Read Time: 09 minutes

The Supreme Court on Thursday sentenced four convicts of the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case to life imprisonment for the remainder of their lives without remission, in view of severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons.

In a strong indictment of the prosecution over delay, a bench of Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol said a prominent market in the heart of the capital was attacked but the case has not been dealt with the required degree of promptitude and attention, thereby comprising national interest.

The court sentenced four accused Mohd Naushad, Mirza Nissar Hussain, Mohd Ali Bhatt and Javed Ahmed Khan to life imprisonment without remission.

“In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life,” the bench said in its 190-page judgement.

A total of 13 people were killed and nearly 38 got injured in the bomb blast, triggered in the busy market in a car by RDX in the national capital on May 21, 1996.
 
The bench said, “The record reveals it is only on the prodding on the part of the judiciary that the trial could be completed after more than a decade. The delay, be it for whatever reason, attributable to the judge incharge or the prosecution, has certainly compromised national interest”.

The court emphasised that expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man. 

“To our great dismay, we are forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of influential persons which is evident from the fact that out of several accused persons, only few have been put to trial. In our considered view, the matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels,” the bench said.

The bench said that the accused persons who have not faced trial or those against whom the state has not preferred an appeal, prima facie, seem to be a part of this conspiracy. However, since they are not before us, we refrain from delving into evidence against those persons, the bench added.

Referring to confession of an accused, the bench said from an evaluation of the evidence on record including the judicial confession of A9 (Javed Ahmed Khan), it is evident that all these accused persons were known to each other and were participating with the common objective to carry out the blast in Delhi in furtherance of an international conspiracy to cause disruptive activities in India at the instance of Bilal Ahmed Beg,  foreign national.

"The accused has given a detailed description of the larger conspiracy of causing bomb blasts at Delhi. Independently, we find the prosecution to have established the case by recording disclosure statement of the concerned accused persons and effecting recoveries of incriminating material," the bench said.

In view of the recovery from the residence of Mohd Naushad and the confessional statement of Khan, it is evident that these accused persons were part of the plan for future blasts in the nation as well, the bench added.

“The incident took place on 21.05.1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago; the trial court awarded the sentence of death on 22.04.2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago; and the present accused acting at the behest of the principal conspirators; are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases,” the bench said.

The court rejected contention of the accused that no independent witness was joined at the time of arrest or recovery of materials.
 
"We find ourselves to be in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court on this aspect as... in matters involving serious offence, members of the public are reluctant to associate with police proceedings either for fear of persecution or for the sheer harassment of having to attend numerous and interminable Court hearings," the bench said. 

"Courts have on several occasions lamented this phenomenon and at the same time stated that unavailability of public witnesses should not, ipso facto, lead the Court to discard prosecution, or testimonies of police witnesses," the bench added.

Case Title: Mohd Naushad Vs State (Govt of NCT Delhi)