Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
-
Upload
sampath-bulusu -
Category
Documents
-
view
238 -
download
0
Transcript of Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
1/488
1
IN THE COURT OF SH S P GARG, DJ-IV/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) ..... A-1
2 Mrs Farida Dar @ Bahanji
W/o Mohd. Maqbool Dar
R/o House No. 1 Dilsauz Colony
Natipora, Distt. Badgaon
(J&K) ....... A-2
3 Mohd. Naushad
S/o Abdul Rashid
R/o P-7, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate
Delhi ......... A-3
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 1 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
2/488
2
4 Mirza Iftqar Hussain @ Saba
S/o Late Mirza Ali Mohd
R/o Numchabal near G M College
Sri Nagar,(J&K) .......... A-4
5 Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza
S/o Late Mirza Ali Mohd
R/o Khankai Mohalla
Numchabad near G M College
Sri Nagar (J&K) ........... A-5
6 Mohd.Ali Bhatt @ Killey
S/o Hazi Sher Ali
R/o Husanabad, Rainabari
Sri Nagar (J&K) ............ A-6
7 Latif Ahmed Waza
S/o Gulam Mohd Waza
R/o Mohalla Samauwari
near Gandhi Memorial College
Sri Nagar (J&K) ........ A-7
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 2 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
3/488
3
8 Syed Maqbool Shah
S/o Syed Mohd. Shah
R/o Jan Mohalla
Lal Bazar near Igat Mission School
Sri Nagar ( J & K ) ........ A-8
9 Javed Ahmed Khan @ Javed Junior @
Chhota Javed
S/o Mohd. Shafi
R/o Nowpora, PS: Khanyar
Sri Nagar ( J & K) ......... A-9
10 Abdul Gani @ Assadullah @ Nikka
S/o Bahauddin Gani
R/o Mohalla Passi, Badaiwah
Distt. Doda (J&K) .......... A-10
11 Bilal Ahmed Beg
S/o Mohd. Yusuf Beg
R/o Mohalla Begum Ali
Aloocha Bagh
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 3 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
4/488
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
5/488
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) ......... A-15
(since P.O)
16 Ibrahim Abdul Razak Menan @ Muslaq
@Tiger Menan
S/o Abdul RazakMenan
R/o 22-25and 26Al Hussaini
Cooperative Housing Society,
Dargah Street, Mahim, Mumba ......... A-16
(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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
6/488
6
Dongri, Mumbai ......... A-17
(since P.O)
FIR No. 517/96
U/s 302/307/12-B 124-A, 212 IPC &
U/s 3,4&5 Explosive Substance Act &
U/s 25 Arms Act
PS: Lajpat Nagar
22-8-1996 - Charge sheet filed in the Court of ld. MM.
21-07-1997 - Case committed/allocated to Sessions.
17-03-2010 - Date reserved for judgment.
08-04-2010 - 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 P-7, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate
Delhi ......... A-3
2 Mirza Nissar Hussain @ Naza
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 6 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
7/488
7
S/o Late Mirza Ali Mohd
R/o Khankai Mohalla
Numchabad near G M College
Sri Nagar (J&K) ........... A-5
3 Mohd.Ali Bhatt @ Killey
S/o Hazi Sher Ali
R/o Husanabad, Rainabari
Sri Nagar (J&K) ............ A-6
4 Syed Maqbool Shah
S/o Syed Mohd. Shah
R/o Jan Mohalla
Lal Bazar near Igat Mission School
Sri Nagar ( J & K ) ........... A-8
FIR No. 286/96
U/s 379/411 IPC
PS: Nizamuddin
22-08-1996 Challan filed in the Court of ld. MM.
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 7 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
8/488
8
24-07-1997 - Allocated to Sessions
17-03-2010 - Date reserved for judgment.
08-04-2010 - Date of announcement of judgment.
(14 years old case)
JUDGEMENT:
1 Accused A-1 to A-10 were arrested by the police of PS
Lajpat Nagar/Special Cell in case FIR No.517/96, u/s 302/307/120-
B/124-A/212 IPC, u/s 3/4/5 Explosive Substance Act and u/s 25
Arms Act. Accused A-11 to A-17 could not be arrested during
investigation and they were got declared P.Os. However,
subsequently, after filing of the challan against A-1 to A-10, A-13
was apprehended in this case and supplementary challan was filed
against him. However, during pendency of trial A-13 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
9/488
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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
10/488
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 4-5 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
11/488
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 memos were
prepared. Some number plates were also seized 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
12/488
12
and sections 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 DL-2CF-5854 from the Transport Office. During
further investigation, it transpired that this car was stolen on the
intervening night of 17/18-5-96 from A-51, Nizamuddin East and
owner of the car, Sh Atul Nath had got registered a complaint at
PS Nizamuddin and a case vide FIR No. 286/96 had been
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 12 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
13/488
13
registered there.
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 A-1 and A-2 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
A-1and A-2, NBWs were got issued against them from the court.
Insp. Jasbir Singh alongwith his team went to J & K to apprehend
A-1 and A-2. Both A-1 and A-2 were arrested by Insp. Jasbir
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 13 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
14/488
14
Singh and his team 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. A-1 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. A-2 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/SB-II on 26.5.96. Insp.
Paras Nath of Operation Cell carried out further investigation in the
case.
13 A-1 and A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
15/488
15
having STD facility. 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, A-1 had made 31
telephone calls to A-2 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 A-11 and A-12. On 2.6.96 ATS,
Ahmedabad, Gujrat informed Delhi police about apprehension of
A-9 and A-10 alongwith Abdul Rashid Shah @ Jalaluddin, Ayub
Bhatta @ Zulfikar @ Tazamul and also about involvement of A-9
and A-10 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
16/488
16
search at the residence of A-9, A-14 and A-15 and recovered
some incriminating documents.
16 On 4.6.96 A-1and A-2 were again interrogated and
their disclosure statements were recorded. Both disclosed to get
recover explosives and ammunitions lying at their residences.
Both A-1 and A-2 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, A-1 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, A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
17/488
17
road to Delhi and deposited the case property in Malkahan of PS
Lajpat Nagar.
17 On 10.6.96 both A-1 and A-2 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 A-1
and A-2 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 A-3 involved in this case was residing at
P-7, Turkman Gate, DDA Flats, Delhi Efforts were made to trace
A-3 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
18/488
18
informer, A-3 and A-4 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 A-5 and A-6 and
who were also involved in the bomb blast case. From the
possession of A-3, one railway ticket of 2nd
class for two persons
was seized. A-3 and A-4 were brought at Operation Cell and were
interrogated. On 14.6.96 disclosure statement of A-4 was
recorded. On 15.6.96 disclosure statement of A-3 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, A-3
led the police team to his residence at P-7, 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. All these articles were
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 18 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
19/488
19
seized vide seizure memos and deposited in the PS Malkhana
alongwith CFSL forms.
21 On 14.6.96 Insp. Ram Chander collected required
documents pertaining to A-9 and A-10 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 A-7 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 A-3 by A-
4. Some other incriminating document were also recovered from
the possession of A-7. A-6 was also arrested alongwith A-7 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 A-7 was handed over to A-4. On 17.6.96, A-4 led
the police team at the residence of Sh Mangal Chand at BJ-24,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and on producing the said currency note of
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 19 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
20/488
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 A-8 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. DL-2F-5854 was
also recovered at his residence which was seized. A-8 was
arrested in case FIR No. 286/96 also.
26 On 17.6.96 A-5 was arrested from Mussorie and his
disclosure statement was recorded.
27 On 18.6.96 A-3, A-4, A-5 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
21/488
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 A-3. He also
collected record of Gupta hotel at Gorakhpur where on 27.5.96 A-3
had stayed.
29 Further case of the prosecution is that during
investigation A-3, A-4 and A-5 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
22/488
22
Kamal where A-3 and A-5 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 A-6
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 A-7 also got recovered two hand
grenades etc and some documents from his residence which were
seized vide seizure memos.
32 A-5 also got recovered one stick hand grenade from
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 22 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
23/488
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
24/488
24
35 After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed against A-1 to A-10 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 379/411/120-B 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. DL-2F-5854 of white colour
was stolen from in-front of his house No. A-51, 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
25/488
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. A-3, A-5, A-6 &
A-8 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
26/488
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 A-1 to A-10, in case FIR No. 517/96,
charge u/s 120-B, 124-A, 120-B r/w Sec. 302 IPC, 120-B r/w
Sec. 307 IPC, 120-B r/w Sec. 436 IPC was ordered to be
framed against A-1 to A-10 vide order dated 20-11-2000.
42 Separate charges u/s 4 r/w Sec. 5 Explosive Substance
Act was ordered to be framed against A-1, A-2 and A-3.
43 Separate charge u/s 212 IPC was ordered to be framed
against A-8.
44 Separate charge u/s 25 Arms Act was ordered to be
framed against A-1
45 All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 26 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
27/488
27
charges framed against them and claimed trial.
46 In case FIR No. 286/96 PS Hazrat Nizamuddin charge
u/s 379/411 IPC r/w Sec. 34 IPC was ordered framed against
A-3, A-5 and A-6.
47 Separate charge u/s 411 r/w Sec. 34 IPC was ordered
to be framed against A-3, A-5, A-6 & A-8 for possessing stolen
stepney of Maruti car No. DL-2F-5854. 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
28/488
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 A-1 is that he was working as Junior Engineer
with State of J & K. He was residing at his official
accommodation at 22-K , 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 A-2 in her statement u/s 313 CrPC pleaded her
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 28 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
29/488
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 A-3 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 A-4 pleaded
that he was arrested from his residence at Bhogal in the
intervening night of 27/28.5.96 and was kept in illegal
confinement of Operation Cell at Lodhi Colony for about 18
days. Nothing was got recovered by him.
54 A-5 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
30/488
30
having been detained. On 9.6.96 he alongwith co-accused
persons was brought to Saonali, Indo-Nepal 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 A-6 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 A-5 and A-7 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 A-7 pleaded he has been working as carpet
salesman in Naya Bazar near Hotel Garden in Kathmandu
since 1992. A-9 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
31/488
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 A-5 and A-6
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 A-8 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 A-9 pleaded that he
is innocent and was falsely implicated. He never knew co-
accused persons or if at all knew any one, it was only for
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 31 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
32/488
32
business. He was shawl-dealer. 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 A-10 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 DW-1 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. I have also gone through the
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 32 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
33/488
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 A-1 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 A-1 and A-2,
they made disclosure statements and in pursuance thereof got
recovered arms and explosives from their respective
residences. Confessional statement of A-9 also revealed
hatching of conspiracy by the accused persons. Huge
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 33 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
34/488
34
explosives were recovered from the residence of A-3 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 A-2 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 co-accused
persons. Number of witnesses examined by the prosecution
have turned hostile. There are various discrepancies,
contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the
prosecution witnesses.
64 It is further argued by the ld. defence counsel for these
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 34 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
35/488
35
accused persons that no independent public witness was joined by
the police during investigation and at the time of effecting
recoveries at the residence of A-1 and A-2. 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
36/488
36
they were in constant touch with each other. Real culprits have
been let off by the police.
(J) Arguments on behalf of A-2:
65 Contention of the ld. defence counsel for A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
37/488
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 A-2 hatched
conspiracy with co-accused 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 A-2. No case under Explosive Act was got
registered against A-2 at J & K. Delhi police had no jurisdiction to
prosecute A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
38/488
38
72; 1990Cr.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 out-set, 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
39/488
39
prosecution has examined 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 was opined as a
result of bomb blast injuries in both the cases. This witness was
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 39 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
40/488
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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
41/488
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. This witness was not testified in
cross examination.
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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
42/488
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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
43/488
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 1st
to 6th
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, it stands
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 43 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
44/488
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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
45/488
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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
46/488
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 Prasad, Medical Record
Technician has proved MLC Nos. 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
47/488
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. He suffered loss of Rs. 60,000/- excluding
damage of car. 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
48/488
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 un-rebutted and
unchallenged in the cross-examination. It thus stands
established that number of persons suffered huge damage to
their properties in the bomb explosion.
(4) Arrest of A-1 and A-2 at J & K:
91 Case of the prosecution is that soon after the bomb
blast at Lajpat Nagar, Central Market, A-1 made telephone calls to
Media and owned responsibility of his organization JKIF of which
he was the chief spokesman. A-1 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 2-3 hours after the bomb blast on
receiving telephone call from an unknown person, he came to
know that some one talking to him on phone on behalf of JKIF
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 48 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
49/488
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 examination-in-chief
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 cross-examination, 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 A-1 with the call received by PW68 Vinod Kapri. IO has
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 49 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
50/488
50
failed to explain as to 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. 3716621-24, 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
51/488
51
Kashmiri speak. They transmitted the information to the office of
other news-papers as usual.
97 This witness did not testify the telephone number from
where the telephone call was received on the telephone no.
3716621-24. 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. 3716621-24 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. She did not hand
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 51 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
52/488
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 cross-examination, 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 A-1 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 A-1
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 52 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
53/488
53
was the chief spokesman of JKIF prior to the incident. The
prosecution did not collect any evidence on record to show if A-1
was ever arrested in any case at J & K regarding his activities in
JKIF. There is nothing on record to show if A-1 had participated in
the activities of JKIF prior to the incident.
100 Prosecution has pleaded that A-1 along with A-2 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 A-1
and A-2 in the FIR No. 162/94 at PS Sher Garhi. Nothing is clear
to infer as to when A-1 and A-2 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
A-1 and A-2.
101 There is contradictory version given by prosecution
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 53 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
54/488
54
witnesses regarding apprehension of A-1 and A-2 on 25/5/1996.
PW25 SI Vijay Singh in his examination in chief has stated that on
24/5/1996 after obtaining NBWs against A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 were at PS Sher Garhi,
Srinagar. When they reached at PS Sher Garhi, Srinagar, both A-
1 and A-2 had already been discharged after their interrogation by
the police of PS Sher Garhi. IO of this case arrested both A-1 and
A-2 and brought them to Delhi.
102 In the cross-examination, the witness stated that IO had
prepared the arrest memo when A-1 and A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
55/488
55
to this witness that A-1 was in custody of the officials of PS Sher
Garhi in case FIR No. 162/94 and A-1 was not arrested by them
(Delhi police). The witness further stated in the cross-examination
on behalf of A-2 that she was arrested by them and was not
handed over by Sher Garhi police. The witness denied the
suggestion that A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2
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 A-1 and A-2 in FIR No.
162/94 PS Sher Garhi. Nothing has come on record to show as to
on what facts both A-1 and A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
56/488
56
wireless messages Ex. PW 78/B and PW 78/C, there is mention of
A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 who was
resident of Anant Nagar. During interrogation, A-1 disclosed his
involvement in bomb blast of Lajpat Nagar. He further testified that
A-1 had disclosed that he had made telephone calls to different
news agencies claiming responsibility for Lajpat Nagar bomb blast.
On the leads given by A-1 in the interrogation, a lady suspect A-2
was also apprehended from Srinagar. Information in this aspect
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 56 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
57/488
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 A-1 and A-2 in the commission of the incident.
However this witness did not reveal as to when and from where A-
1 and A-2 were arrested. No proceedings in which A-1 and A-2
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 A-1 and A-2 in the commission of the incident. He
did not assert if he himself had interrogated A-1 and A-2 and if so
when and where. In the cross examination the witness expressed
his ignorance as to from where he had arrested A-1 and A-2 in
case FIR No. 162/94 PS Sher Garhi. He further did not state if
after the arrest of A-1 and A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
58/488
58
detention of A-1 and A-2 would be in the record of PS Sher Garhi.
This witness volunteered to add that he personally did not arrest A-
1 and A-2 and infact, he was heading the operations set up in
Srinagar District and some of his official working under him must
have arrested A-1 and A-2 with the help of local police. He further
did not give any reply as to when for the first time he saw A-1 and
A-2. He stated that he was assisting the local police in respect of
apprehension of A-1 and A-2 for crimes related to terrorist
activities. He further admitted that he did not 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
59/488
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 counter-signed the same. In the
further cross-examination, 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 A-2 the witness
stated that the confession of A-2 was not recorded in his presence.
A-2 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 A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 were arrested. Nothing has been explained as
to what led the police of PS Sher Garhi to discharge both A-1 and
A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
60/488
60
aware of the involvement of A-1 and A-2 in the incident at Lajpat
Nagar before sending the fax and wireless message to the Delhi
police on 25/5/1996 and if both A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 prior to the arrival of Delhi police at J & K on
25/5/1996. Delhi police was quick to get NBWs against A-1 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 A-1 and A-2 were at PS Sher Garhi. However on
reaching at PS Sher Garhi, the Delhi Police was informed that
after interrogation both A-1 and A-2 had already been discharged.
Delhi police happened to come across both A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 while they were in the custody of PS Sher
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 60 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
61/488
61
Garhi. The testimony of PW78 Shri Farooq Khan regarding
apprehension of A-1 and A-2 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
A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 in the
manner relied upon by the prosecution. In his examination-in-
chief, this witness deposed that after obtaining NBWs of A-1 and
A-2, 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 A-1 and A-2 had been arrested by the police of
PS Sher Garhi. When he reached at PS Sher Garhi, he came to
know that A-1 and A-2 who were under arrest were discharged by
the police of PS Sher Garhi. Thereafter he arrested both A-1 and
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 61 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
62/488
62
A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted
that he did not procure any arrest memo of A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2
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 A-1 and A-2 by the court concerned in
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 62 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
63/488
63
J & K in the said FIR.
108 In the further cross examination on behalf of A-2 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 A-1 and A-2
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 un-concluded 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 A-1 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 A-1 and A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
64/488
64
them had allegedly been discharged. The circumstances in which
the arrest of both A-1 and A-2 has been shown do not inspire
confidence as all the members of the team were having no
familiarity with A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
65/488
65
what circumstances both A-1 and A-2 without permission of the
court were discharged. Nothing has come on record to show if at
the time of apprehension of both A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 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
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
66/488
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 A-1. He
testified that during interrogation A-1 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
A-1 had made telephone calls to different news agencies. However
even after detention of A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 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 A-1
were collected on 24/5/1996 or 25/5/1996. The interrogation of A-
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 66 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
67/488
67
1 and A-2 made by the police of PS Sher Garhi or by PW 78 Shri
Farooq Khan has not been brought on record. Delhi police also
did not interrogate both A-1 and A-2 at J & K after their
apprehension and directly brought them at Delhi. Even after that, in
the absence of A-1 and A-2 no attempt was made by PW 78 Sh.
Farooq Khan or his agencies to search the house of A-1 and A-2 to
find out any incriminating substance showing their involvement in
the incident at Delhi.
110 No personal search of A-1 and A-2 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 A-1 and A-2 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
Srinagar on 25/6/1996. He deposed that on 25/6/1996 he had
handed over the jamatalashi in case FIR No. 162/94 by PS Sher
Garhi, J & K of A-1 to SI Banwari Lal. Articles recovered in the
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 67 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
68/488
68
personal search of A-1 Ex. PW 9/1 to 8 were handed over by him
to SI Banwari Lal. He also handed over the seizure memo of
documents recovered from A-1 to SI Banwari Lal. Personal search
memo Ex. PW 95/A pertaining to A-2 and personal search memo
Ex. PW 95/B pertaining to A-1 was seized by SI Banwari Lal vide
seizure memo Ex. PW 95/B.
111 In the cross-examination this witness admitted that he
had not arrested A-1 and A-2 in FIR No. 162/94. He did not
remember as to who had arrested A-1 in the said FIR. He did not
know as to when A-2 was arrested. He was not posted in PS Sher
Garhi at the relevant time. He did not remember the name of
Inspector, PS Sher Garhi who was present at the time of personal
search. He himself did not investigate FIR No. 162/94. Personal
search memo of A-2 was prepared by him in his office at Cargo
complex. He did not remember the name of the officer who had
seized the documents handed over to Delhi police in his presence.
112 The testimony of this witness also does not inspire
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 68 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
69/488
69
confidence regarding handing over the articles recovered in the
personal search of A-1 and A-2. Admittedly personal search of
both A-1 and A-2 was not conducted in the presence of this
witness. He is not aware as to which official of PS Sher Garhi had
conducted personal search of A-1 and A-2. Prosecution did not
examine the officer who had conducted personal search of A-1
and A-2. It is also not clear as to where all these articles remained
for about one month after recovering the same in the personal
search of A-1 and A-2 by the police of PS Sher Garhi. No relevant
entry in the concerned register regarding deposit of these articles
being handed over to PW95 DSP Shiv Kumar have been filed on
record. The prosecution has further failed to show as to why all
these articles and personal search memos prepared on 24/5/1996
or 25/5/1996 were not handed over to Delhi police soon after the
apprehension of A-1 and A-2 on 25/5/1996 and why these were
handed over only on 25/6/196 after about one month.
113 From the above discussion, I am of the view that the
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 69 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
70/488
70
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt as to
how and under what circumstances and from where A-1 and A-2
were apprehended by Delhi police on 25/5/1996. The fact
however remains that after their apprehension both A-1 and A-2
were brought to Delhi and were arrested in this case.
(5) Recovery of Arms & Explosives at the instance of A-1:
114 Case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of his
disclosure statement Ex. 39/B recorded on 4/6/1996 at Delhi, A-1
led the police at his residence at Srinagar and got recovered
arms and explosives/ammunition. A-1 has denied all these
allegations. It is stated that no such disclosure statement was
made by him and nothing was got recovered by him at his
residence. The weapons have been planted upon the accused.
115 Prosecution has examined PW18 Insp. Pawan Kumar
who in his deposition stated that on the instructions of IO Insp.
Paras Nath as well as on the instructions of senior officers, he
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 70 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
71/488
71
along with lady Insp. Shakuntla Kokkar, SI Arvind Verma, ASI Ajit
Singh, one Ct. Nirmala and ACP Sh.P.P.Singh had gone to
Srinagar for the investigation of this case. Both A-1 and A-2 were
with them in police custody and they were taken along with them to
J & K on 6/6/1996. On 7/6/1996 both the accused persons along
with BSF personels Shri P.B.Dhyani, SI Madhusudan Sharma,
J.A.D, Srinagar and their staff armed with weapons were taken to
Anant Nag from Srinagar. On reaching Anant Nag, the local BSF
unit was also contacted and Insp. NBK Singh was taken along with
them. Thereafter the entire party along with the accused persons
reached at Janglat Mandi, Anant Nag. A-1 took the police team to
his residence at Janglat Mandi and on the pointing out of A-1 from
the wooden card board affixed in the drawing room from the cavity,
A-1 took out one assault rifle AK-56, two magzines which were
filled with live cartridges and one polythene bag which contained
two slabs of black colour which were disclosed by A-1 to be RDX
slabs. On checking the magzines, it were found containing 59
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 71 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
72/488
72
bullets. The RDX was weighed and its weight came to 1kg
70gms. All these four items were sealed separately in cloth
pullandas and seizure memo Ex. PW 18/A was prepared. All the
pullandas were sealed with the seal of PKB and seal after use was
given to Insp. Shakuntla Kokkar after preparing the CFSL form on
which also a simple seal was affixed.
116 This witness further testified that thereafter search of
the house of A-1 was conducted and some documents such as
permanent residential address of A-1, documents pertaining to
Aeronautical issued by Delhi, some documents pertaining to
installation of telephone, demand notice etc., were seized vide
seizure memo Ex. PW 18/B. This witness identified assault rifle
AK-56 Ex. PW 18/1, cartridges Ex. PW 18/2 to 61, two magzines
Ex. PW 18/62 and 63 and RDX slabs Ex. PW 18/64 and 65 to be
the same which were got recovered by A-1 from his residence.
117 In the cross examination, the witness denied the
suggestion of the ld. defence counsel for A-1 that he along with
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 72 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
73/488
73
accused and other investigation team had left Delhi for Srinagar
by air on the evening of 7/6/1996. The witness clarified that they
had gone to Srinagar by Indian Airlines. ACP PP Singh had
accompanied them. He did not remember the time when they
reached at Srinagar. From the airport at Srinagar, they all went to
BSF camp. The witness denied the suggestion that at Srinagar
their movements were restricted or controlled by BSF. He stated
that there was no interference from BSF in the investigation. The
witness fairly admitted that they did not approach local police
before starting the investigation. The witness further denied the
suggestion that portion encircled in 'red' in the site plan Ex. PW
18/H was completely in the hands of A-1 drawn by him before he
was taken to Srinagar by air. The witness admitted the suggestion
of the ld. defence counsel that their visit to Srinagar was already
known to BSF. The witness disclosed that perhaps on 8/6/1996
they came back from Srinagar to Delhi by air with the accused
persons and with assault rifle in a pullanda. The rest of the seized
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 73 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
74/488
74
articles were sent by road. A declaration was made for carrying the
assault rifle from Srinagar to Delhi by air. The pullanda containing
assault rifle was perhaps deposited in PS Lajpat Nagar on
8/6/1996. The witness further stated that they remained present at
the house of A-1 for about 1 hours. Father of A-1 and his wife
were present there when they had visited the same. He denied the
suggestion that father of A-1 was not present at the house or that
he was present at Amritsar at Baba Nursing Home to look after his
another son who was admitted there as his right leg was got
imputed. The witness denied the suggestion that they did not find
anybody in the house of A-1 at Anant Nag.
118 Over-all testimony of this official witness reveals that
no material inconsistencies or contradictions have been elicited by
the ld. defence counsel to discard his testimony on this aspect.
This witness stood the test of cross examination and answered
the relevant queries of the ld. defence counsel in the cross
examination. This official witness in the absence of any specific
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 74 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
75/488
75
orders from the senior officers can't fabricate his visit to J & K on 6-
6-1996 / 7-6-1996. No motive has been imputed to this witness to
plant heavy recoveries on A-1. This witness had joined the
investigation being conducted by Insp. Paras Nath and had gone
to J & K on his instructions. Both A-1 and A-2 were already in the
custody of Delhi police after having brought them from J & K on
May 25, 1996. Only in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.
PW 39/B recorded on 4/6/1996, Delhi police came to know about
the availability / concealment of these weapons at the residence of
A-1. These weapons were found lying concealed inside the cavity
of wooden card board in the room of A-1 and it was he who took
out the same. Delhi police was not aware about the presence of
these arms and ammunitions at the residence of A-1. Had Delhi
police an evil intention, they could have planted the weapons even
on the day when A-1 was apprehended at J & K and was brought
to Delhi. Delhi police had no occasion to go J & K, the native
place of A-1 without the disclosure statement of A-1 to get recover
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 75 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
76/488
76
the weapons. From the suggestion put to the witness, it reveals
that even ld. defence counsel for A-1 has not disputed visit of
Delhi police to J & K. Categorical assertion was made by the
witness regarding the presence of parents of A-1 at his house at
the time of recovery. This statement of the witness was not
rebutted by leading any evidence in defence by A-1. A-1 did not
produce on record any document to show if on that day or time his
father was not available inside the house or that he was present at
Baba Nursing Home at Amritsar for the treatment of his another
son as suggested. A-1 did not dare to examine his father or his
mother in defence to controvert the visit of Delhi police to his
house and recovery of arms and ammunition there. Considering
the disturbed conditions in J & K in 1996, Delhi police had taken
assistance of BSF to effect recovery at the residence of A-1. Under
those circumstances there was least possibility of Delhi police to
join any independent public person from the locality at the time of
recovery of arms. Delhi police itself was stranger to the place of
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 76 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
77/488
77
incident and the witnesses residing in the locality were known
persons of A-1. They must be reluctant to join the investigation
with Delhi police against A-1.
119 Material facts asserted by this witness have remained
un-rebutted in the cross examination. A-1 has failed to show if site
plan Ex. PW 18/H was prepared by him at Delhi. He did not lodge
any complaint with any authority or court if he was forced to draw
site plan Ex. PW 18/H. Huge recovery of assault rifle and RDX
slabs which are not easily available in the market is not imagined
to be planted by Delhi police and that too at the residence of the
accused at his native place much far away from Delhi. There is
nothing on record to show if Delhi police had taken all these arms
and ammunitions with them from Delhi to be planted upon A-1 at
Srinagar. Minor contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by
the ld. defence counsel for A-1 are not fatal to the testimony of this
witness as these do not go into the root of the case. Merely
because some formalities regarding air-line tickets, declaration,
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 77 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
78/488
78
seeking assistance from the local police etc were not performed or
brought on record, it does not nullify the otherwise cogent
testimony of PW18 Insp. Pawan Kumar. A-1 did not examine in
defence any neighborer to falsify the plea of PW 18 Insp. Pawan
Kumar that he along with his team never visited the house of A-1
or that no such recovery was effected from there. A-1 did not deny
that the house from where the recovery was effected did not
belong to him or that it was not being occupied by him. A-1 also
failed to state as to who else was present inside the house at the
time of recovery in question. After the recovery of the weapons A-1
or his ld. counsel did not make any complaint to ld. MM for false
plantation.
120 It has come on record that these arms and
ammunitions got recovered by A-1 in pursuance of disclosure
statement Ex. PW 39/B were subsequently not connected with the
commission of the incident of this case. Had there been ulterior
motive for Delhi police to falsely implicate the accused, they could
State Vs Farooq Ahmed Khan 78 of 408
-
8/9/2019 Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
79/488
79
have planted the weapons connected with the commission of the
offence in this case.
121 Testimony of PW18 Insp. Pawan Kumar has been
corroborated by PW19 Insp. Prem Bhallab Dhayani from BSF,
Srinagar. In his deposition before the court, he testified that on
7/6/1996, he was posted as SI, BSF at Frontier Head Quarter,
BSF, Srinagar. On that day, Delhi police came to them and
requested for assistance in a raid and search. The police party
consisted of