amir eatinggolgappas in the shop seated on the bench under which the bombexploded. They said that the bomb exploded minutes after Amirlefttheshop.

The conviction was pronounced on 23 April 2003. Amir appealedrd

againsthisconvictionintheHighCourt.

The HighCourt while assessing the evidencesaid that there was nomaterial to connect Md. Amir with the explosion. Even thetestimony of the two witnesses cited above was taken to thehighest, it only proves that Amir was present in the shop, not thathe had planted the bomb. Suspicion, however strong it may be,doesnottakeplaceofevidence .

Amir's refusal to join the Test Identi cation Parade (TIP) shouldnot have been inferred against him, the Court advised. Amir was justi edinnot joining the TIP as his photographs had already beenpublished in the newspapers. The High Court analyzing thetestimonies of the fty six (56) witnesseses, drew the conclusion


54/202


51

that the prosecution has miserable failed to adduce any evidenceto connect the accused-appellant with the charges framed muchless provethem.

Thus the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction andpronounced Md.Amir's acqui al.

Questions:

Given the obvious sparseness of evidence against Amir, shouldithavetaken14yearsforhimtoemergefromprisons?

Given also that the disclosures were extracted under duress,should not an enquiry be mooted against the erring o ffi cers forlying incourt and forfabricating evidence?

Should not a sincere e ff ort be made to trace Gupta ji whoimplicatedAmirinfalsecasesbecausehefailedtospyforhim?

Out of the seventeen (17) cases discussed above, Md. Amir Khan

was acqui ed in twelve (12) cases, i.e. in almost 70 per cent of them between 30 November 2000 and 17 August 2001; in a span of justth th

abouteightmonths.Therestofthe ves cases took inordinate delayand his acqui al in these cases came between 16 March 2006 andth

9 January 2012; over a period of more than six years. Surely itth

seems to tell a fair deal about the illsplaguingpolicingand criminal justice system and the dire need to take prompt correctivemeasures.


55/202


56/202

Case 4State Versus KhongbantbumBrojenSinghFIR No.:93/02PoliceStation: Kotla Mubarakpur,NewDelhiUnder Sections: 121/ 121-A/212/201/120-B IPC; 3/5/20/21/22 ofPOTA12PP Act 10/13 UA (P)Act;25ArmsActDateofJudgement:12 May 2009

Judge: J. R.Aryan,Additional Sessions Judge,New Delhi

53


57/202

54


The Prosecution's Story:

Ist week of March 2002:

ACP Rajbir Singh had information from a central intelligenceagency that a terrorist belonging to the terrorist organizationPeoples' LiberationArmy(PL A) of Manipur, namely, BrojenSingh@ Sony, was hiding in Kotla Mubarkpur with his accomplice,Ibotombi Sapan.This information was developedfurther. Areportfrom Superintendent of Police, CID Imphal was received thatBrojenwasaknownterroristofPLA/RPF.

15 March 2002:th

The ACP had con rmed information that Brojen had acquiredarms and ammunition for carrying out subversive activities ofPLA, and thatbothhe and his accomplice could be found inhousenumber T 821, Arjun Nagar, Kotla on that day. A team was thusformed to apprehend him.The teamreached the house but found it

locked. The landlord of the premises, Madan Mohan rented byBrojenandSapam was included in theoperation.

9.00 pm:

The two returned at 9 pm and upon being identi ed by thelandlord, Madan Mohan, were apprehended. A search revealed aloaded .38 colt revolver tucked in the left waist belt of Brojen'strousers. On the barrel of the gun was engraved, Colt offi cialpolice 38-200 . A search of the house resulted in the recovery of incriminating articles such as a CP U, a laptop, and Rs 30,000 incash.

The investigation was then handed over to ACP M. D. Mehta onthe direction of DCP Special Cell, who also arrived on the spot. On21 April2002,ACP L.N.Raotookovertheinvestigation.st

Both Brojen and Sapan were charged under POTA.

The Special Cell Team:

ACP Rajbir Singh, Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, SI HridayBhushan, SI Badrish Du , SI Sharad Kohli, SI Mehtab Singh


58/202


55

POTA review commi ee:

In May 2005 the P OTA Review Commi ee chaired by Justice,

Usha Mehra held that there was no case against Ibotombi prima facieSapan to prove that he was harbouring a terrorist, the o ff ence hewas charged with under section 3(4) of POTA. Sapan, a graduateof Journalism and Mass Communication from the Indira GandhiNational Open University (IGNOU), was the president of theManipur StudentsAssociationbetween1997 and1999.

The government appealed against the POTA Review Commi ee's

decision to discharge Sapan but the POTA Court at Patiala Houserejected theplea.

The Case against K. Brojen Singh:

The CPU and Laptop:

The CPU and Laptop recovered in the alleged raid were examinedat the Computer Forensic Division Bureau of Police Research and

Development, Hyderabad. This revealed that Brojen was involvedin the activities of the PLA, and that he held the post of ChiefExternalA ff airsDept,RPF.

A le er retrieved from the computer read as follows: weunderground families have the stigma of being sel sh and workonly for their family but the fact is that we were ghting to setourselves andmotherland free.

Confession:

The accused expressed their desire to record their confessionalstatement, which was recorded by DCP Ujjwal Mishra on 23 rd

April 2002. The prosecution claimed that the confession statementwas recorded by the DCP by observing and complying with theprocedural safeguards enshrined in Section 32 of POTA. The

confessionmadeit evident thatBrojenwasa PLA insurgent.

Previous Record:

Further investigation revealed that Brojen had been involved incriminal cases in the state of Manipur and the FIR of those cases


59/202

56


was producedbefore thecourt.

a) FIR no. 78/93 (dt.

18.09.93, TADA, ArmsAct, District Imphal)

b) FIR no. 667/94 U/S 121/121-a, UAPA andTADA

How the Case Fell Apart:

Confession:In his defence, Brojen saidthat he had studied up to 10 th

class in Manipuri mediumand was not conversant withHindi,English or computers.

Further, his counsel arguedt h a t t h e s t a t em e nt w asrecorded when Brojen wasalready in custody for tendays so the accused could not

be considered free of policein uence and the confessioncould not be taken to be avoluntaryone.

The disclosure statement recorded at the time of Brojen'ssupposed arrest on 15 March 2002 by AC P Mehta and theth

confession recorded by DCP Ujjwal Mishra under Sec 32 ofPOTA were identical. The Court noted, the entire statement isword by word including coma and full stop is exactly thesame.... It appears humanly impossible conduct both for theperson making such a confession or the person recording it thatentire confessional statement would be exactly the same word

by word. The Court accepted the Defence argument that DCPMishra did not record the statement afresh but merely directed

The disclosure statement recorded at the time of

Brojen's supposed arrest on 15th March 2002 by ACP Mehta and theconfession recorded byDCP Ujjwal Mishraunder Sec 32 of POTAwere identical. The Court noted, the entirestatement is word byword including coma and full stop is exactly thesame. . . . It appearshumanly impossible

conduct both for the person making such aconfession or the personrecording it that entireconfessional statement would be exactly the sameword by word.


60/202


57

his PA to re-record the disclosure statement. It concluded thatthe testimony of DCP that he observed the safeguardsprovided in the provision leaves everything to speculation [and] entire confession purported to have been recorded by him

becomes doubtful.

The Seized Computer:

The Court noted several problems in considering the material fromthe computeras evidenceofBrojen'sguilt.

a) A one-month delay in sending the seized laptop andcomputer to the Forensic Laboratory. During theintervening period, the seized items and the seal remainedwiththepolice,thustamperingcouldnotberuledout.

b) The articles received at the Forensic Science Bureau ofPolice Research and Development, Hyderabad, does notmentionthemake/modelofthecomputer.

c) The material cited by the police as indicative of Brojen'sterrorist a ffi liations was not found to be incriminating. Thecourt asked how the following could be construed so as torefer to a terrorist organisation: to suppress oursentiments, the centre have even stopped paying salariesfor 4-5 months to Government employees. Even undersuchpathetic situation why peopleare stillasleep.

d) Most disturbingly, a le in the computer showed thetiming as 6 October 2002; 04:58:17 pm a time severalth

months after the computer had been seized! Several lesannexed as incriminating evidence could be found dated6 October 2002.th

e) The le er retrieved from the computer, addressed to the

Chief External Aff

airs Department (RPF), does notmention any terrorist act. Further, there was no evidence,the Court ruled, that RPF was in fact the PLA, a bannedorganisation.


61/202

58


The FI Rs from Manipur:

The rst F IR relating to an incident dated 19 September 1993th

when a police party was a

acked in which ten police offi

cials died,doesnotnametheaccused.

In the second FIR (dated 5 May 1994), though the accused isth