Sie sind auf Seite 1von 489

1

IN THE COURT OF SH S P GARG, DJ­IV/ASJ NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

(1)

Sessions Case No. 47/09

 

State

Vs

1

Farooq Ahmed Khan @ Anwar Sadat

 

S/o Gulam Kadir

R/o Janglat Mandi, Distt. Anant Nag

(J&K)

A­1

 

2

Mrs Farida Dar @ Bahanji

 

W/o Mohd. Maqbool Dar

R/o House No. 1 Dilsauz Colony

Natipora, Distt. Badgaon

(J&K)

A­2

 

3

Mohd. Naushad

 

S/o Abdul Rashid

R/o P­7, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate

Delhi

A­3

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

1 of

408

2

4

Mirza Iftqar Hussain @ Saba

S/o Late Mirza Ali Mohd

R/o Numchabal near G M College

Sri Nagar,(J&K)

A­4

 

5

Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza

 

S/o Late Mirza Ali Mohd

R/o Khankai Mohalla

Numchabad near G M College

Sri Nagar (J&K)

A­5

6

Mohd.Ali Bhatt @ Killey

S/o Hazi Sher Ali

R/o Husanabad, Rainabari

Sri Nagar (J&K)

A­6

7

Latif Ahmed Waza

S/o Gulam Mohd Waza

R/o Mohalla Samauwari

near Gandhi Memorial College

State

Vs

Sri Nagar (J&K)

Farooq Ahmed Khan

2 of

A­7

408

3

8 Syed Maqbool Shah

S/o Syed Mohd. Shah

R/o Jan Mohalla

Lal Bazar near Igat Mission School

 

Sri Nagar ( J & K )

A­8

9 Javed Ahmed Khan @ Javed Junior @

 

Chhota Javed

S/o Mohd. Shafi

R/o Nowpora, PS: Khanyar

Sri Nagar ( J & K)

A­9

10

Abdul Gani @ Assadullah @ Nikka

S/o Bahauddin Gani

R/o Mohalla Passi, Badaiwah

Distt. Doda (J&K)

A­10

11 Bilal Ahmed Beg

S/o Mohd. Yusuf Beg

R/o Mohalla Begum Ali

State

Vs

Aloocha Bagh

Farooq Ahmed Khan

3 of

408

4

Sri Nagar (J&K)

12 Juber @ Mehrazuddin

R/o Purana Mohalla

Nalipora, Sri Nagar (J&K)

A­11

(since P.O)

A­12

(Since P.O)

13 Riyaz Ahmed Sheikh @ Riyaz@ Mulla

S/o Mohd. Yusuf Sheikh

R/o SheikhMohalla

Choudhary Bag,Rainabau

Sri Nagar (J&K)

14 Mohd. Ashraf Bhatta

A­13

(since dead)

S/o Gulam Kadir Bhatta

R/o Bahri Kadal, PP Urdu Bazar

State

Vs

PS Maharaj Ganj,

Sri Nagar ( J & K )

Farooq Ahmed Khan

A­14

(since P.O)

4 of

408

5

15 Javed Kariwar @ JavedAhmed Goojri

S/o Gulam Ahmed Goojri

R/o 11/2 Baba Dam Nalamar Road

Kailash Pora

PS Magaraj Ganj

Sri Nagar (J&K)

A­15

(since P.O)

16 Ibrahim Abdul Razak Menan @ Muslaq

@Tiger Menan

S/o Abdul RazakMenan

R/o 22­25and 26Al Hussaini

Cooperative Housing Society,

Dargah Street, Mahim, Mumba

A­16

(since P.O)

17 Daud Hassan Sheikh Kaskar @ Daud

Bhai@ DaudIbrahim

S/o Ibrahim Sheik Kaskar

R/o 33 Pakmadia Street

Hazi Ismail Musafir Khana

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

5 of

408

FIR No. 517/96

6

Dongri, Mumbai

U/s 302/307/12­B 124­A, 212 IPC &

A­17

(since P.O)

U/s 3,4&5 Explosive Substance Act &

U/s 25 Arms Act

PS: Lajpat Nagar

22­8­1996

­ Charge sheet filed in the Court of ld. MM.

21­07­1997

­ Case committed/allocated to Sessions.

17­03­2010

­ Date reserved for judgment.

08­04­2010 ­ Date of announcement of judgment.

(14 years old case)

(2)

Sessions Case No. 41/09

State Vs

1

Mohd. Naushad

 

S/o Abdul Rashid

R/o P­7, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate

Delhi

A­3

 

2

Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

6 of

408

7

S/o Late Mirza Ali Mohd

R/o Khankai Mohalla

Numchabad near G M College

Sri Nagar (J&K)

A­5

3 Mohd.Ali Bhatt @ Killey

S/o Hazi Sher Ali

R/o Husanabad, Rainabari

Sri Nagar (J&K)

A­6

4 Syed Maqbool Shah

S/o Syed Mohd. Shah

R/o Jan Mohalla

Lal Bazar near Igat Mission School

FIR No. 286/96

U/s 379/411 IPC

PS: Nizamuddin

Sri Nagar ( J & K )

22­08­1996

– Challan filed in the Court of ld. MM.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

A­8

7 of

408

8

24­07­1997

­ Allocated to Sessions

17­03­2010

­ Date reserved for judgment.

08­04­2010

­ Date of announcement of judgment.

JUDGEMENT:

(14 years old case)

1 Accused A­1 to A­10 were arrested by the police of PS

Lajpat Nagar/Special Cell in case FIR No.517/96, u/s 302/307/120­

B/124­A/212 IPC,

u/s 3/4/5 Explosive Substance Act and u/s 25

Arms Act.

Accused A­11 to A­17 could not be arrested during

investigation

and

they

were

got

declared

P.Os.

However,

subsequently, after filing of the challan against A­1 to A­10, A­13

was apprehended in this case and supplementary challan was filed

against him.

However, during pendency of trial A­13 expired and

proceedings were ordered to be dropped against him vide order

dated 23/10/1998 as abated.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

8 of

408

9

2 The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details

as projected in case FIR No. 517/96, PS Lajpat Nagar against the

accused persons may be stated thus:

(A) Brief Facts:

3 On 21.5.96 a powerful explosion took place at about

6.30 p.m. at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar.

On receipt of WT

message,

Sh Anand Prakash, Addl. SHO , PS Lajpat Nagar

alongwith staff rushed to the spot and met with horrific sight. Many

shops at Pushpa Market were on fire. Number of persons had died

in the incident. Some were lying in injured condition and were

crying. On reaching at the spot with the assistance of his staff and

the public persons present there, the police removed the injured

persons to different hospitals in different vehicles.

With the

assistant of fire tenders, fire was put off. NSGs' experts, explosive

experts from CFSL were summoned at the spot.

4 Present case was registered on the statement of Sh

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

9 of

408

10

Subhash Chand Katar, a shopkeeper of Pushpa Market who in his

statement to the police informed that at about 6.30 p.m. , he was

checking bill book at the counter of his shop.

All of a sudden,

there was a loud blast in a Maruti car of white colour standing at a

distance of about 10 ft from his shop.

The photo frames and

wooden panelling in his shop fell down due to explosion.

He

immediately came out of the shop and saw 4­5 ladies lying

smeared in blood on the ground. The car in which the blast had

taken place was in flames. Fire had spread to four or five adjacent

cars.

Having fear of another explosion, he immediately came out

of shop and went in the adjoining street .

There he saw 2 or 3

boys in injured condition lying on the ground. The said boys were

struggling to come out of a cloth shop which was on fire.

5 The complainant further informed the police that one

chowkidar / parking man whose name he did not remember used

to remain in the market as 'Chowkidar'.

His name could be

ascertained from shopkeeper Ashok Thakur. The said chowkidar

/

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

10 of 408

11

parking man had not come on duty on that day. He used to sit on

the chair in front of his shop.

The complainant informed that he

was not aware of the registration number of the car in which

explosion had taken place. He did not know as to who had parked

the said car in front of his shop.

6 During

further

investigation,

Crime

team,

photographer,

NSG experts and dog squad were summoned at

the spot. Copy of the FIR was sent

to the senior officers through

special messenger.

IO prepared rough site plan of the place of

occurrence. He got the scene of incident photographed. Car used

in

the

bomb

blast

was

seized

and

necessary

prepared.

Some number plates were also seized

memos

were

at the spot.

Eight Maruti cars which were in burnt condition were seized vide

seizure memos. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana of

PS Lajpat Nagar. On the spot the IO recorded statements of

witnesses u/s 161 CrPC.

7 On

22.5.96, Sections under TADA were

removed

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

11 of

408

and sections

12

302/307 IPC were added as number of injured had

expired in the hospitals.

8 In

the

explosion,

in

all

13

persons

expired;

38

sustained injuries, 8 Maruti cars/vans

got burnt and

14 buildings

suffered extensive damages.

Postmortem on the dead bodies of

deceased were got conducted and MLCs of injured persons were

collected.

Metalic plates recovered from the spot were sent to

CFSL.

9

Further case of the prosecution in the charge sheet is

that inquiries were made regarding the persons who had parked

maruti car used in the blast. On the basis of Engine No. 923255,

Chasis No. 632905 of the maruti car, its registration number was

ascertained as DL­2CF­5854 from the Transport Office.

During

further investigation, it transpired that this car was stolen on the

intervening night of 17/18­5­96 from A­51, Nizamuddin East and

owner of the car, Sh Atul Nath had got registered a complaint at

PS Nizamuddin and

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

a case

vide FIR

No.

286/96 had been

12 of 408

registered there.

13

10

Further case of the prosecution is that on 21.5.96

terrorists

of

Jammu

&

Kashmir

Islamic

Front

(JKIF)

took

responsibility for causing bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar by making

telephone calls to press/media. They also took responsibility for

causing bomb blast on 22.5.96 in a bus at Dausa, Rajasthan by

making telephone calls to press/media.

On tracing of

the

telephone calls, it came to notice that those telephone calls were

made from telephone number 22315 at Anant Nag, Kashmir.

J&K

police was informed to develop the information.

On getting

information from

J&K police,

on 24.5.96 A­1 and A­2 were

arrested by police of PS Sher Garhi in case FIR No. 162/94.

11 Further case of the prosecution is that on getting

required information from J & K police about the apprehension of

A­1and A­2, NBWs were got issued against them from the court.

Insp. Jasbir Singh alongwith his team went to J & K to apprehend

A­1 and A­2.

Both A­1 and A­2

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

were arrested by Insp. Jasbir

13 of 408

Singh and his team

14

at Sri Nagar on 25.5.96.

On 26.5.96,

they

both were produced before Ld. Duty Metropolitan Magistrate at

Patiala House Court, New Delhi. They were interrogated and their

disclosure statements were recorded. A­1 confessed that he had

taken

responsibility

of

Lajpat

Nagar

bomb

blast

by

making

telephone

calls

to

media.

He

claimed

himself

to

be

Chief

Spokesman of JKIF. A­2 also confessed her involvement in the

bomb blast case.

12 On directions of senior officers, further investigation of

the case was transferred to Special Staff/SB­II on 26.5.96.

Insp.

Paras Nath of Operation Cell carried out further investigation in the

case.

13

A­1 and A­2 were interrogated intensively. The record

of telephone no. 22135 for the period from 10.5.96 to 30.5.96 was

collected from the telephone exchange at Anant Nag and it was

found that telephone no. 22135 was installed at the residence of A­

1 at Janglat Mandi, Anant Nag, J&K since March, 1996 and it was

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

14 of 408

having STD facility.

15

On checking normal billing record, it was

found that on

21.5.96 at about 8.39 p.m., various telephone calls

were made to PTI, NDTV, Zee TV etc. from telephone number

22135.

It

was also found that on 21.5.96, A­1 had made 31

telephone calls

to

A­2 on phone

no.

32221

installed at her

residence.

14

On 2.6.96 Insp. Rajinder Prasad and SI Harinder

Singh went to J & K for search of A­11 and A­12. On 2.6.96 ATS,

Ahmedabad, Gujrat informed Delhi police

about apprehension of

A­9 and A­10 alongwith Abdul Rashid Shah @ Jalaluddin, Ayub

Bhatta @ Zulfikar @ Tazamul and also about involvement of A­9

and

A­10 in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case.

Insp. Ram

Chander alongwith his staff reached at Ahmedabad on 3.6.96.

Insp.Rajinder Prasad , who had

reached at Sri Nagar was

informed regarding this message. He was instructed to search A­

15 and his associates.

15 On 3.6.96 Insp. Rajinder Prasad conducted house

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

15 of 408

16

search at the residence of A­9, A­14 and A­15 and recovered

some incriminating documents.

16 On 4.6.96 A­1and A­2 were again interrogated and

their disclosure statements were recorded. Both disclosed to get

recover explosives and ammunitions lying at their residences.

Both A­1 and A­2 led the police team consisting of ACP P.P. Singh

and Insp. Pawan Kumar to J&K. At J&K

assistance of BSF was

taken. On 7.6.96, A­1 got recovered one AK 56 Assault Rifle; two

magazines, 59 rounds, two RDX slabs and some incriminating

documents from his residence. Necessary seizure memos were

prepared.

In pursuance of her disclosure statement, A­2 led the

police team to her residence, i.e. 1, Dilsauz Colony, Natipora, Sri

Nagar and from there, she got recovered one raxine bag lying

underneath the land near “Anaar” tree. On checking the bag, it was

found containing two RDX slabs and 5 timers. Necessary seizure

memos were prepared after sealing the articles in a pullanda.

SI

Harinder Singh brought the pullandas containing explosives by

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

16 of 408

17

road to Delhi and deposited the case property in Malkahan of PS

Lajpat Nagar.

17 On 10.6.96 both A­1 and A­2 were produced at Patiala

House Courts and their JC remand till 24.6.96 was obtained in this

case. On that day officials of Crime Branch, Delhi took both A­1

and A­2 in police custody in connection with case of bomb blast at

Connaught Place.

18 Further case of the prosecution is that on the basis of

information received from Ahmedabad police, inquiries were made

from the residence of Wazid in Turkman Gate area. On 2.6.96

Wazid was joined in the investigation and his statement u/s 161

CrPC was recorded. On the basis of the information given by PW

Wazid, it was found that A­3 involved in this case was residing at

P­7, Turkman Gate, DDA Flats, Delhi

Efforts were made to trace

A­3 at his residence but he could not be traced.

His house was

kept under surveillance.

19 On 14.6.96 on the basis of the information of secret

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

17 of 408

18

informer, A­3 and A­4 were arrested at Platform No. 4, New Delhi

Railway Station when they were boarding Varanashi Express to go

to

Gorakhpur.

They

were

interrogated

and

their

disclosure

statements were recorded. They disclosed that they were going to

Gorakhpur to collect cash from their associates A­5 and A­6 and

who were also involved

in

the bomb blast case.

From the

possession of A­3, one railway ticket of 2 nd class for two persons

was seized. A­3 and A­4 were brought at Operation Cell and were

interrogated.

On

14.6.96

disclosure

statement

of

A­4

was

recorded.

On 15.6.96 disclosure statement of A­3 was recorded

who revealed as to how and under what circumstances the bomb

blast was caused.

20 On 15.6.96 in pursuance of disclosure statement, A­3

led the police team to his residence at P­7, First Floor, DDA Flats,

Turkman Gate, Delhi and from there, he got recovered two RDX

slabs, one timer,one iron solder, one wire cutter, two araoldite

tubes, one gas cylinder, one detonator.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

All these articles were

18 of 408

19

seized vide seizure memos and

alongwith CFSL forms.

deposited in the PS Malkhana

21 On 14.6.96 Insp. Ram Chander collected required

documents pertaining to

A­9 and A­10 in case FIR No. 12/96 u/s

121,121A,122, 123, 120B etc. PS ATS Ahmedabad (Gujrat) .

22

On

16.6.96

Insp.Rajeshwar

arrested

A­7

and

recovered

Re.

two

note

bearing

No.

66M571634

from

his

possession, on the basis of which Rs. 1 lac were to be collected

from Sh Mangal Chand of Shalimar Bagh to be given to A­3 by A­

4.

Some other incriminating document were also recovered from

the possession of A­7. A­6 was also arrested alongwith A­7 by

Insp.Rajinder Prasad from Gorakhpur on 16.6.96.

They were

brought to Delhi and their disclosure statements were recorded.

23 On 16.6.96 Re. two currency note recovered from the

possession of A­7 was handed over to A­4. On 17.6.96,

A­4 led

the police team at the residence of Sh Mangal Chand at BJ­24,

Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and on producing the said currency note of

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

19 of 408

20

Re. two, cash of Rs. 1 lac was obtained from Sh Mangal Chand.

Currency note of Rs. 2/­ and cash of Rs 1lac were recovered and

seized by the police. Necessary memos were prepared.

24 On 7.6.96, investigation of case FIR No. 286/96, PS

Hazrat Nizamuddin was also transferred to Operation Cell and

Insp. Paras Nath carried out the investigation in the said case also.

25 On 17.6.96 A­8 was

arrested in this case and on

search of his house, some documents and clothes pertaining to A­

1 were recovered. One stepney of Maruti car No. DL­2F­5854 was

also recovered at his residence which was seized. A­8 was

arrested in case FIR No. 286/96 also.

26 On 17.6.96 A­5 was arrested from Mussorie and his

disclosure statement was recorded.

27 On 18.6.96 A­3, A­4, A­5 led the police team and got

recovered front and rear number plates of maruti car No. DL2F­

5854. On 19.6.96 they also pointed out the place at “Dulhan

Dupatta” where they had parked the vehicle in question at Central

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

20 of 408

21

Market, Lajpat Nagar. Sh. Sumit Kumar, owner of the said shop

was examined. These accused persons also led the police team to

shop of Mohd. Alam from where they had purchased arldite tubes.

These accused persons also led the police party to the shop of

Mohd. Aslam from where they had purchased drill machine; shop

of Mohd. Nasim from where they have purchased wires.

These

accused persons also led the police team to the place from where

they had got prepared duplicate key of the car.

28 On 18.6.96 SI Baljit Singh collected reservation chart

from railway staff for train No. 4673 UP Shaheed Express dated

27.5.96 in which there was mention of name of A­3. He also

collected record of Gupta hotel at Gorakhpur where on 27.5.96 A­3

had stayed.

29

Further

case

of

the

prosecution

is

that

during

investigation A­3, A­4 and A­5 also led the police team at shop of

Sh Vijay Kapoor from where they had got connected terminals of

battery cell. They also led the police team to shop of Mahmood

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

21 of

408

22

Kamal where A­3 and A­5 had purchased two gas cylinders for Rs.

580/­. They also pointed out shop of Sh Rajesh Kumar from where

they had purchased

9 volt battery cell.

He was examined in this

case. Sh Yogesh Gupta of M/s Imperial Gramophone Co was also

examined. Statements of various witnesses from where these

accused persons had purchased various articles to explode bomb

were examined in this case.

30 On 27.6.96 in pursuance of disclosure statement A­6

got recovered 500 grams explosive substance, two silver colour

pencil type detonators, fuse wire 165cms, one binocular, one

discharge cap from his residence at Sri Nagar which were seized

by Insp. Jamal Singh. Some documents and photographs were

also recovered from his house.

31 On

27.6.96

A­7

also

got

recovered

two

hand

grenades etc and some documents from his residence which were

seized vide seizure memos.

32 A­5 also got recovered one stick hand grenade from

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

22 of 408

23

his residence which was seized by Insp. Jagmal Singh.

33 On 26.7.96 A­9 and A­10 who had been arrested by

Ahmadabad police on 1.6.96 were arrested by police of Jaipur.

From Jaipur, both A­9 and A­10 were brought to Delhi and were

arrested in this case and their disclosure statements were also

recorded.

34

During further investigation, police collected various

documents on different dates. Exhibits were got sent to CFSL and

subsequently CFSL reports were collected.

Specimen signatures

of A­1 and A­3 were obtained and reports from handwriting experts

were

collected

subsequently.

IO

recorded

statements

of

concerned witnesses at different stages of investigation.

It was

concluded that the incident was a result of conspiracy which was

masterminded by A­11 and his associates to cause and carry out

acts of terrorism and disruptive activities in India by use of bombs

explosion etc., so as to scare and create panic by such acts in the

mind of the people and thereby to strike terror in the people.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

23 of 408

24

35 After completion of investigation, charge sheet was

filed against A­1 to A­10 for the aforesaid offences in the court of

ld.

MM

vide

main

challan

and

subsequently

supplementary

challans bearing S.C.No. 52/2000, S.C.No. 55/2000 and S.C.No.

172/2000.

Vide orders dated 18/10/2003 all these connected

cases with case FIR No. 286/96 were clubbed together.

(B) Brief Facts of FIR No. 286/96 :

36

Case vide FIR No. 286/96, u/s 379/411/120­B IPC ,

(sessions

case

No.

41/09

)

was

registered

at

PS

Hazrat

Nizamuddin on 18.5.96 on the complaint of Sh Atul Nath when he

informed the police that maruti car no. DL­2F­5854 of white colour

was stolen from in­front of his house No. A­51, Nizamuddin East,

New Delhi in between 10 p.m., to 6 a.m., on the previous night.

Prior to that DD No. 7A dated 18.5.96 was recorded in this aspect.

During investigation efforts were made to trace the car but the

same could not be traced.

37 Subsequently, on arrest of accused persons in case

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

24 of 408

25

FIR No. 517/96, PS Lajpat Nagar, on the basis of disclosure

statements of the accused persons, it was found that car

stolen

from the area of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin was used in causing bomb

blast at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar on 21.5.96. A­3, A­5, A­6 &

A­8

were

apprehended

in

this

case.

After

completion

of

investigation in

this case, police filed challan against these four

accused persons for commission of the offences punishable u/s

379/411/120B IPC in the court of concerned ld. Metropolitan

Magistrate.

(C)

Committal of both cases:

38

After compliance of the provisions of sections 207

and 208 Cr.P.C, the Ld. M.M

committed the case registered

vide FIR No. 517/96 to the Court of Sessions.

39 Vide order dated 4.6.97, Ld. M.M. Committed the

case registered vide FIR No. 286/96 to the sessions court as it

was connected case with main case vide FIR No. 517/96.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

25 of 408

26

40 Subsequently, both these cases were tried together

and evidence was recorded in the main case vide FIR No.

517/96, PS: Lajpat Nagar.

(D)

Charges:

41

After hearing Ld. Special PP for the State and the Ld.

Defence Counsels for A­1 to A­10, in case FIR No. 517/96,

charge u/s 120­B, 124­A, 120­B r/w Sec. 302 IPC, 120­B r/w

Sec. 307 IPC,

120­B r/w Sec. 436

IPC was ordered to be

framed against A­1 to A­10 vide order dated 20­11­2000.

42 Separate charges u/s 4 r/w Sec. 5 Explosive Substance

Act was ordered to be framed against A­1, A­2 and A­3.

43 Separate charge u/s 212 IPC was ordered to be framed

against A­8.

44 Separate charge u/s 25 Arms Act was ordered to be

framed against A­1

45 All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

26 of 408

27

charges framed against them and claimed trial.

46 In case FIR No. 286/96 PS Hazrat Nizamuddin charge

u/s 379/411 IPC

A­3, A­5 and A­6.

r/w Sec. 34 IPC was ordered framed against

47 Separate charge u/s 411 r/w Sec. 34 IPC was ordered

to be framed against A­3, A­5, A­6 & A­8 for possessing stolen

stepney of Maruti car No. DL­2F­5854.

All these accused

persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them

and claimed trial.

(E)

Prosecution Witnesses:

 

48

To prove both these cases, prosecution examined

102

witnesses.

Subsequently,

during

the

course

of

final

arguments, prosecution moved an application u/s 311 CrPC

which

was

allowed

by

my

Ld.

Predecessor.

Thereafter,

prosecution examined PW 103 SI Paramjit Singh, PW104 SI

Jeevan Singh, PW105 ACP PP Singh, PW106 Subhash Chand

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

27 of 408

28

and PW107 Sanjeev Kumar.

(F)

Statements of Accused Persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C:

49

Statements of the accused persons were recorded

u/s 313 CrPC.

Incriminating material appearing against them

were put to them. Accused persons denied their involvement in

the commission of the offences.

50

Plea of A­1 is that he was working as Junior Engineer

with

State

of

J

&

K.

He

was

residing

at

his

official

accommodation at 22­K , Chhnara Pura, Lal Nagar, Kashmir.

He was not staying with his parents even before his marriage.

He was arrested by J & K Task Force on 23.5.96 without being

produced before any Magistrate.

He was tortured at PS Lodhi

Colony.

Telephone in question was not installed in his name.

The telephone was installed in the name of his father but there

was no STD facility.

51 A­2 in her statement

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

u/s 313 CrPC pleaded her

28 of 408

29

innocence claiming that she is a housewife having

two sons

and one daughter. She has been falsely implicated in this case.

She did not make any disclosure statement and nothing was

recovered at her instance.

52 A­3 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC claimed that he

was arrested 14 days prior to the date shown as the date of his

arrest. He was arrested from his house at Turkman Gate, DDA

Flats,

Delhi

at

odd

hours

at

night.

Even

his

wife

was

manhandled

when

she

protested.

All

the

witnesses

are

interested witnesses and recoveries have been planted.

53 In his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC A­4 pleaded

that he was arrested from his residence at

intervening

night

of

27/28.5.96

and

was

Bhogal in the

kept

in

illegal

confinement of Operation Cell at Lodhi Colony for about 18

days. Nothing was got recovered by him.

54 A­5 pleaded that on 8.6.96 he was picked up by Nepal

Police and brought to PS where he found many Kashmiris

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

29 of 408

30

having been detained. On 9.6.96 he alongwith co­accused

persons was brought to Saonali, Indo­Nepal Boarder and was

handed over to ACP PP Singh. They were produced before the

Ld. ACMM on 17.6.96 at Patiala House Court.

He had not

made any disclosure statement and nothing was recovered at

his instance.

55 A­6 took the plea that he was innocent. He was

working as carpet seller in Kathmandu. On 9.6.96 various

Kashmiris working in Nepal were arrested by Nepal police.

He

alongwith A­5 and A­7 was handed over to Delhi police by Nepal

Police at Sonali Boarder between Nepal and India . He had

never visited Delhi prior to the said date at least for about one

year.

56

A­7

pleaded

he

has been

working

as carpet

salesman in Naya Bazar near Hotel Garden in

Kathmandu

since 1992.

A­9 was the owner of the establishment and he

was his relation. He was doing carpet selling in Kathmandu. On

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

30 of 408

31

7.6.96 he was picked up by Nepal police and was brought to PS

having jurisdiction of Delhi Bazar area. He was not produced

before any Magistrate. On 9.6.96 amongst many Kashmiris who

had been brought to the PS with him, he found A­5 and A­6

there. They were handed over by Nepal Police to ACP PP

Singh. On 17.6.96 they were produced before Metropolitan

Magistrate and during this period his signatures were obtained

on various papers. No disclosure statement was made by him

and nothing was recovered at his instance.

57 In his statement u/s 313 CrPC A­8 expressed

his

ignorance to the incriminating circumstance appearing against

him.

He denied recovery of stepney at his residence. He

disclosed that he was arrested in the intervening night of

27/28.5.96 and made no disclosure statement.

58 In his statement u/s 313 CrPC A­9 pleaded that he

is innocent and was falsely implicated. He never knew co­

accused persons or if at all knew any one,

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

it

was only for

31 of

408

32

business.

He

was

shawl­dealer.

He

did

not

make

any

confessional

statement.

He

was

arrested

on

24.5.96

in

Ahmedabad and was not produced before any Magistrate.

59 Plea of A­10 is that he was falsely implicated in this

case and nothing was recovered at his instance.

On the

intervening night of

30.5.96 and 1.6.96, he was

travelling by

Samtha Express from Vishakhapatnam to Delhi and he was

arrested

and

brought

to

Ahmedabad.

On1.6.96

he

was

produced before Metropolitan Magistrate. He did not make any

disclosure statement.

(G)

Defence Witnesses:

60

Accused persons examined DW­1 Mukesh

and

DW ­2 Arun Kumar Sharma in their defence evidence.

61 I have heard the Ld. Special PP for the State and

the Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons. I have gone

through the voluminous record.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

I have also gone through the

32 of 408

33

written submissions filed on record by the accused persons.

I

have also gone through the authorities relied upon by the Ld.

Defence Counsels for the accused persons.

(H) Arguments on behalf of State :

62

Ld. Special PP for the State has argued that the

prosecution

has

established

its

case

against

the

accused

persons beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses

examined by the prosecution have fully supported the case of

the prosecution and there is nothing to disbelieve their positive

testimonies.

The

telephone

calls

made

by

A­1

from

his

residence whereby he owned responsibility of his organization

JKIF to have caused bomb blast to various news agencies in

Delhi were traced out. On apprehension of the A­1 and A­2,

they made disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof got

recovered

arms

and

explosives

from

their

respective

residences.

Confessional

statement

of

A­9

also

revealed

hatching

of

conspiracy

by

the

accused

persons.

Huge

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

33 of 408

explosives

were

recovered

34

from

the

residence

of

A­3

in

pursuance of his disclosure statement. Prosecution was able to

prove that all the accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy

to cause

bomb blast at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar. They

pointed out various places from where they had

purchased

various articles for causing the explosion.

(I)

Arguments on behalf of all accused except A2:

 

63

On the other hand the Ld. Defence Counsel for all

accused

except A­2 has

vehemently argued that

there is no

iota of evidence to connect these accused persons

with the

commission of any offence in conspiracy with the co­accused

persons. Number of witnesses examined by the prosecution

have

turned

contradictions

hostile.

There

are

and

improvements

in

prosecution witnesses.

various

discrepancies,

the

deposition

of

the

64 It is further argued by the ld. defence counsel for these

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

34 of 408

35

accused persons that no independent public witness was joined by

the

police

recoveries

during

investigation

at the residence of

and

at

A­1 and

the

time

of

effecting

A­2.

The arms and

ammunitions have been planted upon the accused persons. The

accused persons were lifted from their respective residences much

prior to their arrest shown in this case. They were kept

in

illegal

detention and subsequently falsely implicated in this case.

The

independent public witnesses examined by the prosecution have

not

identified

the

accused

persons

categorically.

Nothing

incriminating was recovered from the possession of the accused

persons or at their instance.

The prosecution failed to prove on

record any cogent evidence to show if police officials had visited J

& K, Gorakhpur, Mussorie etc.

No proof regarding their visit was

placed on record. The prosecution has failed to prove as to when

and at which place the alleged conspiracy to cause bomb blast at

Central Market, Lajpat Nagar was hatched. No call details of these

accused persons were ever collected by the prosecution to show if

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

35 of 408

36

they were in constant touch with each other. Real culprits have

been let off by the police.

(J) Arguments on behalf of A­2:

65 Contention of the ld. defence counsel for A­2 is that she

has been falsely implicated in this case.

There are number of

inherent defects in the case of the prosecution whereby they have

allegedly shown recovery of RDX

and five timers at her instance

from her residence. There is no documentary evidence on record

to show if the police officials along with the accused persons had

visited J & K and if so when. No documentary evidence has been

placed on record to show as to how and under what circumstances

the recovered ammunitions / explosives was transported to Delhi.

No person from the locality of the accused was joined in the

investigation.

The prosecution witnesses have given different

account as to how much RDX

in weight was recovered from the

possession of the accused. There are vital contradictions in the

deposition of the prosecution witnesses as to from which place the

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

36 of 408

37

ammunitions were recovered and as to who had dug the earth to

take out the RDX.

There are contradictions as to from where the

scale was arranged by the police at the spot. The prosecution

witnesses have failed to state the exact location of the house of A­

2.

There is serious discrepancy in the register maintained by

MHCM to show the deposit of RDX of particular weight with it.

There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show if A­2 hatched

conspiracy with co­accused persons at J & K. The evidence on

record

reveals

that

conspiracy

took

place

in

Nepal

and

ammunitions

used

in

the

commission

of

the

offence

were

transported from Nepal.

No incriminating article was recovered

from the possession of A­2. No case under Explosive Act was got

registered against A­2 at J & K. Delhi police had no jurisdiction to

prosecute A­2 under Explosive Act for the alleged recovery at her

residence at J & K. Ld. defence counsel for A2 has relied upon the

authorities reported in AIR 1933 Lahore 50; AIR 1952 Bombay

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

37 of 408

38

72; 1990 Cr.L.J 1491; AIR 1962 SC 399; AIR 1962

SC 1788;

(1949) 1 SCC 57; AIR 2004 SC 797; (1975) 4SCC 176; AIR 1960

SC 1080; (1999) 5 SCC 253 and (1979) 1 SCC 128.

(K) Findings:

66 I have considered the arguments of the ld. SPP for the

State and the ld. defence counsel for the accused persons and

have gone through the evidence adduced on record by both the

parties.

67

At the out­set, it may be mentioned here that the

prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence. There

is no eye witness account regarding the incident whereby a

powerful bomb exploded on 21/5/1996 at about 6.30 p.m., at

Central Market Lajpat Nagar.

No reliance has been placed by

the prosecution on the testimony of any eye witness who had

witnessed the accused persons committing the offence. The

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

38 of 408

prosecution

has

examined

39

number

of

witnesses

to

prove

circumstantial evidence against the accused persons to connect

them with the commission of the offence. The circumstances

culled

out from the evidence adduced on record by

the

prosecution are being discussed in detail as under:

(1) Homicidal Deaths:

68 It is not disputed that number of persons lost their lives

in the bomb blast that took place on 21.5.1996.

Number of

persons sustained injuries in the incident.

69 Prosecution further examined PW37 Dr. Bajrang Lal

Bansal, who has proved postmortem reports Ex. PW37/A and Ex.

PW37/B pertaining to deceased

Reena Arora and Tara Chand.

These reports were prepared by Dr M S Sagar and Dr A. Sinha.

PW37 has identified their hand writing and signatures on both

these postmortem reports. The cause of death

result of bomb blast injuries in both the cases.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

was opined as a

This witness was

39 of 408

40

also not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the

accused persons.

70 PW47 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani has proved on record the

postmortem report pertaining to deceased

Ravi Kumar. This

report was prepared by Dr Biswa Nath Yadav.

PW47 has

identified handwriting and signatures of Dr

B N Yadav

on the

postmortem report Ex. PW47/A.

The cause of death of

was

opined shock due to bomb blast injuries.

71 Similarly, PW47 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani has proved the

postmortem report pertaining to deceased Rakesh Sood ( R K

Sood), prepared

in the handwriting of Dr Alpana Sinha, who has

since migrated to USA.

PW47 has identified her handwriting and

signature on the postmortem report Ex. PW47/B. The cause of

death was as a result of bomb blast injury.

72 PW

51

Dr.

Sunil

Kumar

Sharma

has

proved

postmortem report pertaining to deceased Chander Prakash and

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

40 of 408

41

Satish Kumar which are in the handwriting of Dr Ranjit Kumar Das

and Dr Lal Razama.

As per postmortem report of deceased

Chander Prakash Ex. PW51/A, the antemortem injuries were

superficial burns on both hands etc and the cause of death was

shock resulting from multiple injuries consequent upon bomb blast.

However, as per postmortem report pertaining to deceased Satish

Kumar, Ex. PW51/B, the cause of death was opined shock as a

result of

antemortem burns.

cross examination.

This witness was not testified in

73 Prosecution further examined PW53 Dr. Sudhir Gupta,

who has conducted postmortem on the dead bodies of Manoj

Kumar Singh, Love Kumar, Priyanka Ahiya and Naresh Mukhia

and

proved

their

postmortem

report

as

Ex.

PW53/A,

Ex.

PW53/B,Ex. PW53/C, and Ex. PW53/D. Cause of death in case of

Manoj Kumar Singh was opined

shock as a result of extensive

burn injuries in bomb blast explosive. In case of deceased Love

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

41 of

408

42

Kumar the cause of death was instantaneous as a result of

massive destruction of body due to effect of explosive bast. In case

of

Priyanka

Ahiya,

the

cause

of

death

was

septicemia

on

consequent upon sustaining burn injuries due to explosive bomb

blast. However, the cause of death in case of Naresh Mukhiya was

instantaneous death due to massive destruction of the body due to

explosive blast effect. This witness was also not cross examined

on the facts deposed by him.

74 Prosecution further examined PW70 Dr. Alexander

Khakha, who has proved postmortem report dated 23.5.1996

pertaining to deceased Rohit Ahuja. The injuries sustained by the

deceased were detailed in the postmortem report Ex. PW70/A. The

doctor opined death in that case due to head injury resulting from

blunt force impact with a hard object/splinter and also due to shock

resulting from ante mortem burn injuries caused by dry heat and

the injuries were opined ante mortem in nature and consistent to

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

42 of 408

43

those caused by a bomb blast. This witness was also not cross

examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons.

75 Prosecution has examined PW 71 Dr. Chanderakant,

who conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Smt.

Inder

Mohini

Ahuja

on

23.5.1996.

He

has

proved

her

postmortem report No. 657/96 as Ex. PW71 which contains

number of external injuries found on the person of deceased.

Cause of death was opined as a result of 100% superficial and

deep 1 st to 6 th degree (DUPYTRENS Classification) Type 1, II & III

(Willsons Classification) antemortem burns and splinter injuries

caused by due to flames from some explosive device necessarily

fatal. The time since death was opined 42 hours. This witness was

not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused

persons. Testimony of this witness remained unchallenged.

76 From the statements of these doctors, who have

proved the postmortem of the deceased persons,

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

it stands

43 of 408

44

established that all these persons sustained severe burn

injuries

in bomb blast on their bodies and succumbed to the injuries. It is

thus a case of culpable homicide.

(2) Injuries:

77

In the instant case number of persons sustained

injuries on their person. Prosecution examined PW45 Dr. P. Rama

Krishna, who has proved MLC pertaining to Jai Ram Ex. PW45/A.

The injuries were opined as simple caused by blunt object.

78 Prosecution further examined PW53 Dr. Sudhir Gupta,

who has proved MLC of Ramesh.

It is in the hand writing of Dr

Suvir Gosh. The MLC is Ex. PW53/E. The injuries were opined as

simple received in bomb explosion.

Similarly, PW53 D Sudhir

Gupta has proved the MLCs Ex. PW53/F to Ex. PW53/J pertaining

to one unknown, Avadh, Gajender Kumar, Ravi Kumar and

other two unknown in the handwriting of Dr Sudhir Gupta.

All

these persons were alleged to have sustained injuries in the bomb

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

44 of 408

45

blast of Lajpat Nagar.

79 PW55 Sh R S Kheda, Record Clerk has proved the

handwriting and signatures of Dr

Rajneesh on the MLCs Ex.

PW55/A to Ex. PW55/E pertaining to Ajay Bakshi, Peeplani, Mani,

and two unknown persons.

80 PW 56 Dr Naresh Sood has proved the MLC of injured

Sanjay as Ex. PW56/A prepared in the handwriting of Dr Anupam

Mittal.

81

PW57 Dar. R. Ali has proved the MLCs of injured

Priyanka Ahuja, Ravi, Sangita Saha and and single MLC of PS

Dogra, Jitender, Sandeep arora, Dhan Singh, Anita Raheja, Tara,

Bittoo Malhotra, Vinod Kumar, Swarankanta, since MLC of Rajesh,

Pramod Singh, Himani, Mehak Kohli, Uday Kumar, Rakesh Sood

and an unknown person which are in the handwriting of Dr R P

Singh. The MLCs are Ex. PW57/A to Ex. PW57/M.

All these

persons were brought with history of getting injured in bomb blast

in Lajpat Nagar Central Market. Out of these patients Prinyanka

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

45 of 408

46

Ahuja expired due to injuries sustained on 8.6.1996. This witness

was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the

accused persons.

82 PW69

Sh

Shankar

Technician has proved MLC Nos.

Prasad,

Medical

Record

41234, 41235, 41242 of 1996

prepared by Dr Prakash Sharma in respect of injured Rajesh

Guchu, Baby Aditi which are Ex. PW69/A to Ex. PW69/C.

83 Prosecution examined PW75 Sh Jai Prakash, Record

Clerk, who proved MLC No. 41228/96 pertaining to injured Raja

and MLC No. 41261/96 pertaining to one unknown male aged 28

years, prepared by Dr Sudhir Ghosh. The MLCs are Ex. PW75/A

and Ex. PW75/B.

84 PW89 Sh Ram Charan,

Record Clerk appeared for

the second time and proved the MLCs mark A, B and C pertaining

to injured Rachna, Rashimi and Arti.

85

From the testimonies of the above witnesses it stands

established

that

number

of

persons

mentioned

in

the

MLCs

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

46 of 408

47

sustained injuries on their person due to bomb blast in Lajpat

Nagar.

(3) Loss Of Property:

86 Besides loss of life, there was huge loss of property

due to bomb blast.

87 PW4 N P Chauhan has testified that

he had lost all

the articles which were kept in the car which caught fire due to

bomb

explosion.

damage of car.

He

suffered

loss

of

Rs.

60,000/­

excluding

He had given list of articles to the police. This

witness was not cross examined by the accused persons for the

loss suffered by him in the bomb blast.

88 PW7 Upesh Aggarwal has desposed that his shop

was completely burnt out.

Other adjoining shops were damaged

extensively.

89

PW21 Subhash Chand deposed that he sustained

loss of about Rs. 10 lacs as his shop was totally gutted.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

47 of 408

48

90 PW72 Dinesh Kumar has deposed that he suffered

loss of 3.5 lac to Rs. 4 lac due to bomb explosion. Statement of

all

these

witnesses

have

remained

un­rebutted

and

unchallenged

in

the

cross­examination.

It

thus

stands

established that number of persons suffered huge damage to

their properties in the bomb explosion.

(4) Arrest of A­1 and A­2 at J & K:

91 Case of the prosecution is that soon after the bomb

blast at Lajpat Nagar, Central Market, A­1 made telephone calls to

Media and owned responsibility of his organization JKIF of which

he was the chief spokesman. A­1 has denied this allegation.

92 Prosecution examined PW68 Vinod Kapri, Editor, Zee

News and he testified that in May, 1996, he was posted as Senior

Correspondent in Zee TV. Nearly 2­3 hours after the bomb blast on

receiving telephone call from an unknown person, he came to

know that

some one talking to

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

him on phone on behalf of JKIF

48 of 408

49

had undertaken responsibility of Lajpat Nagar bomb blast. Despite

his efforts to know his name, he (the caller) did not reveal his

name. From his voice he appeared to be resident of Kashmir as

he was frequently using Urdu words.

93 This witness did not state in his examination­in­chief

as to on which telephone number of his office, the telephone call

was received. He also did not state the telephone number from

which the caller had made telephone call to him.

94

In the cross­examination,

the witness stated that in

the

news

at

10 pm,

on

the

same night, they had

given a

comprehensive news on Zee TV news

on the basis of first and

second call and field information. He was contacted by the police

after about one

and

half month later in that connection.

At that

time, he did not show the police any tape recorded conversation,

caller ID number or the news telecast on 21/5/1996 at 10.00 pm.

95 The testimony of this witness is not at all sufficient to

connect A­1 with the call received by PW68 Vinod Kapri.

IO has

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

49 of 408

failed to explain as

to

50

why caller ID

number (if any) was not

ascertained

from the witness.

It is also not explained as to why

the tape recorded conversation was not seized soon after the news

was telecast whereby someone on behalf of JKIF had under taken

the responsibility of bomb blast. This witness did not state if any

information about JKIF to have under taken responsibility for the

blast was given by him to the police.

96 Prosecution

further

examined

PW74

Amitabh

Rai

Chaudhary, Special Correspondent, PTI. In his statement before

the court, the witness stated that while working as Chief Reporter

in PTI on 21/5/1996

at about 9.00 pm, they received telephone

call on their office telephone no. 3716621­24, EPBAX through

Editorial Section and the caller informed that

the bomb blast had

taken place at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar and that was caused

by Jammu Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF). When he asked the caller

his name, he refused to tell. The voice of the caller appeared to be

that of a young man and he was speaking in Hindi just like the

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

50 of 408

Kashmiri speak.

51

They transmitted the information to the office of

other news­papers as usual.

97 This witness did not testify the telephone number from

where the telephone call was received on the telephone no.

3716621­24. This witness also did not state if the information was

given to the police regarding the call received by them. The

testimony of this witness is relevant to find out that on 21/5/1996 at

9.00 pm, some one on behalf of JKIF had owned responsibility of

the bomb blast at Central Market. This witness was not cross

examined

by

the

ld.

defence

counsel

for

the

accused.

No

suggestion was put to this witness in the cross examination that

telephone no.

3716621­24 did not belong to PTI.

98 Prosecution further examined PW90 Suparna Singh

working as

News Coordinator with NDTV.

In her examination in

chief, she did not support the prosecution and merely stated that

she did not remember anything about the case. She did not

remember having received any telephone call.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

She did not hand

51 of

408

52

over print out of the news script regarding some person taking

responsibility of having caused the bomb blast in Lajpat Nagar.

This witness was got declared hostile by ld. Addl PP for the State

and was cross examined. In the cross­examination, the witness

denied if statement mark DX 90 was made by her to the police. No

suggestion was put to this witness in the cross examination by the

ld. Addl PP as to on which telephone number and from which

telephone number, the telephone call was received. The testimony

of this witness is of no help to the prosecution.

99 From the testimonies of people from Media, nothing is

clear if it was only A­1 who had made telephone calls to them to

own responsibility

of the bomb blast at Lajpat Nagar.

IO did not

bother to contact any news agency to ascertain as to from which

telephone number call was made. PWs from media also did not

consider it their responsibility to alert the police about someone

taking responsibility of bomb blast soon after they got the calls.

No evidence whatsoever was collected by the prosecution if A­1

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

52 of 408

53

was the chief spokesman of JKIF prior to the incident.

The

prosecution did not collect any evidence on record to show if A­1

was ever arrested in any case at J & K regarding his activities in

JKIF. There is nothing on record to show if A­1 had participated in

the activities of JKIF prior to the incident.

100 Prosecution has pleaded that A­1 along with A­2 was

arrested by the police of PS Sher Garhi, J & K in FIR No. 162/94

prior to 25/5/1996. Prosecution, however, did not produce on

record any cogent

document to show apprehension of both A­1

and A­2 in the FIR No. 162/94 at PS Sher Garhi. Nothing is clear

to infer as to when A­1 and A­2 were detained by the police of PS

Sher Garhi and if so from where they were arrested. Nothing has

come on record to show as to what happened to the said case.

Nothing has been revealed as to how after detention in the said

case vide FIR No. 162/94, the police of PS Sher Garhi discharged

A­1 and A­2.

101 There is contradictory version given by

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

prosecution

53 of 408

54

witnesses regarding apprehension of A­1 and A­2 on 25/5/1996.

PW25 SI Vijay Singh in his examination in chief has stated that on

24/5/1996 after obtaining NBWs against A­1 and A­2 from the

residence of Mrs. Raj Rani Mitra, the then ld MM,

he along with

Insp Jasbir Malik, Insp. Rajinder Singh, SI Ramesh Rana, Lady SI

Duggal, H.Ct. Surender had gone to Srinagar by air on the morning

of 25/5/1996. First of all, they went at the office of SP at Srinagar.

There they were told that A­1 and A­2 were at PS Sher Garhi,

Srinagar. When they reached at PS Sher Garhi, Srinagar, both A­

1 and A­2 had already been discharged after their interrogation by

the police of PS Sher Garhi. IO of this case arrested both A­1 and

A­2 and brought them to Delhi.

102 In the cross­examination, the witness stated that IO had

prepared the arrest memo when A­1 and A­2 were arrested from

outside PS Sher Garhi. IO had not obtained his signatures on the

arrest memo. IO had not taken signatures of any of the officials of

PS Sher Garhi on the arrest memo. Suggestion was however put

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

54 of 408

55

to this witness that A­1 was in custody of the officials of PS Sher

Garhi in case FIR No. 162/94 and A­1 was not arrested by them

(Delhi police). The witness further stated in the cross­examination

on behalf of A­2 that she

was arrested by them and was not

handed

over

by

Sher

Garhi

police.

The

witness

denied

the

suggestion that A­1 and A­2 were already under arrest and

detention of PS Sher Garhi and they both were handed over to

them by the police of PS Sher Garhi.

103 Testimony of this witness reveals that both A­1 and A­2

were not handed over to them by the police of PS Sher Garhi. IO

has failed to explain as to how and under what circumstances the

police of PS Sher Garhi discharged both A­1 and A­2 in FIR No.

162/94 PS Sher Garhi. Nothing has come on record to show as to

on what facts both A­1 and A­2 were interrogated by the police of

PS Sher Garhi. IO did not examine any witness from PS Sher

Garhi to clarify all these aspects. In the fax sent by PW78 Shri

Farooq Khan

to Delhi Police Ex. PW 78/A on 25/5/1996 and

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

55 of 408

56

wireless messages Ex. PW 78/B and PW 78/C, there is mention of

A­1 and A­2 to have been arrested by the police of PS Sher Garhi

in case FIR No. 162/94. It shows that PW78 Shri Farooq Khan,

SSP Operations (Srinagar) J & K in May 1996 was aware about

the

detention of A­1 and A­2 by the police of PS Sher Garhi and

had informed Delhi police about their involvement in the bomb

blast case. In his testimony also PW78 Shri Farooq Khan stated

that the responsibility of the said blast was taken by J & K Islamic

Front.

They had some clues from reliable sources about the said

organization and working on that clues with the help of their secret

reliable

sources,

they

apprehended

suspect

resident of Anant Nagar. During interrogation, A­1

A­1

who

was

disclosed his

involvement in bomb blast of Lajpat Nagar. He further testified that

A­1 had disclosed that he had made telephone calls to different

news agencies claiming responsibility for Lajpat Nagar bomb blast.

On the leads given by A­1 in the interrogation, a lady suspect A­2

was also apprehended from Srinagar.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

Information in this aspect

56 of 408

57

was given to Delhi police. Again the testimony of this witness

reveals that prior to sending wireless or fax messages to Delhi

police on 25/5/1996, this witness had come to know about the

involvement of A­1 and A­2 in the commission of the incident.

However this witness did not reveal as to when and from where A­

1 and A­2 were arrested. No proceedings in which A­1 and A­2

were interrogated or their disclosure statements (if any) were

recorded were produced before the court. This witness failed to

explain as to how and

from whom he had come to know the

involvement of A­1 and A­2 in the commission of the incident. He

did not assert if he himself had interrogated A­1 and A­2 and if so

when and where. In the cross examination the witness expressed

his ignorance as to from

where he had arrested A­1 and A­2 in

case FIR No. 162/94 PS Sher Garhi.

He further did not state if

after the arrest of A­1 and A­2 he obtained their police remand

because he did not remember for how much time they remained

with them.

He stated that the documents with respect to the

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

57 of 408

58

detention of A­1 and A­2 would be in the record of PS Sher Garhi.

This witness volunteered to add that he personally did not arrest A­

1 and A­2 and

infact, he was heading the operations set up in

Srinagar District and some

of his official working under him must

have arrested A­1 and A­2 with the help of local police. He further

did not give any reply as to when for the first time he saw A­1 and

A­2. He stated that he was assisting the local police in respect of

apprehension

of

activities.

He

A­1

and

A­2

for

further

admitted

crimes

that

he

related

did

not

to

terrorist

personally

interrogate any of the two accused persons. He however clarified

that their questioning was done in his presence at their

Head

Quarter commonly know as Cargo Complex, adjacent to PS Sher

Garhi by his subordinates. No confessional statement of any of the

aforesaid two accused persons was recorded under the relevant

provisions of Cr.P.C. He however added that accused persons had

made their confession during their questioning and the answers

given by them were sent to Delhi police with respect to the offence.

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

58 of 408

59

He did not remember whether the answers given by the accused

persons during their questioning were signed by them or not. He

did not remember if he had counter­signed the same.

In the

further cross­examination, the witness stated that in the present

case the actual arrest and proceedings were carried out by the

police of PS Sher Garhi on their instructions.

104 In the cross examination on behalf of A­2 the witness

stated that the confession of A­2 was not recorded in his presence.

A­2 was arrested by his police party. She was arrested as a

suspect in an FIR registered at PS Sher Garhi.

The record

regarding arrest of A­2 should be available in the PS Sher Garhi.

105 From the entire testimony of PW78 Shri Farooq Khan, a

senior police officer, nothing has transpired

as to when and from

where A­1 and A­2 were arrested. Nothing has been explained as

to what led the police of PS Sher Garhi to discharge both A­1 and

A­2

in

the

said

case

FIR

No.

162/94

after

their

alleged

apprehension and confession. If PW 78 Shri Farooq Khan was

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

59 of 408

60

aware of the involvement of A­1 and A­2 in the incident at Lajpat

Nagar before sending the fax and wireless message to the Delhi

police on 25/5/1996 and

if both

A­1 and

A­2 were already in

detention in case FIR No 162/94 of PS Sher Garhi, there was no

occasion for the police of PS Sher Garhi to discharge or set free

both A­1 and A­2 prior to the arrival of Delhi police at J & K on

25/5/1996. Delhi police was quick to get NBWs against A­1 and A­

2 from the residence of ld. MM at 11.45 pm and had purportedly

reached at J & K by air in the morning of 25/5/1996. On reaching

there they came to know from the office of PW 78 Shri Farooq

Khan that

A­1

and A­2 were at

PS Sher Garhi.

However on

reaching

at PS Sher Garhi, the Delhi Police was informed that

after interrogation both A­1 and A­2 had already been discharged.

Delhi police happened to come across both A­1 and A­2 near PS

Sher Garhi to apprehend them. PW 78 Shri Farooq Khan has

failed to explain as

to why

Delhi police was not waited to

apprehend A­1 and A­2 while they were in the custody of PS Sher

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

60 of 408

61

Garhi.

The

testimony

of

PW78

Shri

Farooq

Khan

regarding

apprehension of A­1 and A­2 at Srinagar on 25/5/1996

does not

inspire confidence. It is pertinent to note that in the application

moved before Ms. Raj Rani Mitra, the then ld. MM to get NBWs of

A­1 and A­2 at her residence

on 24/5/1996, at about 11.45 pm,

there was no mention if any fax or wireless message was got from

PW 78 Insp. Farooq Khan.

106 Testimony of PW49 Insp. Jasbir Malik also does not

remove the mist regarding

apprehension of A­1 and A­2 in the

manner relied upon by the prosecution.

In his examination­in­

chief, this witness deposed that after obtaining NBWs of

A­1 and

A­2, he along with SI Vijay Singh, Insp. Rajinder etc. proceeded to

J & K on 25/5/1996 at the office of PW 78 Shri Farooq Khan. He

was told that both A­1 and A­2 had been arrested by the police of

PS Sher Garhi. When he reached at PS Sher Garhi, he came to

know that A­1 and A­2 who were under arrest were discharged by

the police of PS Sher Garhi. Thereafter he arrested both A­1 and

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

61 of

408

62

A­2 in pursuance of the NBWs with him and came back to the

office of SP Operations and recorded his statement u/s 161

Cr.P.C.

Thereafter both the accused persons were brought to

Delhi.

107

This witness also did not file on record any document to

show if A­1 and A­2 had been arrested by the police of PS Sher

Garhi and if so since when.

He also failed to explain as to how

and under what circumstances police of PS Sher Garhi discharged

both A­1 and A­2. In the cross­examination, the witness admitted

that he did not procure any arrest memo of A­1 and A­2 from J & K

police. He did not procure the discharge report of the accused

persons. He did not obtain transit remand of the accused persons

to bring them to Delhi. He did not seek permission from any court

to arrest the accused persons. He further stated that A­1 and A­2

were already under detention by the police of PS Sher Garhi in

case FIR No. 162/94. He did not clarify about any judicial or police

remand being given against A­1 and A­2 by the court concerned in

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

62 of 408

63

J & K in the said FIR.

108 In the further cross examination on behalf of A­2 the

witness stated that copy of DD No. 16 dated 25/5/1996 PS Sher

Garhi was on the judicial file

about the departure of A­1 and A­2

from Srinagar to Delhi. However during court observation it was

observed that DD No. 16 mark PW 49/A was only a single page

document and blank from other side and apparently appeared to

be un­concluded and unsigned.

On that, the witness stated that

the DD was recorded by him in the rojnamcha of PS Sher Garhi

and mark PW 49/A was only a copy thereof. The witness further

stated that he did not prepare personal search memo of A­1 and A­

2 as he had taken their custody from J & K police. He did not join

any public witness at the time of securing their custody.

109 The entire testimony of this witness does not explain

categorically if both A­1 and A­2 were arrested by the Delhi Police

while they were already in the custody of police of PS Sher Garhi

or if they were arrested from outside PS Sher Garhi after both of

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

63 of 408

64

them had allegedly been discharged. The circumstances in which

the arrest of both A­1 and A­2 has been shown do not inspire

confidence as all the

members of the team were having no

familiarity

with

A­1 and A­2 to apprehend them outside the PS

Sher Garhi without seeking assistance

of the officials of J & K.

After their alleged discharge by the police of PS Sher Garhi in case

FIR No. 162/94,

both A­1 and A­2 were not expected to remain

present outside the PS just to enable the Delhi police to reach and

apprehend them.

Had PW 78 Shri Farooq Khan

been aware

about the involvement of A­1 and A­2 in the incident at Delhi on

24/5/1996 or 25/5/1996, he was not imagined to allow the police of

PS Sher Garhi to discharge both the accused persons before the

arrival of Delhi police. The police

did not record the statement of

any police official of PS Sher Garhi to ascertain as to when and

how both A­1 and A­2 were apprehended and since when they

were in their custody or what were the allegations against them in

the case FIR No 162/94 or what happened to the said case or in

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

64 of 408

65

what circumstances both A­1 and A­2 without permission of the

court were discharged. Nothing has come on record to show if at

the time of apprehension of both A­1 and A­2 by Delhi police on

25/5/1996 there was any evidence/material whatsoever against

them for their involvement in the commission of the offence at

Delhi.

None of the police official of PS Sher Garhi disclosed to

Delhi police if during their interrogation in case FIR No. 162/94, the

accused persons had disclosed to have made telephone calls to

different media agencies in Delhi taking responsibility of the bomb

blast in Delhi.

PW78 Shri Farooq Khan also did not testify as to

how and from where he had come to know regarding the contents

sent by him by fax and wireless message to Delhi police. In his

deposition before the court PW78 Sh. Farooq Khan did not testify

if on 25/5/1996 at the time of apprehension of both the accused

either by police of PS Sher Garhi or Delhi police he had come to

know if A­1 had made telephone call to Media on 21/5/1996 and if

so from which telephone the said calls were made and on which

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

65 of 408

66

telephone calls the responsibility was undertaken.

From the fax

message Ex. PW 78/A it reveals that PW78 Sh Farooq Khan had

come to know the telephone calls made to media by A­1.

He

testified that during interrogation A­1 had disclosed his involvement

in the bomb blast of Lajpat Nagar and that he had made telephone

calls to different news agencies claiming responsibility for the blast.

Had it been so PW78 Sh Farooq Khan or his officials at PS Sher

Garhi must have attempted to find out as to from which telephone

A­1 had made telephone calls to different news agencies. However

even after detention of A­1 and A­2 by the police of PS Sher Garhi

in case FIR No. 162/94

and even after apprehension of both of

them by Delhi police on 25/5/1996,

no efforts were made to find

out as to from which telephone A­1 had made telephone calls. No

search of the house of the accused persons was conducted on

24/5/1996 or 25/5/1996 either by J & K police or by Delhi police.

No call details of the telephone

installed at the residence of A­1

were collected on 24/5/1996 or 25/5/1996. The interrogation of A­

State

Vs

Farooq Ahmed Khan

66 of 408

67

1 and A­2 made by the police of PS Sher Garhi or by PW 78 Shri

Farooq Khan

has not been brought on record.

did

not

interrogate

both

A­1

and

A­2

at

J

Delhi police also

&

K

after

their

apprehension and directly brought them at Delhi. Even after that, in

the absence of A­1 and A­2 no attempt was made by PW 78 Sh.

Farooq Khan or his agencies to search the house of A­1 and A­2 to

find out any incriminating substance showing their involvement in

the incident at Delhi.

110 No personal search of A­1 and A­2 was conducted at

the time of their apprehension on 25/5/1996.

No official from PS

Sher Garhi was examined to find out if any of them had conducted

personal search of A­1 and A­2 at the time of their detention in

case FIR No. 162/94. Prosecution examined PW 95 DSP Shiv

Kumar who was posted as Inspector Special Operation Group in