Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Gulzar Ahmed Wani, on 28 February, 2007

                       1




 IN THE COURT OF MS. RAVINDER KAUR, ASJ,
                    N.DELHI



SC No. 98/01



State           Vs. 1. Gulzar Ahmed Wani,
                      S/o Ghulam Mohd. Wani
                      R/o Thaparpore, Pattan,
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.


                    2.Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah
                       S/o Mohd. Akbar,
                       R/o Wagub Sopor, 
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.


FIR No. 34/00
PS : Tilak Marg,
U/s: 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w 
     Sec. 120 B IPC.
                           2




SC No. 01/01
State            Vs. 1. Gulzar Ahmed Wani,
                        S/o Ghulam Mohd. Wani
                        R/o Thaparpore, Pattan,
                        Distt. Baramullah, J & K.




                      2.Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah
                         S/o Mohd. Akbar,
                         R/o Wagub Sopor, 
                        Distt. Baramullah, J & K.


                      3. Mohd. Akil,
                        S/o Mohd. Zahir,
                           R/o 574, Lal Bagh,
                        Bans Mandi,
                        Faizabad, UP.

FIR No. 45/00
PS : Kotwali,
U/s: 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w Sec. 
     120B IPC.
                           3




SC No. 4/02



State           Vs. 1. Gulzar Ahmed Wani,
                      S/o Ghulam Mohd. Wani
                      R/o Thaparpore, Pattan,
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.


                    2.Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah
                       S/o Mohd. Akbar,
                       R/o Wagub Sopor, 
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.
FIR No. 152/01
PS : Parliament Street,
U/s: 3 Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 B IPC.



SC No. 100/01



State           Vs. 1. Gulzar Ahmed Wani,
                      S/o Ghulam Mohd. Wani
                        4




                      R/o Thaparpore, Pattan,
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.


                    2.Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah
                       S/o Mohd. Akbar,
                       R/o Wagub Sopor, 
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.




FIR No. 152/01
PS : Chanakyapuri
U/s: 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w Sec. 
    120B IPC.



SC No. 2/02



State           Vs. 1. Gulzar Ahmed Wani,
                      S/o Ghulam Mohd. Wani
                      R/o Thaparpore, Pattan,
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.


                    2.Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah
                          5




                       S/o Mohd. Akbar,
                       R/o Wagub Sopor, 
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.




FIR No. 113/01
PS : Parliament Street
U/s: 4(a) Explosive Substance Act and Sec. 
     120B IPC



SC No. 44/02



State           Vs. 1. Gulzar Ahmed Wani,
                      S/o Ghulam Mohd. Wani
                      R/o Thaparpore, Pattan,
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.




                    2.Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah
                       S/o Mohd. Akbar,
                       R/o Wagub Sopor, 
                      Distt. Baramullah, J & K.
                              6




FIR No. 176/01
PS : Lodhi Colony,
U/s : 3 Explosive Substance Act r/w 120B IPC. 




                  J U D G M E N T

By this judgment I shall dispose off six cases bearing :

(i)SC No. 98/01 FIR No. 34/00, PS Tilak Marg U/s 3 Explosive Act r/w 120 B IPC,

(ii)SC No. 101/01 FIR No. 45/00, PS Kotwali, U/s 4

(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC.

(iii)SC No. 4/02, FIR No. 152/01, PS Parliament Street, U/s 3 Explosives Substance Act, r/w 120B IPC.

(iv)SC No. 100/01, FIR No. 152/01 PS 7 Chanakyapuri, U/s 4a Explosive Substance act R/w 120B IPC.

(v)SC   No.   2/02,     FIR   No.   113/01   PS   Parliament

     Street,       U/s       4(b)     &     Sec.   5     Explosive

     Substance Act.

(vi)SC No. 44/02, FIR No. 176/01 PS Lodhi Colony, U/s 3 Explosive Substance Act , R/w Sec.120B IPC.

The brief facts of each case are as follows:

FIR No.34/00, PS Tilak Marg:

1. The prosecution case is that on 23/1/00 case FIR No. 34/00 was got registered by ASI Raghubir Singh on the statement of Ct. Rohtash posted with PS Inderpuri that on 23/1/00, his duty 8 was in rehearsal arrangement for Republic Day / 26th January. He was posted alongwith Ct.

Mahender Singh and ASI Virender at India Gate, south side for arrangement. Under the instructions and directions of his superior officers he was checking the area. At about 8:30am he saw loose soil near a barricade . With his feet he removed the soil and found that near a wooden pole a plastic jug upside down was lying there which raised suspicion. He informed ASI Virender Singh and ct. Mahender Singh. At this ASI Virender removed the soil and saw some green light blinking. Immediately the senior officers were informed . The area was cardoned off. Bomb disposal squad was summoned to the spot and with the help of certain instruments the suspected item was removed from the ground which was checked and was found to be a time bomb in the shape of hand grenade. The Bomb Disposal 9 Squad diffused the same. Thereafter it was opened and its parts were separated which were sealed in two separate pulandas with the seal of MK and were seized. It transpired that some unidentified person with intention to cause damage to lives and properties of person who were to participate in the rehearsal parade and the spectators , had planted the time bomb.

2. On the same day on receipt of DD No. 8A, ASI Raghubir Singh alongwith Ct. Bhima Singh and Ct. Premchand reached lawn of Shahjahan Road opposite children's Park, south side of India Gate and found BDS Crime team, senior officers , SHO PS Tilak Marg and photographer present at the spot. SI Geeta Ram Incharge Bomb Disposal Squad handed over to him the diffused hand grenade HE­36 whereon alphabets TNT and inside Z2 were engraved. The separate parts of the hand grenade alongwith a plastic jar were also 10 handed over to the ASI which were kept in a plastic container in the cotton . The parts consisted of hand grenade, a cover , a sticker, safety pin, ABCD timer, 9 volt battery Duracell, spring, two electric wires of black and red colour, blue colour tape used for linking the battery, timer and bomb. These were sealed in two separate pulandas with the seal of MK. Both the pulandas were seized vide seizure memo. Form CFSL was filled in. Seal after use was handed over to Ct. Bhim Singh. The statement of Ct. Rohtash Singh was recorded. Rukka was sent to the PS for registration case U/s 3 , 4 Explosive Substance Act, through Ct. Premchand and further investigation was handed over to Inspt. Ramchander Addl. SHO, PS Tilak Marg. Special messages were sent to superior officers through special messengers . Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Siteplan was prepared. Case 11 property was deposited in the malkhana. Further investigation was transferred to Inspt. Lakshmichand. During investigation no clue of the culprits were available. Again the investigation was transferred to Inspt. Sitaram Meena but still no clue of the culprits was available. The further investigation was carried out by Inspt. Dayanand. The exhibits were sent to CFSL CGO Complex, Lodhi Road. Thereafter the investigation was transferred to SI Gurudev Singh, who collected the CFSL result and arrested the accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Gulzar Ahmed Wani @ Ashraf, on their disclosure statements. Sanction U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act was obtained. The chargesheet was filed U/s 3 /4 Explosive Substance Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC against both the accused after clubbing with case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri.

12

FIR No. 45/00 PS Kotwali:

3. The prosecution case is that on 26/1/00, SI Sanjeev Kumar reported the matter to the PS Kotwali that on that day he alongwith HC Ravindra Vats, HC Pratap Singh, Ct. Sunil Kumar, Ct. Rajpal and Ct. Jitender were on anti sabotage check duty relating to Republic Day parade arrangement. At about 9am, he alongwith his staff was checking the south side ground of Red Fort rampede where the tents of Republic day parade contingent were installed. When he was checking the ground near the wall, near the turning point on the road near rampede he saw some electric wires. With the help of his staff and taking necessary precautions, the soil was removed from that place and found a plastic container in burnt condition alongwith one 9 volt duracell damaged battery containing six red colour small cells, Small 13 pieces of cast iron, one spring with a bolt, electric wires which were fixed to a switch were on it was written MC 14066BCP FF CE 9349, some burnt polythene pieces, pieces of adhesive tape and two pieces of cast iron cell which were fixed with the help of iron clips which were taken out. In the meantime Sector Incharge, Inspt. Rajbir Singh reached the spot. BDS team was summoned at the spot. The recovered articles appeared to be explosive device which were kept beneath the soil with the intention to cause explosion. The spot was photographed . The explosive device was sealed in the pulanda with the seal of SK and sealed vide seizure memo. On the statement of SI Sanjeev Kumar, case FIR No. 45/00 was registered with PS Kotwali U/s 3, 4 Explosive Substance Act. The copy of FIR was sent to the concerned MM through Spl. Messenger. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Siteplan was prepared. Exhibits 14 were sent to CFSL Chandigarh. No clue of the culprits was available and the case was initially sent as untraced by the concerned MM on 17/7/01. The case was reopened on 6/8/01 and further investigation was carried out by SI Gurudev Singh, Spl. Cell. Accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani @ Arshad, Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah @ Adil and accused Mohd. Akil were arrested on their disclosure statement Ex.PW11/B, PW11/C and PW51/A, PW51/B and PW4/15 respectively and pointing out. Result CFSL and sanction U/s 7 of Explosives Act were awaited when the chargesheet was filed against all the accused persons U/s 3/4, Explosive Substance Act r/w 120B IPC after clubbing it with case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri.

FIR No. 152/01, PS Chanakyapuri:

4. As per the prosecution case that on 15 9/5/01 an information was received in the PS at about 3:23pm through operator wireless/Ct. Balbir that a bomb had exploded at Sena Bhawan Army Headquarter near CSD canteen and DD No. 15 was recorded to that effect. The DD was sent to SI Rajeev Ranjan through Ct. Rajpal. Both SI Rajeev Ranjan and Ct. Rajpal reached the spot. The senior officers alongwith respective staff also reached there. The spot was cardoned off and inspected. In the parking, one cycle with the particulars Hero Jett Cycle No. C­402140 was found. Its rear carrier and the mud guard was damaged. In heavy quantity , white explosive substance was lying scattered near the cycle. One thaila of cloth material in torn condition was also lying there, some torn polythene packets were also lying there to which some white colour explosive substance was sticked. There was also a green colour device timer on which the alphabets 16 ABCD were written alongwith black tape , electric wire, a switch as well as one 9 volt battery make duracell , a used detonator at the spot. A two wheeler scooter bearing No. DDK 4234 make Bajaj Priya was found parked there, its driver who was injured in the incident had been removed to the hospital. BDS , New Delhi range, southern range, crime, CFSL and crime team as well as dog squad were also present there and inspected the spot. After inspection it was found that explosion was caused with the help of ABCD timer, battery and detonator while keeping the explosive substance in plastic and cloth packets with intention to spread terror causing loss of lives and properties. SI Rajeev Ranjan prepared rukka and sent the same for registration of the case to the PS Chanakyapuri whereby case FIR No. 152/01 was registered. He himself carried out investigation of the case. Siteplan was prepared. The cycle, a 9 volt 17 battery, polythene packets , used detonator weighing 1.620 gms white colour explosive powder, a timer with marking ABCD alongwith electric wire and switch were seized. The further investigation was transferred to Spl. Cell Lodhi colony. Inspector HS Gill, carried out further investigation and sent the exhibits to CFSL / CBI Lodhi Colony. SI Manoj Dixit traced out the dealer shop from where the cycle, recovered from the shop was purchased. The carbon copy of the receipt book whereby the cycle was purchased was seized by the police and the statements of the owners of the shop were recorded. The portrait of the culprits were prepared. Further investigation was handed over to Inspt. RS Bhasin. Report was collected from CFSL. Further investigation was handed over to SI Sushil Kumar. On 31/7/01, accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah had made disclosure 18 statement in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market regarding their involvement in the present case, hence they were arrested. On detailed interrogation they made disclosure statements in the present case and confessed about causing explosion at five other different places and also pointed out the respective places.

5. They also pointed out a cycle shop at Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk and while so pointing out accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani was also identified by the owner and the mechanic at the shop. Their statements were recorded. Both the accused further pointed out STD Booth in Delhi from where they used to contact the militants in Kashmir and also furnished their pager number . They also disclosed that on these pager numbers they used to receive messages relating to causing explosions. The details were collected from the STD owner. The STD operator 19 Sanjay Gandhi TPT Nagar, identified accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and also produced some pending bills in respect of messages sent to pager numbers of Kashmir from his STD booth. These bills were seized vide seizure memo and the statement of the witnesses were recorded. During investigation it revealed that accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani had done PHD from Aligarh Muslim University and thereafter he indulged in terrorist activities. The sanction U/s 196 Cr.PC and Sec.7 Explosive Substance Act was obtained for the prosecution of both the accused. During investigation it revealed that the accused persons hatched criminal conspiracy to wage war against the government of India and as such caused explosions in sequence at the reputed government institutions / monuments i.e Red Fort, India Gate, South Block, Dalhousie road, regarding which other case FIR Nos. 34/00 PS 20 Tilak Marg, 45/00 PS Kotwali , 113/01 PS Parliament Street, 152/01 PS Parliament Street were registered.

FIR No. 152/01, PS Parliament Street:

6. Prosecution is that on receipt of DD No. 17A dtd. 9/5/01 SI YR Dogra alongwith HC Srichand reached Dalhousie Road behind South Block where public had collected. On checking the garbage a timer ABCD in broken condition was recovered. PCR van was also at the spot. The spot was got photographed and videographed. A white colour explosive substance and ABCD timer were seized from the spot and sealed in separate pulandas with the seal of YR. Form CFSL was filled in. Seal after use was handed over to HC Ashwini Kumar (PCR) who was already present at the spot. SI YR Dogra recorded statement of HC 21 Ashwini Kumar to the effect that his duty was on PCR Van Victor 38 from 8am to 8pm as Incharge Van at Dalhousie road, behind South Block and PM Office. At about 3:15pm he alongwith the staff while patrolling came to Dalhousie road from south block when there was sudden explosion in the pile of garbage and it became smoky. On going near the spot he found that garbage and white colour powder was lying scattered. Immediately he informed the control room and the police officers reached the spot and carried out the investigation whereby the broken timer and white explosive powder referred above was recovered. He further stated to the police that some persons / some militant group to wage war against the Indian Government planted explosive substance in the form of a bomb at the spot to create terror amongst the general public. On his said statement case FIR No. 152/01 was registered 22 with PS Parliament Street. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. Further investigation was transferred to Spl Cell Inspt. HS Gill. The exhibits were sent to CFSL CBI CGO Complex and result was collected. Accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah were arrested in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market on 31/7/01 and made disclosure statement that they alongwith their associates had exploded bombs in Delhi and at several other places in Delhi and at several other places in the year 2000­2001. Both the accused were arrested in the present case. Their disclosure statements were recorded. They pointed out the place of occurrence. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons U/s 120B , 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC and U/s 3, 4, 5 Explosive Substance Act after obtaining sanction U/s 7 23 Explosive Substance Act and U/s 196 Cr.PC. FIR No. 113/01, PS Parliament Street:

7. The prosecution case is that on 10/4/01 at about 9am on reciept of DD No. 18A SI Lal Saheb alongwith Ct. Subhashchand reached North Block Gate No. 2 parking where Sardar Harnam Singh s/o Sattu Singh r/o 9/100, RK Puram Delhi met him and stated that a heavy tiffin carrier in a yellow colour polythene bag was lying in North Block, Gate No. 2 parking and it was suspected to be containing a bomb . In the meantime New Delhi Bomb Squad reached the spot and casually inspected the tiffin carrier and adviced for summoning BDS and Explosive Dog Squad to the spot. Information in this regard was sent to Central Distt. BDS crime branch . The tiffin carrier was surrounded with the gunny bags 24 containing earth. Army BDS Delhi Cantt. alongwith dog squad was also summoned which checked the suspected tiffin carrier and opined that the same was a bomb. The bomb was diffused by the team and disclosed that it was a powerful improvised explosive device wherein 9 volt battery duracell ultra size, 9 vmn 1604, 9 LR, 6 alkaline 9 volt , two electronic detonators, one ABCD timer and explosive substance were used. The explosive was removed from the tiffin carrier and was found weighing 3kg 750 gms. 100 gms out of the same was taken as sample which was kept in a glass bottle and remaining explosive was kept in the same tiffin carrier and put in a polythene bag . Thereafter both the glass bottle and the tiffin carrier and the other articles recovered from the spot were sealed in separate pulandas with the seal of LSS. Form CFSL was filled in. The case property was seized. On the basis of the recovered 25 explosives it was found that some person / some militant group to wage war against the Indian Government planted explosive substance in the form of a bomb at the spot to create terror amongst the general public. During investigation it revealed that accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah were arrested in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market on 31/7/01 and made disclosure statement about their involvement in the present case. Both the accused were arrested in the present case. Their disclosure statements were recorded. They pointed out the place of occurrence. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons U/s 120B , 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC and U/s 4, 5 Explosive Substance Act after obtaining sanction U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act and U/s 196 Cr.PC. This chargesheet was clubbed alongwith case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri. 26 FIR No. 176/01 PS Lodhi Colony:

8. The prosecution case is that Inspt. Ramphal Singh alongwith SI Vijay Rohtia, on receipt of DD No. 13A on 20/5/01 reached the spot and met Ct. Hujir Mullah BSF 25BN New Delhi who gave a statement to the effect that he was posted with BSF as Constable and on that day at about 8:45pm was going to sleep in the guard room of Directorate General, first floor CGO Complex when he heard a sound of explosion in front of the office . When he turned towards the place from where the sound came , he saw that a spark fell on the tent installed on the first floor followed by loud sound . At that time Ct. Pradeep Khare was on duty, who was informed. The Sr. officers reached the spot. However, no loss of life or property was caused due to explosion. On the 27 basis of his said statement case FIR No. 176/01 was registered. Lateron Sh. NB Wardhan explosive expert CFSL inspected the site and did not rule out the possibility of use of explosive substance. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Ct. Hujir Mullah case U/s 3 /4 Explosive Substance Act and Sec. 436 IPC was registered.. Siteplan was prepared. The tent piece, metal pieces, scattered pieces of tent cloth, metal pot, tripal tent fabric, dust etc were seized by the police. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. The seized articles were sent to CFSL CGO Complex, Lodhi Road. During search live shell/ grenade, one grenade launcher UBGL and one plastic bag was recovered from near the spot which were seized by the police. Siteplan was prepared. Recovered articles were sent to CFSL Lodhi Road but for want of examination facilities these articles were returned back and lateron these were deposited in the 28 malkhana PS Lodhi Colony. Thereafter the investigation was transferred to the Spl Cell and was carried out by Inspt. Kulwant Singh. He obtained the orders from the concerned court of MM for diffusing the live grenade but it could not be diffused. Thereafter investigation was transferred to SI Manoj Dixit. Accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah were arrested in case FIR No 304/01 PS Kamla Market and made disclosure statement in respect to the present case and many other cases. They were arrested in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri and made supplementary disclosure statement and pointed out the place of occurrence, hence they were arrested in the present case. During investigation, it revealed that accused persons at the instance of foreign agencies were intending to spread terror and wage war against the Government of India. Sanction U/s 7 of Explosive 29 Substance Act and U/s 196 Cr.PC respectively were obtained for the prosecution of the accused persons.

9. The live grenade could not be diffused as it was not capable of being diffused but could only be destroyed. The proceedings to destroy the same were initiated. After completion of investigation chargesheet U/s 3, 4,5 Explosives Substance Act r/w Sec. 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC was filed to court.

10. Joint charges were framed in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri, 34/00 PS Tilak Marg and 113/01 PS Parliament Street, U/s 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC against accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah.

11. Charge was framed in case FIR No. 45/00 PS Kotwali U/s 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w 120B Explosives Act against accused Gulzar 30 Ahmed Wani, Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Mohd. Akil.

12. Charge in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Parliament Street was framed U/s 3 Explosive Substance Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC against accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah.

13. Charge was framed in case FIR No.176/01 PS Lodhi Colony U/s 3 Explosive Substance Act and Sec. 120B IPC against accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah.

14. The prosecution in support of its case has examined in all 53 PWs.

15. It is pertinent to mention that accused persons namely Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah , Gulzar Ahmed Wani were arrested in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market and made respective disclosure statements regarding their 31 involvement in all the cases referred above and were thus arrested in each case. All the above referred cases alongwith case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market were initially tried together and common evidence was recorded , however in terms of the order of the Hon'bl e High Court dtd.

6/11/06 the trial of case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market was separated. Since the joint evidence was recorded in all the cases, now it is to be seen that out of 53 witnesses how many witnesses are relevant for disposal of the six cases in hand. These are PW4 SI Gurudev Singh, PW11 SI Badrish Dutt, PW19 Dr. RK Kaushik SSO FSL Madhuban Haryana, PW20 Dr. Jagdish Ram SSO, Chemistry FSL Madhuban Haryana, PW23 Ct. Rohtash, PW24 SI Virender Singh BDS Crime Branch, PW25 Jaan Mohd., PW26 Sanjay Mudgil (both are independent witnesses) , PW27 ASI Raghubir Singh, PW28 Inspt. Ramchander, PW29 SI 32 Darshan Singh, PW30 Inspt. Sriram Yadav, PW31 SI Lal Saheb, PW32 Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, MM Karkardooma, PW33 Rajender Pal Sood an independent witness who was injured in the blast on 9/5/01, PW34 Sachin Khanna owner of the shop M/s Ashoka Cycle works, Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk , PW35 Salik Ram the owner of STD booth with telephone number 7299905 situated at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi, PW36 ASI Chanderbhan, PW37 ASI Rameshchand, PW38 SI Rajeev Ranjan, PW39 /PW50 Inspt. Manoj Dixit, PW41 SI Naseeb Singh, PW43 Ct. Santlal photographer, PW44 Inspt. Dayanand, PW45 Inspt. Ramphal, PW46 Bhagat Singh an independent witness, PW47 Imran Khan (whose chief examination was recorded but cross examination was deferred however lateron the prosecution failed to produce the witness for cross examination hence his evidence cannot be 33 read against the accused persons), PW48 SI Sanjeev Kumar, PW49 HC Purshottam, PW52 Inspt. HS Gill and PW53 Sunny Arora.

16. The other witnesses PW1 Tarun Lekhi, PW2 BS Sharma HC RTO office Ashok Vihar, PW3 Vikram Sardana, PW5 Vidhichand, PW6 Rambir Singh, PW7 ASI Rishipal, PW8 Ajit Kumar, PW9 Naveen, PW10 LK Sharma, Jt. Secretary Home, PW12 HC Rajewardhan, PW13 HC Vinod Kumar , PW14 A. Dey Sr. Scientific officer, CFSL, PW15 Dr. Rajender Singh, SSO I, Physics CFSL CBI, PW16 HC Vikram Singh, PW17 Rajender Singh Jr. Intelligence Officer, PW18 Nafe Singh, SSO MTNL GM North II, Rohini, PW21 Inspt. Satbir Singh, PW22 SI Govind Sharma, PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad Jt. Secretary, Deptt. of Technical Education, Govt of NCT, PW42 Sh. GL Meena, Jt. Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi, Jt. Commissioner, Sales Tax Deptt., Bikri 34 Kar Bhawan ITO Delhi, are relevant for disposal for case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market.

17. The relevant witnesses to case FIR No. 34/01 PS Tilak Marg are PW4 SI Gurudev Singh the IO, PW11 SI Badrish Dutt, PW14 Sh. A.Dey Sr. Scientific officer, CFSL CBI, New Delhi, PW23 Ct. Rohtash the complainant. PW27 ASI Raghubir Singh the Initial IO, PW28 Inspt. Ramchander who partly investigated the case, PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad Jt. Secretary who accorded sanction U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act for prosecution of the accused persons.

18. So far case FIR No. 113/01 PS Parliament Street is concerned, the relevant witnesses are PW11 SI Badrish Dutt who was the investigating officer of case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market wherein both the accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Gulzar Ahmed Wani were arrested and had made disclosure statements 35 Ex.PW11/B and PW11/C respectively whereby they had disclosed their involvement in the present case and were thus arrested, PW31 SI Lal Saheb is the complainant, PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad Jt. Secretary who accorded sanction Ex.PW40/C U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act for prosecution of the accused persons, PW42 Sh. GL Meena, Jt. Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., Bikri Bhawan, ITO Delhi, who accorded sanction Ex.PW42/B U/s 196 Cr.PC for the prosecution of the accused persons U/s 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC, PW51 SI Sushil Kumar is the initial IO, PW52 Inspt. HS Gill, further investigated the case and had arrested both the accused persons.

19. The relevant witnesses to case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri are PW4 SI Gurdev Singh who was handed over the investigation of this case on 6/8/01. He had arrested both the acused persons on the basis of their disclosure 36 statements recorded in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market. PW11 Inspt. Badrish Dutt who had arrested both the accused persons alongwith others in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market and had recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C respectively whereby the accused persons had disclosed their involvement in the present case. PW34 Sachin and PW53 Sunny are independent witnesses from whose shop Ms. Ashoka Cycle Works at Esplende Road Chandni Chowk both the accused had allegedly purchased cycle which was later on found at the spot. PW38 SI Rajeev Ranjan is the complainant. PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad Jt. Secretary who accorded sanction Ex.PW40/A U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act for prosecution of the accused persons, PW42 Sh. GL Meena, Jt. Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi, who proved sanction Ex.PW42/C U/s 196 Cr.PC for the prosecution of 37 the accused persons U/s 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC, PW51 SI Sushil Kumar is the initial IO who partly investigated the case and had recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of both the accused as Ex.PW51/A and PW51/B respectively. He also proved the CFSL report Ex.PW51/12 and the photographs of the site as Ex.PW51/11­1 to 20.

20. The relevant witnesses of the prosecution in respect of case FIR No. 45/00 are PW4 SI Gurudev Singh. This witness had obtained sanction Ex.PW4/9 U/s 7 of Explosive Substance Act to initiate proceedings against accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah. He arrested all the three accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/3, PW4/4 and PW4/6 respectively. He proved the CFSL report as Ex.PW4/5, the disclosure statement of accused Mohd. Akil as Ex.PW4/7 and his pointing out memo as Ex.PW4/8. He proved the copy of FIR 38 No. 45/00 PS Kotwali as Ex.PW4/10 and siteplan as Ex.PW4/11. He also proved the photographs Ex.PW4/18 to 21. PW11 SI Badrish Dutt had arrested both the accused persons Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Gulzar Ahmed Wani alongwith others in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market and had recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C respectively whereby the accused persons had disclosed their involvement in various cases. PW48 SI Sanjeev Kumar partly investigated the case and proved the seizure memo of the explosives recovered from the spot as Ex.PW48/A and rukka prepared by him Ex.PW48/B.

21. The relevant witnesses in case FIR No.152/01 PS Parliament Street, PW11 SI Badrish Dutt who had arrested both the accused persons alongwith others in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market and had recorded their disclosure 39 statements Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C respectively whereby the accused persons had disclosed their involvement in the present case, PW25 Jaan Mohd is an independent witness to the seizure of green colour timer and some white explosive from the spot, however he was declared hostile by the prosecution and denied any such seizure in his presence. PW51 SI Sushil Kumar had taken over investigation of this case after both the accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW11/B & Pw11/C respectively in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market. He had recorded the pointing out memo of the accused persons Ex.PW51/5 respectively whereby they had pointed out the place of occurrence near garbage box, Dalhousie House. PW52 Inspt. HS Gill, was handed over the investigation of this case on 11/5/01. He proved the complaint of HC Ashwini Kumar as Ex.PW52/5 , rukka prepared by SI YR Dogra as 40 Ex.PW52/6, copy of FIR No. 152/01 PS Parliament Street as Ex.PW52/7, copy of DD No. 17A dtd. 9/5/01 as Ex.PW52/8, siteplan Ex.PW52/9 and seizure memo Ex.PW52/10, which documents were collected by him from SI YR Dogra and are not disputed by the accused persons. This witness had arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW52/11 & Pw52/12 respectively. He proved the CFSL report as Ex.PW52/13, obtained sanction U/s 7 of Explosive Substance Act and U/s 196 Cr.PC for prosecution of both the accused persons which are Ex.PW40/D and PW42/D respectively. PW40 Mukesh Prasad Jt. Secretary and PW42 GL Meena Jt. Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., are the witnesses who accorded sanction as above.

22. The relevant witnesses in case FIR No. 176/01 PS Lodhi Colony are PW11 SI Badrish Dutt who had arrested both the accused persons 41 alongwith others in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market and had recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C respectively whereby the accused persons had disclosed their involvement in the present case, PW26 Sanjay Mudgil an independent witness who had allegedly seen accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Gulzar Ahmed Wani alongwith a motorcycle stationed near Dayal Singh College, after he heard noise of explosive as that of crackers from the side of CGO Complex however he was declared hostile by the prosecution as he did not identify both the accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah as the persons whom he had seen at that time. PW29 SI Darshan Singh had reached the spot i.e BSF Headquarters CGO Complex on receipt of DD No. 13A on 20/5/01 and seized the material scattered at the spot after the explosion vide memos Ex.PW29/A & PW29/B 42 respectively. HE had also seized one empty cover of fire cracker vide memo Ex.PW29/C. He identified the case property i.e metal pieces in the court as Ex.PW29/A1, tent cloth pieces as PW29/B1 and the empty cover as PW29/C1 respectively. PW30 Inspt. Sriram Yadav received the investigation of this case on 23/5/01. He had recovered the shell grenade from the ground of Dayal Singh College which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A. He also seized rocket launcher i.e UBGL found in dirty water drain which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B. He further recovered a polythene bag in which shell grenade was found and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW30/C. He identified the shell grenade as Ex.PW30/A1, rocket launcher as Ex.PW30/B1 and the polythene in which the shell grenade was found as Ex.PW30/C1. PW42 Sh. GL Meena, Jt. Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi proved 43 the sanction Ex.PW42/A U/s 196 Cr.PC to prosecute the accused persons U/s 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC. PW45 Inspt. Ramphal took over the investigation after registration of the case FIR No. 176/01 PS Lodhi Colony. He seized from the spot tent pieces, kannath, metal pot, fire cracker, tripal and fabric dust vide seizure memos Ex.PW45/A to F respectively. PW50 Inspt. Manoj Dixit joined the investigation of this case on 7/8/01 . He formally arrested the accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Gulzar Ahmed Wani. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained sanction Ex.PW42/A U/s 196 Cr.PC from PW42 Sh. GL Meena, Jt. Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi and sanction Ex.PW50/1 U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act. He proved the copy of FIR No. 176/01 PS Lodhi Colony as Ex.PW50/2 , complaint Ex.PW50/3, rukka Ex.PW50/4, siteplans Ex.PW50/5, DD No. 13A Ex.PW50/6, DD No. 19A 44 Ex.PW50/7. He also collected the supplementary disclosure statement made by accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah recorded in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri which are Ex.PW51/A and PW51/B respectively. He also collected the other relevant documents. He proved the CFSL reports as Ex.PW50/10 & PW50/11 respectively. PW51 SI Sushil Kumar was investigating the case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri and had recorded the supplementary disclosure statements of both the accused as Ex.PW51/A & PW51/B respectively. Both the accused had also pointed out the place of occurrence i.e Lodhi Colony ahead of Dayal Singh College road towards CGO Complex near the corner puliya (which relates to FIR No. 176/01) vide pointing out memo Ex.PW51/4.

23. Statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC in all the six cases 45 whereby they have denied incriminating evidence against them and have claimed to be innocent.

24. I have heard arguments and have gone through the material on record.

25. The defence counsel Sh. MS Khan, adv and Sh. IL Kapoor, adv has submitted that there is no cogent evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the accused persons were responsible for the blasts / explosions or had planted explosive material at different spots which was recovered later on relating to six cases referred above. It is submitted that except the disclosure statements of the accused persons recorded in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C respectively and the supplementary disclosure statement of both the accused recorded in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri Ex.PW51/A & PW51/B respectively, there is no evidence on record to link the accused 46 persons with the alleged commission of offence. It is submitted that even their disclosure statements are of no help to prosecution and cannot be read against the accused persons as there was no discovery of a new fact or recovery of any article or explosive material at the instance of the accused persons in furtherance of their disclosure statements. It is submitted that the pointing out memos of all the accused persons are also of no help to the prosecution since all the spots where the explosions took place or from where the explosive materials were recovered were already known to the police / Investigating officer before pointing out by the accused persons. It is further submitted that the explosive material from different spots was already recovered before the accused were arrested in Case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market and allegedly made disclosure statement. It is submitted that except the 47 disclosure statements there is no other evidence against the accused persons to link them with these cases hence they are liable to be acquitted. So far as case FIR No. 152/01 Ps Chanakyapuri it is submitted that prosecution has tried to link the accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah with the recovery of Hero Jett Cycle bearing No. C­402140, from the spot through the testimony of PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora that the aforesaid cycle was purchased by them from the shop M/s Ashoka Cycle Works at Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk. It is submitted that no doubt PW53 Sunny Arora has identified both the accused in the present case that they had approached his shop in May 2001 and testified that Gulzar Ahmed Wani had purchased Hero Jett Cycle black colour from his shop for which he had issued a receipt Ex.PW39/A but his evidence in no way connects 48 the accused persons with the commission of alleged offence involved in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri, as the number of the cycle purchased was O­402140 and not the one which was recovered from the spot. It is submitted that the seizure memo Ex.PW36/A of the cycle recovered from the spot finds mention the number of the cycle as C­402140 and not O­ 402140 which was allegedly purchased by the accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani , as such it cannot be said that the cycle which was recovered from the spot was planted by accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani at the spot with explosive. It is submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the cycle recovered from the spot was bearing number C­ 402140 whereas the prosecution had led contradictory evidence vide testimony of PW53 Sunny that the cycle sold to the accused was bearing No. O­402140. It is submitted that PW 53 49 Sunny Arora has admitted in his cross examination that Hero Jett Cycle comes in series A to Z and the basic feature of identification of the cycle is the number engraved on it. The defence counsel has submitted that PW53 Sunny admitted in his cross examination that where a cycle of 'C ' or 'T' series is sold , the bill bears the alphabet 'C' or 'T' and that to that effect he has admitted in his cross examination the bills Ex.PW53/DA, PW53/DB, PW53/DC respectively. It is submitted that all these cycles were sold in April 2001 and their respective series were mentioned in the bill book. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record that cycle No. C­402140 was purchased by accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani alongwith accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and was planted with explosives at the spot.

26. Regarding the charge U/s 120B IPC against the accused persons it is submitted that 50 the prosecution has failed to prove the criminal conspiracy between the accused persons and their associates if any. Regarding accused Mohd. Akil it is submitted that though he has only been charged U/s 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 B IPC in case FIR No. 45/00 PS Kotwali, however he was prosecuted without any sanction of the competent authority U/s 7 of the Explosive Substance Act for his prosecution, therefore his trial was illegal. It is also submitted that except his disclosure statement recorded in Case FIR No. 45/00, PS Kotwali there is no evidence on record to relate the accused with the alleged commission of offence. It is submitted that his disclosure statement has neither led to the recovery / discovery of any new fact and there was no eye witness to the incident who could identify the accused as the culprit. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, all the accused are 51 liable to be acquitted.

27. On the other hand Addl. PP has submitted that in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri, the accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah have been identified by PW53 Sunny Arora that they had come to their shop in May 2001 and had purchased a Hero Jett Cycle bearing No. O­402140 and that they have identified both the accused persons that they had visited the shop and accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani had purchased the vehicle vide receipt Ex.PW39/A. It is submitted that the recovery of the cycle at the spot on which the explosive was planted proves that accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah had used the cycle for causing explosion. It is submitted that PW47 Imran who was an employee of PW53 Sunny had also identified both the accused persons to have visited their shop for 52 purchasing the cycle and that he had also identified the cycle Ex.PW47/1 though unfortunately he could not be produced for cross examination as he was not traceable. It is also submitted that PW53 Sunny Arora identified the cycle Ex.PW47/A1 produced in court that he had sold the same to the accused persons. It is submitted by the Addl. PP that may be due to explosion the alphabet ' O' was reduced to 'C ' as the cycle was in damaged condition when recovered.

28. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, my findings in the six cases are as follows :

FIR No. 34/00, PS Tilak Marg:

29. Accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah have faced trial in the three cases U/s 4(a) Explosive 53 Substance Act r/w Sec. 120B IPC vide FIR Nos. 34/00 PS Tilak Marg, FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri and FIR No. 113/01 PS Parliament Street respectively.

30. PW23 Ct. Rohtash is the complainant in case FIR No. 34/00 PS Tilak Marg, who deposed that on 23/1/00, he was on duty towards south side of India Gate alongwith Ct. Mahender Singh and ASI Virender Singh and were checking the area to rule out the possibility of plantation of explosives. He found there was something beneath the earth near the barricade. He removed the earth and found something lying there suspected to be an explosive. The earth was further removed and it was found that in a box there was some green light inkling inside. Senior officers were informed and disposal squad came to the spot and diffused the same. He proved his complaint Ex.PW23/A. He also identified the 54 plastic jar recovered from the spot as Ex.PJ and its recovery memo as Ex.PW23/B.

31. PW27 ASI Raghubir Singh had reached the spot after the incident alongwith his staff where BDS team and other senior officers were already present. He stated that the explosive discovered by PW23 Ct. Rohtash was diffused by SI Gitaram . He seized one detonator and other remaining explosive in separate pulandas with the seal of MK vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/B. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW27/A and sent the same to PS through Ct. Premchand for registration of the case. He identified the jar Ex.PJ in which the explosive was recovered and diffused by the BDS.

32. PW28 Inspt. Ramchander is a formal witness. He had only prepared the siteplan Ex.PW28/A and had deposited the case property in the malkhana.

33. PW 11 SI Badrish Dutt the IO of case 55 FIR No 304/01 PS Kamla Market had arrested both the accused and recorded their disclosure statement Ex.PW 11/B and C respectively with regard to their involvement in the present case and other cases as well.

34. PW 4 SI Gurdev Singh stated to have received the investigation of this case on 5/8/01. He collected the carbon copy of FIR 34/00 PS Tilak Marg Ex PW 23/B, rukka Ex.PW 27/A and site plan Ex PW 28/A. This witness sent the exhibits in sealed condition to CFSL Lodhi Road and lateron collected its report as EX PX. Besides, he also collected the copy of FIR No 304/01 PS Kamla Market and the disclosure statements of accused persons recorded therein which are Ex PW 11/B & C respectively. He also collected the pointing out memo Ex.PW4/24 prepared at the instance of the accused persons in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri whereby they pointed out the spot 56 relating to the present case. He arrested the accused persons in the present case. He further proved the sanction U/s 7 as EX. PW 40/B accorded by PW 40 Sh Mukesh Pd. Joint Secretary. This witness has also proved the photographs of the spot as Ex PW 4/28 to 31.

35. This is the only evidence led by the prosecution against both the accused regarding their involvement in the case FIR No 34/00 PS Tilak Marg. The perusal of evidence on record does prove that some high intensity explosive was planted at the spot by some person or a group of persons to cause explosion and kill innocent persons however there is no evidence on record that explosive was planted by the accused persons.

36. Perusal of the evidence referred above shows that there is no eye witness who had seen the accused persons near or around the spot 57 at any time prior to the spotting of explosives from near a barricade by PW 23 Ct Rohtash nor any person saw them planting explosive, thus except the disclosure statements of both the accused persons Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C respectively recorded by PW 11 Badrish Dutt in case FIR 304/01 PS Kamla Market and their supplementary statements Ex PW 51/A and B respectively recorded in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri, there is no other evidence on record against the accused persons to link them with the alleged plantation of the explosives in the lawns of India Gate. The disclosure statements made by the accused persons are by itself not admissible in evidence in view of Sec.26 of the Evidence Act since there was no recovery or discovery of any new fact in furtherance of their respective disclosure statements in view of the provision of Sec. 27 Evidence Act. In these 58 circumstances the prosecution has miserably proved the charges against the accused persons in case FIR 34/00 PS Tilak Marg.

37. Thus in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against both the accused, hence they are acquitted of the charges U/s 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 B IPC.

FIR No: 113, PS Parliament Street:

38. So far case FIR 113/01 PS Pt Street, is concerned, PW 31 SI Lal Saheb is the complainant who deposed that on 10/4/01 on receipt of DD No 18 A he alongwith Ct. Subhash reached North Block Gate NO 2 Parking where one Sardar Harnam Singh showed a tiffin wrapped in a yellow colour polythene bag which was suspected to be an explosive. It is stated that 59 BDS Team of Delhi police was called but they refused to diffuse the bomb. Thereafter the BDS team Army was called who diffused the bomb. The explosive weighed 3kg 75 gms out of which 100 gms was taken out as sample. The explosive , the timer , detonators, battery and polythene bags were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW31/A. He prepared rukka Ex.PW31/B and sent to the PS for registration of the case. He also prepared the siteplan Ex.PW31/C. He identified the case property in the court as Ex.PW31/1 to 4 i.e yellow coloured polythene bag, timer , two detonators and battery respectively.

39. PW11 SI Badrish Dutt deposed about the arrest of both the accused in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market whereby they made disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B & Pw11/C respectively regarding their involvement in the aforesaid incident.

60

40. They were arrested by PW51 SI Sushil Kumar, who interrogated both the accused persons in view of the above referred disclosure statements. It is stated that he arranged for the TIP proceedings in respect of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani but he had refused to participate in the proceedings and thereafter recorded their supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW51/A & PW51/ B respectively. It is stated that both the accused pointed out towards the parking North Block gate No. 2 vide memo Ex.PW51/3.

41. PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad Jt.

Secretary accorded sanction ExPW40/C U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act for prosecution of the accused persons.

42. PW42 Sh. GL Meena, Jt.

Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi, who proved sanction Ex.PW42/B U/s 196 Cr.PC for the prosecution of the accused persons U/s 121, 121A, 61 122, 123 IPC .

43. PW52 Inspt. HS Gill deposed that on 11/4/01, he took over the investigation of the present case from SI Lal Saheb. He proved the FIR No. 113/01 PS Parliament Street as Ex.PW52/1. He collected the documents from SI Lal Saheb. IT is stated that he sent the exhibits of the case to CFSL Lodhi Road through SI Ramphal and proved the CFSL report as Ex.PW52/2. As per the CFSL report the white colour crystalline material found from tiffin carrier was sodium chloride mixed with oily material. The ABCD electronic timer recovered from the spot was found in working condition. Two electronic detonators and one 9 volt battery recovered from the spot were live . All these articles are opined as the components of improvised explosive device and are explosive substances as per the definition in the Explosive Substance Act 1908. He also collected the 62 documents pertaining to case FIR No. 304/01 PS Parliament Street. He arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW52/3 & PW52/4 respectively. HE also collected the sanctions from the competent authorities Ex.PW40/C and PW42/B respectively under the Explosive Substance Act and U/s 196 Cr.PC.

44. In view of the above evidence it is proved by the prosecution that explosive was planted in a tiffin in the parking of North Block.

45. This is the only evidence led by the prosecution against both the accused regarding their involvement in the case FIR No 113/01 PS Parliament Street. In view of the above evidence it is proved by the prosecution that explosive material was planted in a tiffin carrier of parking of north block , however this by itself is not sufficient to prove that it was planted by the accused persons.

63

46. Perusal of the evidence referred above shows that there is no eye witness who had seen the accused persons near or around the spot at any time prior to the spotting of explosives from at parking North Block, Gate No. 2 by one Harnam Singh who met SI Lal Saheb at the spot and pointed out towards the tiffin containing the explosives. IT is pertinent to mention that PW Harnam Singh has not been examined as a prosecution witness so it has not been proved on record by the prosecution that the tiffin containing the explosive material was actually found there at the spot by Harnam Singh and police was informed accordingly. Besides , except the disclosure statements recorded by PW 11 Badrish Dutt in case FIR 304/01 PS Kamla Market, whereby the accused were arrested in case FIR 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri and made supplementary statements Ex PW 51/A and 64 PW51/B respectively, there is no other evidence on record against the accused persons to link them with the alleged plantation of the explosives at parking North Block, Gate No.2. As referred above the disclosure statements of accused persons are inadmissible in evidence as these did not lead to any recovery or discovery of a fact which was not known earlier. There is also no evidence on record of criminal conspiracy between the accused & other persons / terrorists/or terrorist outfits. In these circumstances the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the accused persons in FIR No.113/01 PS Parliament Street.

47. Thus in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against both the accused, hence they are acquitted of the charges U/s 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 65 B IPC.

FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri:

48. PW 38 SI Rajeev Ranjan is the complainant in the present case who testified that on 9/5/01 on receipt of DD No. 15 that an explosion had taken place at Sena Bhawan Army Headquarter canteen, he alonwith Ct. Rajpal and other staff reached the spot and found explosive substance around the place of incident. He stated that one damaged cycle was also found there and the mud guard of the same had been damaged. He stated that the articles lying at the spot were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW38/A to C and PW36/A to C. He also sealed the articles with the seal of RR. He proved rukka Ex.PW38/D sent through Ct. Rajpal for registration of FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri. He prepared siteplan Ex.PW38/E. He identified the case property in the 66 court i.e the remnants of Explosive Substance , timer , detonator , battery. He further testified that he collected MLC of one Rajenderpal Sood who was injured in the explosion and recorded his statement. Dog squad and crime team alongwith photographer were also called. He recorded the statement of PW Bhagat Singh who was running a pan shop near the spot. He recorded statement of Ct. Rajpal and HC Chanderbhan. Thereafter the investigation was transferred from him.

49. PW36 ASI Chanderbhan had joined the investigation with SI Rajeev Ranjan. It is stated that when he reached the spot i.e CSD Canteen Rajaji Marg, a cycle PW36/P1 was lying there which was seized by memo Ex.PW36/A. White colour explosive was also lying there scattered which was seized vide memo Ex.PW36/B. He proved the recovery of cotton bag and torn plastic bags containing white colour 67 explosive as Ex.PW36/P2 to 5. One battery Ex.PW36/P6 was also lying there which was seized vide memo Ex.PW36/C. It is stated that except the cycle all the other articles were sealed with the seal of RR.

50. PW33 Rajender Pal Sood was injured in the alleged incident . He deposed that on 9/5/01 he reached CSD Canteen, near South Block in order to buy some goods. When he reached the parking place of the canteen, and was parking his scooter, he saw smoke coming out of a cylce followed by a blast and due to the impact, he received injuries on his chest. Thereafter he was removed to RML Hospital by PCR Van.

51. PW37 the duty officer, ASI Rameshchand has proved the FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakayapuri as Ex.PW37/A.

52. PW39 Inspt. Manoj Dixit from Spl. Cell had joined the investigation of the present 68 case on 10/5/01 and was assigned the job to trace frame No. C­402140 of cycle recovered from the spot to find out from where it was sold. It is stated that on the directions of senior police officers, he alongwith SI Naseeb Singh had reached the office of Hero Cycle at Asaf Ali Road and made enquiries regarding the above mentioned frame number . The only information he got was that cycle was manufactured at Ludhiana with that frame but there was no information as to which dealer sold it. On 11/5/01, he alongwith SI Naseeb Singh went to MHC(M) PS Chanakyapuri and cycle was reinspected and details of accessories like carrier, bell, stand and lock were taken. Thereafter they went to MK Cycle industries Lajpat Rai Market and came to know about the names of some parties who used to supply cycle parts. Thereafter they went to shop No. 379 Esplende Road and after checking the bill books detected the frame 69 number of cycle involved in this incident in bill No. 3367 sold on 9/5/01. The bill was in the name of Mr. Manzoor and the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/A and the bill No. 3367 vide which cycle was sold is Ex.PW39/A. He further stated that with the assistance of PW34 Sachin Khanna and Imran Khan the sketch to whom the cycle was sold was prepared. He recorded their statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. This witness during cross examination admitted that in bill No. 3367 Ex.PW39/A the cycle number is mentioned as O­402140.

53. PW34 Sachin Khanna deposed that he is running business of cycles in the name & style of Ashoka Cylce Works at Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He stated that police had seized the bill book on 11/5/01 vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/A. It is further stated that bill No. 3369 dtd. 9/5/01 which finds mention in Ex.PW34/A 70 was prepared by his cousin Sunny Arora. He identified the bill book as Ex.PW34/A1.

54. PW 53 Sunny Arora, is the cousin of PW34 who deposed that he is running cycle shop M/s Ashok Cycle Works at 397 Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk. He deposed that one person namely Gulzar alongwith one more person of short height had come to his shop in the year 2001. He again stated that they came to his shop on 9th ,.10th or 12/5/01. He testified , Gulzar Ahmed Wani purchased Hero Jett Cycle black colour from his shop and a receipt was issued to him . He further stated that police had come to his shop in the same year after one or two months and two persons namely Gulzar Ahmed and Ghulam Mohiuddin were also with them who had pointed out towards the shop from outside and told the police that they had purchased the cycle from there. Thereafter, the police had come to 71 his shop alongwith both the accused. This witness identified both the accused present in court that they had come to his shop and accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani had purchased the cycle . He stated that he handed over the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 from S.No. 3301 to 3400 to the police. It is stated that vide receipt dtd. 9/5/01 Ex.PW39/A, the cycle was purchased by accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani . He volunteered that the accused had disclosed his name as Manzoor at the time of purchase of cycle. He further testified that the cycle sold was having frame No. O­402140. During his testimony he was shown the cycle Ex.PW36/P1 which he identified as the one sold by him. He volunteered that the cycle shown to him is bearing accessories, stand, lock and carrier which were fitted in his shop.

55. PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad Jt.

Secretary who accorded sanction Ex.Pw40/A U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act for prosecution of the 72 accused persons.

56. PW42Sh. GL Meena, Jt.

Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi, who proved sanction Ex.PW42/C U/s 196 Cr.PC for the prosecution of the accused persons U/s 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC.

57. PW41 SI Naseeb Singh had joined the investigation of this case on 11/5/01. He testified that during the course of investigation he had gone alongwith SI Manoj Dixit to Ashoka Cycle Works, Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk and met the owner of the shop namey Sunny Arora who produced bill book Ex.PW34/A1 to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/A. As per the bill No. 3367 one cycle was sold to one Manzoor. He further testified that on 31/7/01, he again joined the investigation when SI Sushil Kumar arrested both the accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah.

73

58. PW46 Bhagat Singh, is a witness to the explosion who deposed that he was present at his shop of Pan Beedi inside CSD Canteen Parking Area, Rajaji Marg, at about 3:10pm, he heard a sound of explosion. Public collected there. He noticed a bicycle there which was damaged due to explosion. The officials from various departments reached the spot and the remnants of the explosive were lifted by the police which consisted of wire and other material vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/B. One battery Ex.PW36/P6 lifted from the spot was seized vide seizure memo ex.PW36/C and bicycle Ex.PW36/P1 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW36/A. The other material lifted from the spot included one bag Ex.PW36/P2, plastic theili Ex.PW36/P3, a plastic bag of green colour Ex.PW36/P4 and another plastic bag Ex.PW36/P5.

59. PW51 SI Sushil Kumar testified that 74 he had received the investigation of this case on 31/7/01. He interrogated the accused persons who were arrested in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market since they had made a disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B and PW11/C respectively in the aforesaid case about their involvement in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri. He had moved an application Ex.Pw51/1 before the concerned court for the TIP proceedings of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani but he had refused to participate in the proceedings . Thereafter he had obtained police remand of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and was interrogated in detail. This witness recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused as Ex.PW51/A & PW51/B respectively. They pointed out the spot from where they had purchased the cylce Ex.PW36/P1 vide pointing out memo Ex.PW52/2. It is testified that both the accused had pointed out towards the parking area 75 in front of CSD Canteen Sena Bhawan at Rajaji Marg where they had kept a bag containing explosive on the carrier of a cycle and parked the cycle there. The pointing out memo is Ex.PW51/6. He arrested both the accused vide arrest memos Ex.PW51/7 & PW51/8 respectively. He also obtained sanction PW 42/C U/s 196 Cr.PC and sanction Ex.PW40/A U/s 7 of Explosive Substance Act for the prosecution of the accused persons. He also collected 20 photographs from the Photo Section Parliament Street connected with the present case which are Ex.PW51/11­1 to 20. Lateron he collected the CFSL report Ex.PW51/12 .

60. PW11 SI Badrish Dutt deposed about the arrest of both the accused in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market whereby they made disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B & Pw11/C respectively in respect of their involvement in the 76 aforesaid incident.

61. PW32 is Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, MM before whom the TIP proceedings were arranged for identification of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and he had refused to participate in the proceedings on the grounds that he was shown to the witnesses in the Police station by the police officers.

62. The arguments of the defence counsel are to the effect that there is no evidence on record to prove that accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani alongwith accused Ghulam Mohiuddin had purchased the cycle Ex.PW36/P1 bearing particulars Hero Jett Cylce No. C402140 which was recovered from the spot. It is submitted that the cycle Ex.PW36/P1 which was produced in the court was seen by the court and it was confirmed that it was bearing No. C­402140 and that this number also finds mention in the seizure memo 77 Ex.PW36/A. It is submitted that the public witnesses PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora the owners of Ashoka Cycle Works , Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk have deposed to the effect that one cycle was sold by them to accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani on 9/5/01 vide receipt Ex.PW39/A and as per the said receipt the number of the cycle allegedly sold by them to the accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani was O­402140 and not C­402140 which was recovered from the spot. It is submitted that though the accused are denying to have purchased any cycle from Ashoka Cycle Works owned by PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora, at the same time even if it is presumed that they had purchased a cycle from Ashoka Cycle Works it was not the cycle which was recovered from the site bearing No. C­402140. For the mere reason that accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani had been identified by 78 PW53 Sunny Arora in the court, this by itself does not lead to the inference that the cycle recovered from the spot was planted with explosive at the spot by accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani, particularly when it has not been proved by the prosecution that the cycle Ex.PW36/P1 was purchased by the accused from PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora. It is submitted that PW53 Sunny Arora identified the accused person being tutored by the IO who produced the witness himself in court and this fact is admitted by PW53 Sunny Arora in cross examination that he is not a summoned witness, thus his testimony cannot be relied upon. It is further submitted that except the disclosure statements of both the accused i.e. PW11/B and PW11/C respectively and their supplementary disclosure statements Ex.PW51/A and PW51/B, which are inadmissible against the accused persons in view of the 79 provisions of Sec.26 of the Indian Evidence Act as no recovery or discovery of fact was made in furtherance of these disclosure statements. It is submitted that no new fact came to the knowledge of the Investigating officers vide the disclosure statements of the accused persons and their pointing out memo Ex.PW51/2 and Ex.PW51/6 as the investigating officers were already aware of the spot where explosions took place and had already visited the shop of PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora and had collected the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 seized vide Ex.PW34/A dtd. 11/5/01 containing the receipt Ex.PW39/A against which the accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani had allegedly purchased a cycle bearing No. O­402140. The defence counsel has drawn my attention towards the disclosure statements of the accused persons Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C dtd. 31/7/01 and PW51/A & PW51/ B dtd 80 2/8/01 respectively which are recorded after the seizure of the bill book and interrogation of the witnesses PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora. As such the pointing out the shop M/s Ashoka Cycle Works , Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk vide memo Ex.PW51/2 by the accused persons lateron was of no consequence.

63. The public prosecutor Ms. Anita Hooda on the other hand has argued that may be due to explosion the alphabet ' O' engraved on the cycle was damaged in blast and thus it appeared like 'C'.

It is submitted that in view of the statement of PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora it is proved that the cycle recovered from the spot was purchased by accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani on 9/5/01 and lateron, on the same day the explosive substance was kept on the cycle and placed at Sena Bhawan, Army Headquarter, near CSD Canteen resulting into explosion at 81 around 3pm. It is submitted that the accessories on the cycle were identified by PW53 Sunny Arora in the court that these accessories were fixed by him on the cycle when it was sold.

64. After hearing the submissions of both the parties I find that prosecution has proved on record that an explosion took place at Sena Bhawan, Army Headquarter at CSD Canteen on 9/5/01 at 3pm, vide testimony of PW33 Rajenderpal Sood who was injured in the blast and PW46 Bhagat Singh who was running a pan beedi shop inside CSD Canteen parking area and this incident was reported to the police vide DD No. 15. It is also proved on record that during investigation, cycle Ex.PW36/P1 bearing particulars Hero Jett Cycle bearing No. C­402140 was recovered from the spot in damaged condition and besides heavy explosive substance which was lying scattered near the cycle was also 82 recovered. From the spot the remnants of explosive substance, timer, detonator , battery , cotton bag and plastic bags were also recovered and were seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW36/A , PW36/B, PW36/C and PW38/A to C. The recovery of the explosive substance referred above has been proved vide testimony of PW36 ASI Chanderbhan and PW38 SI Rajeev Ranjan who also happens to be the complainant in the case as on his statement the FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri Ex.PW37/A was recorded. The CFSL report Ex.PW51/12 has been proved vide testimony of PW51 SI Sushil Kumar. The perusal of the report shows that the white crystalline material with shattered cloth pieces, black electric tapes, and one shattered cloth bag having black colour belt and shattered pink and green colour polythene bags were containing 'c hloret' based low explosive mixture and that 83 white crystalline material with shattered cloth pieces, black electric tapes, one green coloured ABCD timer with two twin wires and three small pieces of yellow coloured electric wire, one exploded based portion of electrical detonator, one shattered cloth bag having black coloured belt and shattered pink and green colour polythene bags and one 9 volt duracell battery recovered from the spot could form the components of the improvised explosive device (IED).

65. Now the only question left to be examined is who was responsible for planting the explosive at Sena Bhawan, Army Headquarter Canteen parking. The prosecution has tried to link accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin with the alleged explosion on the basis of their respective disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C recorded in case FIR No. 84 304/01 PS Kamla Market and lateron their supplementary statements Ex.PW51/A & PW51/B respectively recorded in the present case. It is pertinent to mention that the blast had taken place on 9/5/01. During investigation on 11/5/01 PW39 Inspt. Manoj Dixit from Spl Cell, who was assigned the job to trace out the shop from where cycle frame No. C­402140 was sold, reached the shop M/s Ashoka Cycle Works, at Esplende Road, Chandni Chowk from where he collected the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/A. As per the said bill book vide bill No. 3367 Ex.PW39/A a cycle bearing No. O­402140 was sold to one Manzoor. The owners of the cycle shop namely PW34 Sachin Khanna and PW53 Sunny Arora assisted SI Manoj Dixit and the sketch of the person to whom the cycle was sold was prepared. It is pertinent to mention that the sketch which was prepared with 85 the help of these two witnesses has not been placed on record to say that one Manzoor who had purchased the cycle against bill No. 3367 Ex.PW39/A was actually accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani. It is also pertinent to mention that the cycle which was recovered from the spot and has been exhibited in the court as Ex.PW36/P1 was bearing frame No. C­402140, whereas the receipt Ex.PW39/A vide which a cycle was sold to one Manzoor was bearing frame No. O­402140 and as such the seizure of the bill book and the receipt Ex.PW34/A1 and PW39/A was of no consequence and of no help to the prosecution since the cycle recovered from the spot on which the explosive substance was planted and lateron exploded was bearing frame No. C­402140 and the argument of the prosecution that due to blast the series ' O' mentioned against number 402140 engraved on the cycle was damaged and it appeared as 'C ' 86 instead of ' O', is of no consequence as the number engraved on the cycle was seen by me personally with naked eye as well as using eye glass and it was clearly legible as 'C­ 402140' and there were no signs of damage of the engraved number due to the blast. As such for the mere reason that accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani has been identified by PW53 Sunny Arora in the court as the person who had visited his shop and had purchased Hero Jett Cycle black colour from his shop is of no consequence, particularly when the receipt book is neither bearing the signatures of the accused nor his name besides the witness PW53 Sunny Arora could not even state before the court clearly on which date the accused had come to his shop for purchasing the cycle as he deposed in chief examination that accused persons had come to his shop on 9th , 10th or 12th of May. It is pertinent to mention that the incident had taken place on 87 9/5/01 so if the witness is not sure whether the accused persons had visited his shop on 9th May or lateron, the benefit has to be given to the accused persons for the same as the prosecution has failed to prove with certainity that accused persons had gone to the shop of PW53 Sunny Arora and purchased the same cycle which was lateron recovered from the spot. It is further pertinent to mention that this witness has nowhere deposed that police had visited his shop on 11/5/01 for enquiries and bill book Ex.PW34/A1 was seized from his shop vide seizure memo Ex.PW34/A . He testified that the police had visited his shop in the same year after one or two months alongwith two persons namely Gulzar Ahmed and Ghulam Mohiuddin who had pointed out his shop from outside and told the police that they had purchased the cycle from there. However, as per the prosecution case , the 88 accused persons were taken to his shop on 2/8/01 which is almost after two and a half months of the alleged purchase of cycle. The testimony of PW53 also does not inspire credence for the reason that in the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 the bill No. 3367 Ex.PW39/A is bearing the name of the purchaser as Manzoor whereas when this witness appeared in the court and his chief examination was recorded, he deposed that one person namely Gulzar alongwith one person of short height had come to his shop in the year 2001. HE further stated that Gulzar Ahmed had purchased Hero Jett black cycle. It is pertinent to mention that this witness did not identify the accused Gulzar Ahmed in the court as Manzoor but as Gulzar Ahmed . It is also pertinent that this witness was not a summoned witness but was produced by the IO in the court and may be for this reason he could identify the accused Gulzar Ahmed at his 89 instance. Even assuming that it is accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani who had purchased cycle No. O­ 402140 from his shop, it does not lead to the inference that he planted explosion at the spot on the cycle bearing No. C­402140 which was never purchased by him nor any one saw him leaving the cycle at the spot alongwith explosive nor any one even saw him near the spot before or after or at the time of explosion.

66. Regarding the sketches of the accused persons prepared by the police , again there is no cogent evidence led by the prosecution . Firstly, the sketches are not proved on record and secondly it is doubtful at whose instance these were prepared. PW39 Inspt. Manoj Dixit deposed that on 11/5/01 he alongwith SI Naseeb Singh had gone to shop No. 397, Esplende Road and on checking the bill books detected the frame number of the cycle in bill No. 3367 sold on 90 9/5/01. The bill was in the name of Manzoor . The bill book was seized. It is testified that with the help of Sachin Khanna and Imran Khan, sketch of the person to whom the cycle was sold was prepared. However, PW34 Sachin Khanna, does not corroborate his testimony to that effect that at his instance the sketch of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani was prepared nor he was made to identify the accused persons in the court. Similarly, PW41 SI Naseeb Singh who had accompanied PW39 SI Manoj Dixit to the shop also has not corroborated his testimony in this regard. He stated that at Ashoka Cycle Works, Chandni Chowk, Esplende Road, the owner of the shop namely Sunny Arora met them and produced the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 to the IO, seized vide memo Ex.PW34/A. He does not speak at all that any sketch was prepared of accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani on that day or PW34 Sunny Arora and one Imran Khan were 91 present there and at their instance the sketch of the accused was prepared. In view of the aforesaid contradictory evidence on record, neither it is proved that the bill book Ex.PW34/A was seized by the police on 11/5/01 nor it is proved that the sketch of the accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani was prepared at the instance of PW34 Sachin Khanna. It is pertinent to note that PW53 Sunny Arora has nowhere deposed that the bill book was handed over by him to the police on 11/5/01, nor he says that police met him around that date but on the other hand he has stated that police came to his shop after one or two months thereafter. As such there is no cogent evidence on record about seizure of the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 on 11/5/01 and about the sketch of the accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani prepared on that day. So it is a mystery at whose instance sketch was prepared as on 11/5/01 when the bill book was seized PW34 92 Sachin Khanna does not talk of any sketch prepared by the police at his instance and at the same time PW53 Sunny Arora does not say police met him on 11/5/01. As per him, police met him after one or two months of the sale of the cycle. Then at whose instance the sketch was prepared. This question has not been answered by the prosecution. Besides as referred above , when the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 was seized it was containing bill Ex.PW39/A bearing the number of the cycle sold to one Manzoor as ' O 402140', whereas the cycle recovered from the spot was bearing No. 'C 402140' . As such the further investigation in this regard against the accused persons on the basis of the receipt Ex.PW39/A was unwarranted unless there was any other evidence regarding involvement of the accused persons was available with the investigating agency. It is pertinent to mention that in the seizure memo Ex.PW34/A of 93 the bill book Ex.PW34/A1 there is an overwriting in the number of the cycle mentioned therein, as the perusal of the same shows that originally the number written there in was O­402140 but lateron the alphabet ' O' was overwritten as 'C '. May be this overwriting was done without realising that the receipt Ex.PW39/A was containing the correct number of the sold cycle as ' O ­402140' .

67. The argument of the Ld. Prosecutor that the cycle Ex.PW36/P1 produced in the court was bearing accessories of the shop of PW53 Sunny Arora which were identified by him during his testimony, is of no consequence as this witness admitted in cross examination that he used to manufacture the cycle accessories and these were supplied to the whole market by M/s MK Cycle Industries, New Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi. Thus it cannot be stated that the accessories affixed on cycle Ex.PW36/P1 could 94 only be fixed by PW53 and not by anybody else. It is pertinent to mention that this witness in chief examination has categorically stated that the cycle sold was having frame No. ' 0­402140' and in cross examination he admitted that the basic feature of the identification of the cycle is the number engraved on it.

68. The other evidence produced by the prosecution on record is of PW32 Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, MM before whom the TIP proceedings were arranged for identification of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and he had refused to participate in the proceedings on the grounds that he was shown to the witnesses in the Police station by the police officers. No doubt for not participating in the TIP proceedings , adverse inference can be drawn against the accused, however this by itself is not conclusive proof of the accused being the culprit, as there is no other 95 incriminating evidence on record against him. The prosecution has also tried to prove on record through the testimony of PW35 Saliq Ram an STD Booth owner that accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah used to send messages from his STD booth on the pagers of the militants in Kashmir. PW35 identified the accused Mohiuddin in the court that he used to make calls from his STD and also proved the relevant bills as Ex.PW35/A1 to A6 , however there is no evidence on record that the pager numbers mentioned in the aforesaid bills belonged to the militants in Kashmir nor there is any evidence as to what messages were passed on by accused Mohiuddin on these pagers.

69. The prosecution has also failed to produce any evidence that both the accused persons had hatched any criminal conspiracy and planted explosion on a bicycle at CSD Canteen, 96 Rajaji Marg, Sena Bhawan which lateron exploded.

70. Thus in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against both the accused, hence they are acquitted of the charges U/s 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 B IPC.

FIR No. 45/00 PS Kotwali:

71. PW48 SI Sanjeev Kumar has testified to the effect that on 26/1/00 he was on duty with Anti Sabotage Checking alongwith HC Ravinder, HC Pratap, Ct. Sunil Kumar, Ct. Rajpal and Ct. Jitender near rampede Red Fort. He further testified that during checking at around 9am they found some electric wires in the ground at the south side. The said portion was digged with the help of the staff and found one plastic container containing a nine bolt duracell, the battery was 97 damaged and 6 red colour cells were visible. He further testified that there were small pieces of cast iron, spring, burnt pieces of adhesive and some number was written on the bolt which he does not remember. It is stated that the electric wires were attached to a switch. In the meantime Inspt. Rajbir reached the spot. Thereafter all the articles were converted into a cloth pulanda and sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW48/A. He proved the rukka as Ex.PW48/B which was sent through Ct. Jitender to PS Spl. Cell for registration of the case FIR No. 45/00 PS Kotwali U/s 3 , 4 Explosive Substance act. Thereafter further investigation was handed over to SI Sanjay Sharma. The witness identified the case property in the court, collectively as Ex.PK. He further proved the siteplan Ex.PW4/11 which was prepared by SI Sanjay Sharma on his pointing out.

98

72. PW24 SI Virender Singh of Bomb Disposal Squad deposed that on receiving the information he had reached the Red Fort grounds on 26/1/00 where he met SI Sanjeev who had produced before him an explosive device in damaged condition which was sealed with the seal of SK.

73. PW4 SI Gurudev Singh testified that on 6/8/01 he was handed over the investigation of the present case. It is stated that SI Sushil Kumar IO of case FIR No, 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri handed over two disclosure statements Ex.PW51/A & PW51/C respectively in which the accused persons disclosed about their involvement in the present case. Accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Mohd Akil were arrested in the present case vide memo Ex.PW4/3 , Ex.PW4/4 and Ex.PW4/6 respectively. He proved the disclosure statement 99 of accused Mohd. Akil as Ex.PW4/7 and his pointing out memo as Ex.PW4/8. He proved the CFSL report as ex.PW4/5. This witness had obtained the sanction Ex.PW4/9 U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act to initiate prosecution against accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah. He proved the copy of FIR No. 45/00 PS Kotwali as Ex.PW4/10 and siteplan as Ex.PW4/11. He also proved the photographs of the spot as Ex.PW4/18 to 21. He further testified that sanction under section Explosves Substance Act in respect of accused Mohd. Akil was not given by the competent authority as there was only disclosure statement and no other evidence against him.

74. PW11 SI Badrish Dutt deposed about the arrest of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah in case Fir No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market whereby they made disclosure 100 statements Ex.PW11/B & Pw11/C respectively in respect of their involvement in the aforesaid incident.

75. PW49 HC Purshottam testified that on 26/1/00 SI Sanjeev Kumar deposited one cloth parcel and one envelope parcel both sealed with the seal of SK in the malkhana. He further stated that on 13/2/00, he handed over two sealed pulandas having seal of SK vide RC No. 318 to Ct. Madhusudan for depositing the same at CFSL Chandigarh who after depositing the same brought back the deposit receipt. He proved the relevant entries in Register No. 19 at point A & B as Ex.PW49/A and the photocopy of the RC register as Ex.PW49/B. It is stated that on 11/9/00 the CFSL report received from Chandigarh and the two pulandas were deposited in the malkhana by the then MHC(M) and the entry to that effect is Ex.PW49/C and that the report was handed over 101 to the IO. He also stated on cross examination by Addl. PP that the CFSL from having seal of SK was also sent alongwith pulandas to CFSL Chandigarh.

76. Through the testimony of PW48 SI Sanjeev Kumar referred above, the prosecution has proved on record the recovery of explosive substance from the spot near rampede Red Fort in terms of CFSL report Ex.PW4/5.

77. This is the only evidence led by the prosecution against all the accused regarding their involvement in the case FIR No 45/00 PS Kotwali.

78. Perusal of the evidence referred above shows that there is no eye witness who had seen the accused persons near or around the spot at any time prior to the spotting of explosives from near rampede Red Fort Delhi. Except the disclosure statements recorded by PW 11 Badrish 102 Dutt in case FIR 304/01 PS Kamla Market, of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and their supplementary statements recorded in case FIR 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri , there is no other evidence against them to link them with the alleged plantation of the explosives . So far accused Mohd. Akil is concerned there is no evidence on record, justifying his arrest in the present case and trial lateron , as except his disclosure statement recorded in this case, there is no evidence collected by the investigating agency against him. It is pertinent to mention that the disclosure statements of all the accused persons are inadmissible against them in view of Sec. 26 Indian Evidence Act as no recovery or discovery of fact was made in furtherance of the same. In the present case, trial of accused Mohd Akil was bad in law as he was charged U/s 4(a) Explosive 103 Substance Act r/w 120 B IPC , however no sanction from the competent authority U/s 196 Cr.PC and U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act was procured for his prosecution.

79. Thus in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against all the accused, hence they are acquitted of the charges U/s 4(a) Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 B IPC.

FIR No. 152/01 PS Parliament Street:

80. PW11 SI Badrish Dutt deposed about the arrest of both the accused in case FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Market whereby they made disclosure statements Ex.PW11/B & Pw11/C respectively in respect of their involvement in the aforesaid incident.

81. PW25 Jaan Mohd. is an independent 104 witness to the recovery of green colour timer and white explosive material from Dalhousie road, however, he was declared hostile by the prosecution as he denied that police had collected the green colour timer and some white explosive from the spot after explosion. Despite cross examination by the Spl. PP he did not support the prosecution case.

82. PW43 Ct. Santlal testified that on 9/5/01 at the instance of SI Rajeev Ranjan he took photographs from various angles of the site of crime i.e Dalhousie road, south block, New Delhi. He proved the negative prints as Ex.PW43/1 to 20 and the positive prints as Ex.PW43/21 to 40.

83. PW51 SI Sushil Kumar proved the pointing out memo of accused persons as Ex.PW51/5 whereby they had pointed out the place of occurrence near garbage box, Dalhousie Road.

105

84. PW52 Inspt. HS Gill testified that on 11/5/01 he was handed over the investigation of the present case FIR No. 152/01 , PS Parliament Street and he collected the case file from SI Yograj Dogra . He proved the complaint of HC Ashwini Kumr as Ex.PW52/5, rukka prepared by SI YR Dogra as Ex.PW52/6, copy of FIR No. 152/01 PS Parliament Street as Ex.PW52/7, copy of DD No. 17A dtd. 9/5/01 as Ex.PW52/8, siteplan as Ex.PW52/9 and seizure memo as Ex.PW52/10. He collected the above documents from SI YR Dogra which are also not disputed by the accused persons. This witness arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW52/11 & PW52/12 respectively. He also collected copy of FIR No. 304/01 PS Kamla Marlet , disclosure statements of accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani, Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah , Firoz Rafi and Mumtaz pertaining to FIR No. 304/01 Ps Kamla Market. He 106 also collected the pointing out memo Ex.PW51/5 of case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri and the supplementary disclosure statements Ex.PW51/A & PW51/B respectively. He proved the CFSL report as Ex.PW52/13. He also obtained the sanction Ex.PW40/D U/s 7 of Explosive Substance Act and Ex.PW42/D U/s 196 Cr.PC for prosecution of both the accused persons.

85. PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad Jt.

Secretary who accorded sanction ExPW40/D U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act for prosecution of the accused persons.

86. PW42Sh. GL Meena, Jt.

Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi, who proved sanction Ex.PW42/D U/s 196 Cr.PC for the prosecution of the accused persons U/s 121, 121A, 122, 123 IPC .

87. After going through the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case I find that 107 the prosecution has not examined the complainant PW HC Ashwini Kumar to prove the alleged blast in the garbage at Dalhousie Road, though the blast by itself has not been disputed by the accused persons. Their grievance is that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the prosecution has failed to prove that they were responsible for the blast. In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is proved on record by CFSL report Ex.PW52/13 that the white colour putti like material, shattered paper pieces, polythene pieces, debris and earthern material recovered from spot confirmed the presence of Chloret based explosion mixture mixed with oily material and that one broken ABCD electronic timer was an improvised explosive device. However, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to prove on record that the aforesaid explosive material was planted in the garbage by 108 the accused persons. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident who could see the accused persons planting the explosive substance at the spot or saw them near the spot before or after the incident. Again, except the disclosure statement of the accused persons Ex.PW11/B & PW11/C and PW51/A and PW51/B respectively there is no evidence on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of the alleged offence. However, the disclosure statements of all the accused persons are inadmissible against them in view of Sec. 26 Indian Evidence Act as no recovery or discovery of fact was made in furtherance of the same.

88. Thus in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against both the accused, hence they are acquitted of the charges U/s 3 Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 B 109 IPC.

FIR No. 176/01 PS Lodhi Colony:

89. The relevant witnesses to the present case examined by the prosecution are PW26 Sanjay Mudgil, PW29 SI Darshan Singh, PW30 Inspt. Siriram Yadav, PW40 Sh. Mukesh Prasad, Jt. Secretary, PW42 Sh. GL Meena Jt. Commissioner, PW50 Inspt. Manoj Dixit and PW51 SI Sushil Kumar. The complainant Ct. Hujir Mullah has not been examined by the prosecution since the incident as such was not disputed by the accused persons , and it is the only the involvement of the accused persons in the above incident which is disputed.

90. PW26 Sanjay Mudgil testified that on 20/5/01 he was supervising the work at about 8:45am on Lodhi Road, when he heard noise of explosive from the side of CGO Complex. Again 110 after 10­15 minutes, one car passed form his right side and in the headlight of that car, he noticed a motorcycle stationed near Dayal Singh College. One person was already sitting on the motorcycle and the other person came from the verge of the road and took the pillion seat. He stated that now he cannot identify the accused persons who were on the motorcycle since it was dark. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution but despite lengthy cross examination by Addl. PP he denied that accused Gulzar ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin who were present in the court were the persons seen by him on the motorcycle. Thus, this witness is of no help to the prosecution as may be this was the only witness who could link the accused persons with the happening of the present incident.

91. PW29 SI Darshan Singh on receipt of DD No. 13A Ex.PW50/6 regarding explosion at 111 CGO Complex. He reached BSF Headquarters CGO Complex where SI Vijay was already present alongwith SHO PS Lodhi Colony, Crime team, dog squad , photographer and bomb disposal squad. Metal pieces were lying around the space after the explosion which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.Pw29/A & PW29/B respectively. One empty cover of fire cracker was also seized vide memo Ex.Pw29/C which were all sealed with the seal of DS which he identified in the court as ExPW29/A1, PW29/B1 and PW29/C1 respectively.

92. PW42 SH. GL Meena, Jt.

Commissioner Sales tax , accorded sanction Ex.PW42/A U/s 196 Cr.PC for prosecution of the accused persons U/s 121/121A/122/123 IPC though lateron the accused persons were not charged with these offences.

93. PW30 Inspt. Sriram Yadav who was posted as Addl. SHO PS Lodhi Colony received the 112 investigation of this case on 23/5/01. He had recovered the shell grenade in the ground of Dayal Singh College which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A. He also seized rocket launcher i.e UBGL found in dirty water drain which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B. He further recovered a polythene bag in which shell grenade was found and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW30/C. He identified the shell grenade as Ex.PW30/A1, rocket launcher as Ex.PW30/B1 and the polythene in which the shell grenade was found as Ex.PW30/C1.

94. PW45 Inspt. Ramphal was partly examined who was lateron not produced in the court for further examination, as such his evidence cannot be read against the accused persons.

95. PW50 Inspt. Manoj Dixit who joined the investigation of this case on 7/8/01 . He 113 formally arrested the accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah and Gulzar Ahmed Wani. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained sanction Ex.PW42/A U/s 196 Cr.PC from PW42 Sh. GL Meena, Jt. Commissioner Sales tax Deptt., ITO Delhi and U/s 7 Explosive Substance Act which is Ex.PW50/1.. He proved the copy of FIR No. 176/01 PS Lodhi Colony as Ex.PW50/2 , complaint Ex.PW50/3, rukka Ex.PW50/4, siteplans Ex.PW50/5, DD No. 13A Ex.PW50/6, DD No. 19A Ex.PW50/7. He also collected the supplementary disclosure statement made by accused Gulzar Ahmed Wani and Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah recorded in case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri which are Ex.PW51/A and PW51/B respectively. He also collected the other relevant documents. He proved the CFSL reports Ex.PW50/10 & PW50/11 respectively whereby it is opined by the experts that the explosives substance recovered 114 from the site were containing high explosive based on TNT.

96. PW51 SI Sushil Kumar was investigating the case FIR No. 152/01 PS Chanakyapuri and had recorded the supplementary disclosure statements of both the accused as Ex.PW51/A & PW51/B respectively. Both the accused had also pointed out the place of occurrence i.e Lodhi Colony ahead of Dayal Singh College road towards CGO Complex near the corner puliya (which relates to FIR No. 176/01) vide pointing out memo Ex.PW51/4.

97. In the present case, the accused persons have not disputed the blast which took place on 20/5/01, in the office of directorate general, first floor, CGO Complex, and recovery of the tent pieces, metal pieces, metal pot, tripal, tent fabric and dust therefrom and further recovery of explosive substance i.e live 115 shell/grenade , one grenade launcher UBGI and one plastic bag from the grounds of Dayal Singh College. CFSL Report Ex. PW50/10 confirmed the presence of high explosive based on TNT in the torned pieces of tent, metallic pieces of various sizes with blackish grey stains, bunch of fibre pieces of red white and blue colour, lump of dust / earthern material and it also opined that one grenade and one launcher recovered from the spot on 23/5/01 shows that the exploded explosive device could be a grenade launched from a launcher to the spot from north west direction. However, again there is no evidence on record that the said explosion took place due to planting of explosive material by the accused persons or that the live grenade and the grenade launcher recovered from Dayal Singh College ground was also planted by the accused persons. The only relevant witness to the prosecution was 116 PW26 Sanjay Mudgil who had seen two persons on a motorcycle near Dayal Singh College after the explosion at CGO Complex but he did not support the prosecution case regarding the identity of the accused persons and was declared hostile. There is no other evidence on record to link the accused persons with the alleged commission of offence . As referred above the disclosure statements of all the accused persons are inadmissible against them in view of Sec. 26 Indian Evidence Act as no recovery or discovery of fact was made in furtherance of the same.

98. Thus in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against both the accused, hence they are acquitted of the charges U/s 3 Explosive Substance Act r/w 120 B IPC.

117

99. Files of all the cases i.e SC No.98/01, 01/01, 4/02, 100/01, 2/02 and 44/02 be consigned to RR.

Announced in Open Court          (Ravinder Kaur)
Date : 28/2/07                    ASJ:New Delhi