Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
State Of West Bengal vs Md. Jamiluddin Nasir & Others on 5 February, 2010
Author: Kalidas Mukherjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee, Kalidas Mukherjee
1
Form No. J.(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Present :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalidas Mukherjee
Death Reference 2 of 2005 in Sessions Case No.79 of 2002
State of West Bengal
-VS-
Md. Jamiluddin Nasir & Others
With
C.R.A. 425 of 2005
Adil Hossain @ Manu & Another
-VS-
State of West Bengal & Others
With
C.R.A. 377 of 2005
Sakir Akhtar @ Rohit
-VS-
The State of West Bengal
With
C.R.A. 247 of 2005
Musarrat Hossain @ Bobbey & Another
-VS-
The State of West Bengal & Others
2
With
C.R.A. 428 of 2005
Md. Jamiluddin Nasir @ Jamil @ Nasir @ Javed @ Bobbey &
Another
-VS-
The State of West Bengal & Others
For the Appellant no.2 in : Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
C.R.A. 427 of 2005 Ms. Paromita Mukhopadhyay
Mr. Uttam Basak
Ms. Aindreela Chakraborty
Mr. Suman De
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Bikash Chakraborty
Mr. Prithviraj sinha Roy
Ms. Tanushree Nag
Mr. Palash Majhi
For the Appellant nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Joymalya Bagchi
in C.R.A. 425 of 2005 Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Mr. Sourav Chatterjee
Mr. Gourav Banerjee
For the Appellants in : Mr. Ashoke Kumar Mukherjee
C.R.A. 377 of 2005 Mr. Subir Gangully
For the Appellant no.1 in : Mr. Syed Shahid Imam
C.R.A. 427 of 2005 & for the Mr. Modassar Alam
Appellant nos. 1 & 2 in C.R.A. Ms. Nudrat Urshi
428 of 2005 Mr. Ishtiaque Alam
Md. Ayub
Mr. Zareen N. Khan
Md. Salahuddin
Mr. Lokesh Sharma
Md. Shahjahan Hossain
Mr. Hashim Hossain
3
For the State in C.R.A. Nos. : Mr. Asimesh Goswami
425 of 2005; 377 of 2005; Mr. Swapan Mallick
427 of 2005 & 428 of 2005. Mr. Usof Ali Dewan
Heard on : July 24; 27; 28 & 30 of 2009, August 04; 06; 10; 17; 25; 27 & 31
of 2009, September 01; 07; 08; 10; 14 & 15 of 2009, October 20; 22 & 29 of
2009, November 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 24; 25; 26; 27 & 30 of 2009, December
01; 02; 07; 08; 09; 10; 14; 15; 16 & 17 of 2009; January 05; 06; 07; 08; 11 & 13
of 2010.
Judgment on : February 5, 2010.
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J:
A. FACTS
A.1. INCIDENT ON JANUARY 22, 2002
A.1.1. SCENE - 1
At about 6:36 a.m., Calcutta Police Control Room at Lal Bazar received an
information of firing in front of American Centre. Control Room immediately
asked the Shekespeare Sarani Police Station to proceed to the spot. On
investigation it revealed that a group of police personnel was guarding
American Centre. The said group was about to complete their night duty and
the new group was to take over. During the period when handing over of
charge was going on at 6:15 a.m., two persons riding on a Motor Cycle one
4
having a pistol in his hand, driving the Motor Cycle and the pillion rider
having Machine Gun being AK-47 model indiscriminately fired at the police
party and then fled towards south direction. The entire incident took about
five minutes causing casualty to many police personnel and injuring others.
One private security guard of American Centre along with one civilian also
sustained injury. Eighteen police personnel with gun shot injuries were
removed to S.S.K.M. Hospital, Calcutta. Five of them succumbed to their
injury while the others except one were treated and discharged subsequently.
Two civilians Moti Jadav, a pedestrian and a private security guard one
Aubray Gallyat employed by American Centre also sustained gun shot injury.
The investigating team recovered cartridges from the place of occurrence.
Bullets were also removed from the dead bodies as well as from the bodies of
injured persons. Those were subsequently examined by the forensic expert.
A.1.2. SCENE - 2
At about 6:00 a.m. two friends namely Gilbart Gomes and Sahid Ikbal alias
Pappu (P.W. 62) went to purchase milk in Beniapukur. Sahid saw a Maruti
Car and a Motor Bike at the crossing of Beniapukur Lane. He was talking to
Gilbart Gomes just in front of the shop of one Ashok Nandy. He saw blue
coloured Maruti 800 Car standing there. A lorry was going from Beniapukur
side and could not pass because of the blockade of road by the Maruti Car.
5
Two persons were sitting in the front seat. He asked those persons to make
way for the lorry to avoid jam. The Maruti vehicle number was BRK 4907.
After about ten minutes, a black coloured Motorbike came to the side of the
Maruti vehicle. Two persons got down from the bike with a cricket bat cover
having something inside it. One of them boarded the Maruti Car by saying
'Insa Alla Kum Ho Gaya'. Both the car and the bike left the place. The
Motorcycle was having registration number being W.B. 01 P-2144. At about
9:00 a.m. he heard the news of American Centre shoot out. He apprehended
that the morning incident witnessed by him might have some co-relation and
hence, informed Shale Babu, a police inspector known to him working at Lal
Bazar.
On August 29, 2002 the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against
all the accused including the appellants above named under Sections 121, 121-
A, 122, 120-B, 302, 333, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code as also
under Sections 25(1A), 27(2) and 27(3) of the Arms Act read with Section
120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
A.2. PRELUDE
A.2.1. INTRODUCTION
6
The appellants, herein, are Aftab Ansari (hereinafter referred to as Aftab),
Jamiluddin Nasir (hereinafter referred to as Nasir), Musarrat Hussain
(hereinafter referred to as Boby), Sakir Akhtar (hereinafter referred to as
Rohit), Hasrat Alam (hereinafter referred to as Hasrat), Rehan Alam
(hereinafter referred to as Monti) and Adil Hassan (hereinafter referred to as
Adil).
A.2.2. E-MAIL
On January 19, 2002 Jamiluddin Nasir sent an E-mail to a person having I.D.
Aaa Mere 7 @ Yahoo.Co.In. informing that he was taking up a new work
and asked the addressee to pray for him so that he could achieve success. On
January 20, 2002 Nasir again sent another E-mail to the same person by
saying that next day would be his opening day and asked the person to pray
to God for his success. On the next day January 21, 2002 the person having
I.D. Aaa Mere 7 replied to Nasir that he should continue to check mail.
A.3. TEASTALL INCIDENT ON JANUARY 21, 2002
Sanjoy Paul (P.W. 37) was a Florist and a resident of 3-Russel Street. He was
taking tea from a Punjabee Teastall and P.W. 38 was also taking tea at the
crossing of a Middleton Street and Russel Street. On January 20, 2002 at
7
about 6:30 a.m. the blue coloured Maruti 800 Car while coming with high
speed suddenly applied brake, as a result another person got his tea spilled
over his hand. An altercation took place on that score. He (P.W. 37) also
identified the Maruti Car having registration BRK 4907. He was a regular
visitor of the said tea stall. On January 22, 2002 he saw a Motorbike which
crossed him with full speed proceeding towards Cammac Street. He
identified the bike as well as the Maruti Car. He also deposed that when the
altercation took place on the spilling over of tea, the black colour motorbike
which he saw on 22nd January also joined the motorist supporting them. He
also identified the chocolate coloured jacket and green coloured jacket worn
by the motor cyclist and the pillion rider. This incident was corroborated by
Jayanta Kumar Bose (P.W.-38). He was a morning walker and a regular
visitor of the said tea stall. His tea got spilled over his hand on January 20,
2002. He also gave the description of the Motor Car as well as Motorbike and
the persons involved in the spilling over incident. He identified Nasir as the
driver of the Maruti vehicle.
A.4. JANUARY 21ST MORNING
On January 21, 2002 early morning Dilip Kumar Singh (P.W. 47) saw Nasir
taking out Maruti 800 Car from the garage at 1 Tilzala Lane. While he was
8
driving, Abdulla was sitting by his side. Two other unknown persons were
following them in the black colour Motorbike.
A.5. PREPARATION / CONSPIRACY
A.5.1. E-mail
E-mails were exchanged on November 27 & 28, December 5 & 17, 2001 and
January 8 & 9, 2002. On a combined reading of the E-mails it appears that
they were planning to arrange a flat as well as Maruti Car. The E-mails also
referred to Jaipur episode.
A.5.2. ACQUISITION OF FLAT
Dilip Singh (P.W. 47), a promoter in Tilzala area, handed over flat at 1 Tilzala
Lane to Niaz Hossain, Nasir introduced Niaz to Dilip. Niaz converted one
room in the flat as garage. Dilip identified the Motorcar as well as the
Motorbike kept inside the said flat in question.
A.5.3. PASSPORT
As per the confessional statement made by Nasir he initially helped Asif to
have a passport from a person known to him at Patna. He then came to know
that Asif got a passport done for Aftab in the name of Farhan Mullick.
9
A.5.4. REASON / ZEHAD
Asif was killed in an encounter with the police at Gujarat. According to his
associates it was a fake encounter and they wanted to take revenge.
According to Nasir as per his confessional statement, in December 2001 he
went to his flat at Khan Road, Khir Gao, Hazaribag where he met Zahid,
Sadakat, Salim and Imam Hossain. Zahid and Sadakat told that police had
killed Asif and they would take revenge and they would not spare the Calcutta
Police either as Asif was in police remand at Calcutta. They decided to blow
off Government Buildings and carry out killing of cops. They would teach the
police a lesson. Zahid and Sadakat possessed two AK-47 rifles along with
huge collection of cartridges. The said statement was corroborated by a letter
written by Aftab to the widow of Asif being exhibit no.45/1 where he
expressed condolence for the sad demise of Asif. He informed the widow that
the police had killed Asif in custody and Amir ( the next brother of Asif now
absconding ) was making preparations to take revenge. He advised her to
watch and see and cautioned him that she should not discuss anything with
the bearer of the letter.
A.6. PRINTING - NEXUS WITH MAIN CAUSE ?
A.6.1. This episode apparently does not have any nexus with the prime
incident at American Centre. This episode relates to printing of fake tax
10
token and car registration certificate involving three accused being Rohit,
Boby and Hasrat. If we take the confessional statement of Rohit and Boby we
would find that Rohit (Sakir Akhtar) was an unemployed youth. Around
January - February 2000 he was looking for a job. Bablu introduced him to
Asif as Rajesh. Asif introduced him as owner of a leather company and
offered him a marketing job at a salary of Rs.2000.00 per month. Rohit
agreed and joined Asif. Few days later Asif introduced him with his brother
Amir as Rajesh and another person by the name of Abdulla. Rohit's brother
Rajesh was working at Archies Printing Works at Razabazar along with a boy
named Boby (Musarat Hussain). Rajesh introduced Boby to him and they
became friendly and they started chatting at Ramlila Park from time to time.
One day Asif stopped Rohit at Ramlila Park. Rohit introduced Boby to Asif.
Asif asked what Boby was doing. Boby told him that he was working at
Archy's Printing and gave his card. After some days Asif introduced Rohit to
Aftab as Guptaji, a big businessman. They all got together at Ramlila Park.
Guptaji told them that if they want to make money they should abduct a big
business man. All of them agreed to such proposal. Aftab told they would
have to impersonate CBI personnel and use forged tax token and registration
certificate.
11
A.6.2. At this juncture Asif and Aftab rang up Boby and asked him to
come to Ramlila Maidan. Accordingly, Boby came. He was assigned the job
of printing of blank tax token and registration certificate. He initially did not
agree. He was given Rs. 10,000.00 in advance. He then agreed to do the
same on the assurance that another six thousand rupees would be paid later
on. Boby got the printing job done by Hasrat. He was however not paid the
balance six thousand. Rohit informed Asif and Aftab. Asif and Aftab assured
payment of six thousand more which was however not paid. This was also
corroborated by Boby in the confessional statement. The above facts got also
corroborated through seizure of the blank tax token and registration
certificate both from Tilzala flat as well as from Hasrat's possession. Seizure
witnesses proved such seizure. This episode happened in 2000. During the
printing operation Asif was alive and he was involved in getting those fake
Government documents printed through Hasrat. How they would use those
documents, however, did not come in evidence. Neither Nasir in his
confessional statement nor any of the witnesses referred to this printer group
and co-relate them with the shoot out incident or the conspiracy involved
therein.
12
A.6.3. Involvement of Hasrat would show that he did not even meet the
core group being Aftab, Asif or Nasir at any point of time. He was known to
Boby and on his request being lured, printed those fake documents. Hasrat
did not give any confessional statement.
A.7. HAZARIBAG
On January 22, 2002 when the shoot out took place the investigating team
could not find out any clue as to how this could happen and who were
involved in such incident. After about five, six days Kolkata Police got an
information from Hazaribag that there had been an encounter between the
police and the terrorists where two terrorists were killed. One of them made
a dying declaration admitting his involvement in American Centre Shootout
Incident. Such information was received by Shri Sujit Mitra (P.W. 122) on
January 28, 2002 from the Deputy Commissioner of Detective Department.
The police party went to Hazaribag and investigation revealed as follows :-
a) Zaida Khatun (P.W. 73) was a teacher at a primary school at Hazaribag.
She sold four khatas of land at 1/25 Moulona Abul Kalam Azad Colony to
Nasir and identified him.
13
b) Abdul Hamid Khan (P.W. 106) was the son of Abdul Mazid Khan, owner
of two houses at Hazaribag, out of which one house was rented to Nasir in
part.
c) Kausalya Nand Chowdhury (P.W. 113) was the Officer in-charge, Sadar
Police Station at Hazaribag. On January 27, 2002 he received an
information from S.P., Hazaribag that one police team was coming to
Hazaribag from Delhi being led by Mr. Rabi Sankar, S.E.P., Delhi Police.
They came on a tip off that two terrorists had taken shelter at Hazaribag.
On investigation it revealed that the terrorists were staying at the
residence of Abdul Mazid Khan at Khirgaon as also at the residence of one
Monti at Hasmian Colony. Monty was connected with the terrorists. Two
raid parties proceeded, one for Khirgaon and another for Hasmia Colony.
On January 27/28 at about 2:40 a.m. they cordoned the house of Mazid
Khan. At 6:45 a.m. S.P. Hazaribag requested the inmates of the house to
come out and asked them to surrender before the police. After about half
an hour two persons escapped from the side gate and began to fire
indiscriminately upon the police party. There had been an encounter and
ultimately both the miscreants died. One of them (Salim) died on the spot
and the other one (Zahid) subsequently died at the hospital. While the
injured man was being carried to the hospital he disclosed that he was a
14
member of Lasker-E-Taiba and a resident of Pakistan. He participated in
the shootout incident at American Centre along with one Sadakat. One
AK-47 rifle was seized from the said injured person who subsequently
died at the hospital.
d) On the next day, the Kolkata Police Team arrived at Hazaribag. They took
the AK-47 rifle to Kolkata after complying with necessary formalities.
e) Abdul Mazid deposed that he was staying at Raurkella whereas his two
sisters were residing at Hazaribag in the other building. They informed
him about the shootout incident over telephone. He let out one flat in the
other building to Nasir. Nasir began to reside in the said flat after
execution of the agreement in December 2001. The other flat was
occupied by one B.D.O. He identified the chocolate coloured jacket seized
by the police in his presence from the flat. In November 2001 he saw
Nasir residing in the flat. He saw one Maruti Zen Car parked there. In
first week of December 2001 he saw Hasan Imam (Monti) one of the
relatives of Nasir in the said flat who had complained about the water
scarcity. He visited the flat to check whether the tube-well was working or
not. He could not find Nasir. However, Hasan told him that Nasir went
out of Hazaribag and he introduced Zahid and Salim who were staying at
that time. They were introduced as staff of Nasir. Maruti Car and the
15
Motorbike were parked. He identified the photographs of Zahid who was
killed in the encounter.
f) Monti was his distant maternal uncle. Nasir used to visit Hazaribag and
put up at his in-law's place at Hasmia Colony. Monti told him once that
his brother in-law, Adil was to join them soon. According to his E-mail
I.D. was Aao Mere 7 @ Yahoo.Co.In.
B. INVESTIGATION AND SUBMISSION OF
CHARGESHEET
B.1. Mr. Anil Kar, P.W. 123 was entrusted with the job of
investigation. He interrogated the injured police personnel at the hospital as
well as at the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station. The other police officers
also assisted him in the matter of investigation including Sujit Mitra, (P.W.
122) who went to Hazaribag. On January 29, 2002 Nasir was arrested.
Search was conducted in the house of Jahida Khatoon wherefrom the
Hazaribag Tenancy Agreement was recovered. Monti and Adil were arrested
from Hazaribag on January 27, 2002. Tilzala Flat was also searched
wherefrom both the Maruti Car and Motorcycle were seized including the
sketch map of American Centre.
16
B.2. Fake tax token and registration certificates were also seized from
Tilzala as well as Hasrat's house. Investigation revealed that the Maruti Car
was stolen from Delhi and the complaint for theft of car was lodged with
Manas Saravar Police Station by its owner. P.W. 99 proved that the Car
involved in the incident was the same Car which was stolen from Delhi.
Mukesh Thakkar (P.W. 28) purchased the Motorbike. He sold it to Debasis
Ghosh being P.W. 29 who sold it to Ranadeep Das (P.W. 30) who sold it to
Hargovind Prasad Shaw (P.W. 33) who sold it to Rezwan Ahmed (P.W. 33).
Rezwan was a mechanic. He sold it to Sohail Akhtar. They all identified the
Motorcycle. Sk. Salam (P.W. 55) repaired the Motorbike at the instance of
Nasir in January 2002.
B.3. Aftab was arrested on March 22, 2002. Boby and Hasrat were
arrested on March 6, 2002. Rohit was arrested on April 6, 2002. Adil and
Monti were arrested on February 6, 2002.
B.4. Investigation further revealed, Nasir and Amir became friends
while studying in same Madrasa and Asif was the brother of Amir. Asif came
in contact with Aftab at Tihar Jail when they were in jail custody. Such fact
17
was corroborated by Nadir Ahmed Khan (P.W. 46). Nadir was a friend of
Asif. Asif went to Kashmir and became zehadi and came back to Kolkata.
After arrest three of the accused being Nasir, Boby and Rohit made
confessional statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Criminal
Procedure Code. They however retracted such confession at a much belated
stage and that too after the trial had started. We would deal with the
confessional statement in detail little later.
B.5. During investigation several incriminating documents were seized
which included one diary and a letter. The letter was addressed to the widow
of Asif by Aftab as referred to hereinbefore whereas the diary contained
several payments made various persons. The diary also noted particulars of
the Maruti vehicle being BRK 4907. According to the investigating team the
diary / note book belonged to Aftab.
C. GIST OF EVIDENCE
Let us analyze the evidence topic wise.
C.1. RAMLILA & TANDOOR MOHAL (JANUARY TO NOVEMBER
2000)
Boby, Rohit, Raju used to chat at Ramlila Park. They came in contact with
Asif and then Aftab. Aftab told all of them (Boby was not present) that they
18
should abduct big business man to make money and for that purpose they
would have to impersonate CBI Personnel and forge Government documents
including tax token, motor vehicle registration certificates etc. Rohit was
entrusted to get those printed, Asif paid him Rs. 10,000.00. Boby was called
over phone. Boby was entrusted to do the job of printing. He initially did not
agree. He later on agreed to do it in lieu of money. He was paid
Rs.10,000.00 by Asif. Boby later on contacted Raju alias Hasrat and
persuaded him to print those in exchange of money. Raju printed those and
handed over back to Boby. Raju never came in contact with any other person
except Boby (at least such evidence did not come out). Hasrat started
pressurizing Boby for the final payment who, in turn, asked Rohit, Aftab and
Asif and called Rohit at Tandoor Mohal and told him that the payment wold
be made later on. However, such payment was never made.
C.2. CONSPIRACY
Asif was killed in police encounter. According to the core group, such
encounter was fake. They decided to take revenge. They took Tilzala flat and
converted one room for garage to park Maruti car and Motorbike. They took
flat at Hazaribag on rent for post hide out. They got fake passports done from
Patna from a person known to Nasir. Zahid and Sadakat possessed two AK-47
19
rifles shown to others including Nasir. They held a meeting at Hazaribag and
decided to attack police party. All of them assembled at Tilzala flat before the
final attack. Aftab was the master-mind giving necessary instructions initially
to Nasir and then to Zahid and Sadakat through E-mails and/or phone.
C.3. TEA STALL INCIDENT (JANUARY 20, 2002)
Nasir took out the Maruti Car from Tilzala garage. Dilip saw him taking out
the Car and the Motor Bike. They got involved in the tea stall incident
referred to above as watched by Sanjoy Paul and corroborated by Jayanta
Kumar Bose. Both of them identified the Car and the bike as well as the
persons involved in the incident.
C.4. E-MAIL
Two E-mails dated January 29, 2002 would corroborate the involvement of
Nasir and Aftab. E-mails were exchanged possibly just before Nasir was
arrested. The E-mails would show that Nasir informed Aftab that Zahid was
killed by the police. The person involved in passport episode was also
arrested at Patna and he was leaving Kolkata for a safe place.
C.5. AMERICAN CENTRE (JANUARY 22, 2002)
20
In the morning at about 6:15 a.m. Barun Pal was supervising the change over.
The motor cyclist started firing indiscriminately and Barun tried to retaliate
by taking out his revolver. However, he could not do it as he was made a
target. He could save himself by ducking. Anil Kar was asked to investigate.
He interrogated the injured police personnel and other witnesses. Altogether
eighteen police personnel were injured with gunshot injury. Five of them
succumbed to their injury and the others except one were treated and
discharged subsequently. Two civilians including one security guard also
sustained injury. The Motor cyclist came from north to south direction. The
person driving the Motor cycle was firing from his pistol whereas the pillion
rider was firing from AK-47. The entire incident took place for about five to
ten minutes.
C.6. HAZARIBAG
On January 27, 2002 Delhi Police Team came to Hazaribag and conducted a
joint raid with Hazaribag police at Khirgaon flat. Salim died instantly. Zahid
was injured and died subsequently. Zahid made a dying declaration to the
police admitting his involvement in American Centre shoot out incident.
Hajaribag police informed Kolkata counterpart who rushed to Hazaribag and
after completion of formalities one AK-47 rifle seized from Zahid was brought
21
to Kolkata which was subsequently returned to Hazaribag police as the
forensic expert opined that the bullets involved in American Centre incident
did not match the said rifle.
C.7. INVOLVEMENT
C.7.1. On a sum total and analysis of the facts and evidence that came
out during investigation and/or examination of the materials seized by the
investigating team exhibited at the trial we have narrowed down the
involvement of the accused being the appellants in the above appeals and
facing death sentence as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Aftab
and Asif were the master-mind. They included Zamiluddin Nasir in their
core group. Nasir was an active associate working at the dictate of Aftab
and/or Asif. Asif died in later part of 2001 which gave rise to the conspiracy
hatched by the core group as a result of which the shoot-out took place at
American Centre. If we consider the confessional statement of Nasir we
would find his deep involvement in waging war as against the country being
an active associate of Aftab and Asif. Pertinent to note, the confession was
made by Nasir immediately after his arrest whereas he retracted the same
after more than one year and that too, after the trial had already started. We
have considered the evidence of the learned Magistrate. We have also
22
considered the confessional statement. We do not find any reason to discard
the same merely because he retracted the same subsequently.
C.7.2. The matter can be viewed from another angle. The factum of
involvement as would come out from such confessional statement got
corroboration from the other witnesses. The involvement of the Car and the
Motorbike got proved as being identified by various witnesses including
Sanjoy Pal and Jayanta Kumar Bose. Dilip Kumar Singh, the mechanic who
repaired the Motorcycle also proved the involvement of Nasir. The letter of
Aftab to the widow of Asif was also proved through the handwriting expert.
The E-mails made everything clear and transparent. It is true that Aftab was
not present at the time of shoot-out incident. It is also true that Nasir was
not present at the place of occurrence. But their involvements were apparent
from the evidence that came out and discussed hereinbefore. They were
equally responsible, so as Zahid and Sadakat being the shooters involved in
the shoot-out incident.
C.7.3. We place strong reliance on two exhibits being the notebook of
Aftab and the letter written by Aftab to the widow of Asif. Handwriting of
Aftab was certified by the hand writing expert who deposed in the trial. The
23
contents of the letter would show that Aftab knew about the decision to take
revenge for the killing of Asif.
C.8. PRINTER GROUP
Rohit, Boby and Raju (Hasrat) formed the printer group. They were involved
in the matter of printing fake certificates. Rohit and Boby made confessional
statement. Their confessions got corroboration from the witnesses discussed
above. Involvement of Raju was also proved by recovery of blank tax token
from his residence. Their involvement in such printing episode was amply
proved. However, we do not get any evidence which would link such printing
episode either with the conspiracy of waging war against the country or
implementation of such decision through shoot-out incident. It is true that
two of them were involved in chatting at Ramlila Park. Rohit knew about the
purpose of printing as disclosed to him by Aftab that those would be
recovered for abduction purpose for making money. Boby also in his
confessional statement stated that Rohit told him that those would be used
for criminal activities within India as told to him by Asif and Aftab. Hence,
24
we are of the view that this trio although did the printing job being lured by
money, did not have any involvement in the subsequent conspiracy and/or
the shoot-out incident resulting therefrom.
C.9. MONTI & ADIL
C.9.1. These two persons were residents of Hazaribag. They were
distantly related with Nasir. Monti was the distant maternal uncle of Nasir
whereas Adil was the brother in-law of Monti. Nasir used to go to Hazaribag
and stay at Adil's place. According to Nasir, Monti told him that Adil would
join them soon. Such statement, if we give full credence, would prove
Monty's involvement. However it does not involve Adil as it did not have any
corroboration. From Abdul Mazid we come to know that Monti was present
at the flat of Nasir and he introduced Zahid and Sadakat as staff of Nasir.
Kausalya Nand Chowdhury, Hazaribag Police Inspector deposed that Monti
gave shelter to the terrorists at Hasmia Colony. Kausalya also deposed that
one raid party also proceeded towards Hasmia Colony on January 27, 2002.
We however do not find the result of such raid either from Kausalya Nand
Chowdhury or any other witness. What happened at Hasmia Colony, is not
known to us. If we take the case of Adil we do not find any evidence
indicating his involvement in the crime save and except Nasir's statement
25
that too as per Monty's information to the effect that Adil would join them
soon. We hardly find any evidence involving Adil in the incident.
C.9.2. So far Monty is concerned, statement of Kausalya Nand
Chowdhury or Abdul Mazid would not be sufficient to implicate him. He was
present in Nasir's flat. He might not be knowing the actual identity of
Sadakat or Zahid and, as such, he introduced them as staff of Nasir. From
Nasir's statement we find that Monty's E-mail I.D. was Aaa Mere 7,
Yahoo.co.in. From E-mails we find that Nasir asked Monty to pray to God for
his success. If we give full credence to the E-mail we would have to hold that
the addressee might be knowing of the conspiracy. However such evidence
without any corroboration and/or support from any other material would not
be sufficient to implicate him.
C.9.3. From the confessional statement of Nasir we find that Monti
drove the Motorcycle from Hazaribag to Kolkata and delivered it at Kolkata
and left for Hazaribag. We also came to know that he was involved in Jaipur
incident in money extortion case. Jaipur episode was disbelieved by the
learned sessions Judge who acquitted the Jaipur accused of the charges. If
we give full credence to Nasir's statement on the Motorcycle delivery it would
only prove that he drove the Motorcycle and delivered it at Kolkata. This
26
might be at the request of Nasir without knowing the purpose for which it
would be used. Merely because he drove the Motorcycle to Kolkata and
delivered it there it would be totally unsafe to come to a conclusion that he
was involved in the incident.
D. CONFESSION & RETRACTION
D.1. Rohit, Boby and Nasir made confessional statement. All the three
statements were made more or less immediately after their arrest. Boby
made the confession on March 22, 2002. Rohit made it on April 19, 2002
and Nasir made it on February 22, 2002. By the statement of Nasir the entire
mystery was unearthed. According to him, he and Asif were childhood
friends. They were studying in same Madrasa where his father was an
English teacher. He got admission in Bangabasi College whereas Asif studied
in Moulana Azad College. Asif became an active member of Students' Wing
of Islamic Organization. Asif pressurized him to join. They had several
friends including Nadim and Abdulla (now absconding). In 1991 Asif went to
Kashmir and became a Zehadi. He also wanted Nasir to join him. After
finishing studies Nasir worked in various companies. In 1994 Delhi police
arrested Asif under T.A.D.A. Act wherefrom he managed to escape. In 1999
Asif met him and requested him for a passport. Nasir took him to Patna and
27
requested one of his known person to help Nasir in getting a passport.
During Muharram in 2000 Nasir again went to Patna when his friend told
him that Asif got a passport done in the name of Farhan Mullick (alias Aftab).
Asif engaged Nasir as his employee in building construction at a salary of
Rs.2000.00 per month. Nasir was in dire need of job as he was unemployed
by that time. He was married. Asif introduced him with his friend Niaz who
wanted a flat. Nasir arranged ground floor flat at 1 Tilzala Lane for Niaz
through Dilip Singh, a promoter. The flat was renovated to accommodate the
Maruti-800 Car to be parked there. Niaz entrusted Nasir to look after the
flat. Niaz, his brother Fiaz, Asif used to come to the said flat. In or about
April/May 2001 Asif disclosed that they would kidnap big businessman to
make money and Aftab would lead them. Nasir was entrusted to look after
the gang. Nasir did not have any other option but to accept the proposal as
he was unemployed. As per Asif's instruction he went to Agra in May 2001
and brought a lakh of rupees from Arshad Khan. In August 2001 he opened
two E-mail I.D.s. He met Aftab at Benaras. Asif introduced him with Aftab.
At their instance he got a flat at Hazaribag on rent from Abdul Hamid. His
distant maternal uncle Monti was living at Nalanda. Nasir used to stay at his
brother in-law Adil's place at Hazartibag. Monti told him that Adil would join
them soon. In October 2001, he purchased two khatas of land at Hazaribag.
28
He went to Jaipur and got rupees two lakhs from Dilip Bhai. He purchased a
jeep for Rs.80,000.00. Aftab told him at Kolkata that Asif was killed by
Gujarat police in an encounter. They assembled at Hazaribag flat in
December 2000 and decided to take revenge. Zahid and Sadakat showed
them two AK-47 rifles. Zahid and Sadakat came to Kolkata by Jhodpur
Express by January 14 & 16, 2002 respectively. Nasir received them and
lodged them at 1 Tilzala Lane. Monti came in a Motorcycle from Hazaribag
and left the Motorcycle there and left for Hazaribag. On that day Abdulla
came and joined them. Zahid was communicating with Aftab. They initially
decided to launch attack on Bhawani Bhavan. As there would be a chance of
innocent people being died they changed their strategy and attacked
American Centre. On January 19 Nasir got the Motorcycle repaired. On
January 20 they went to American Centre in the morning on a spot
inspection and they got entangled in tea spilling episode. Initially they
decided to attack on January 21. However they postponed the attack for a
day and ultimately attacked American Centre on January 22. Zahid and
Sadakat did the operation. Zahid was driving the Motorcycle whereas
Sadakat being a pillion rider fired from AK-47. Nasir drove the car. Abdulla
was sitting next to him. After the incident they all came back to the flat.
Sadakat and Abdulla left Kolkata through Sealdah Station. On the same day
29
Zahid left Kolkata on the next day having packed AK-47 rifle and pistol in his
bag. Nasir accompanied him up to the Howrah Station. He left Kolkata via
Chambal Express for Gaya. Nasir started living at his in-law's place
wherefrom he was arrested on January 29, 2002. His personal revolver was
seized from a hideout at Kolabagan by the police on being shown by him.
D.2. Nasir retracted the confession at a much later stage and more
than one year after making of the statement. By that time, the trial had
started. On perusal of the evidence of the learned Magistrate and from the
questionaire we are satisfied that the learned Magistrate observed all
formalities before recording such statement. Moreover each and every
important statement of Nasir got corroborated by independent witnesses.
The mechanic who repaired the Motorcycle deposed to the said extent. The
persons involved in the tea stall incident identified him and narrated the
incident in detail which tallied with the statement made by Nasir.
Acquisition of Tilzala flat was proved by Dilip being P.W. 47. Acquisition of
land got proved by Jahida Khatoon (P.W. 73). Taking Hazaribag flat on rent
was proved by Abdul Hamid (P.W. 106). By this process each and every
important statement of Nasir got proved. The prime incident was also proved
by the injured police officials including Barun Kumar Das being the F.I.R.
30
informant. Hence, such confessional statement was safely relied upon by the
learned sessions Judge.
D.3. ROHIT & BOBY
Both of them almost corroborated each other on the issue of printing which
we have discussed in detail hereinbefore. Even if we give full credence to
those statements we would find that their involvement was up to the stage of
printing of fake certificates and/or tax token. We do not find any material
from the said two statements which could implicate them with the prime
incident or the conspiracy resulting in such shoot-out incident.
E. CONVICTION
E.1. On the above materials on record, the learned sessions Judge
convicted all the seven appellants and sentenced them by giving capital
punishment. According to the learned Judge, prosecution could prove the
flat transaction at 1 Tilzala Lane at the instance of Nasir. The prosecution
also proved that the back portion of the said flat was converted into a garage
to accommodate the Maruti-800 Car and the Motorcycle involved in the
incident. The particulars of the Car tallied with the recordings of Aftab in his
31
note book. The letter written by Aftab to Asif's widow was also proved. A
mechanic proved repair of the Motorcycle at the instance of Nasir. Tea stall
incident was proved by Sanjoy and Jayanta. Conspiracy was proved through
Binod and Dilip. Hazaribag connection was proved through reservation
chart. The learned Judge also relied on three confessional statements
referred to above and the seizure list and ultimately held all of them guilty
under Section 121, 121-A 122 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as
appropriate provisions under the Arms Act.
E.2. The learned Sessions Judge held all the seven appellants guilty of
the offence and sentenced them to death. While doing so the learned
Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had proved by producing
photographs as also testimonies that a room at the back portion of the Tiljola
flat was converted into garage to keep the blue coloured Maruti car and the
motorcycle. He also observed that engine number of concerned car tallied
with the noting of Aftab in his notebook tendered as exhibit. He also
observed that the letter of Aftab addressed to the widow of Asif conclusively
proved the conspiracy. The learned Judge also relied upon the confessional
statements made by three of the above appellants and the seizure made from
time to time by the investigating agency including the green coloured jacket
32
and the chocolate coloured jacket as also incriminating materials including
fake tax token and motor vehicles registration certificate. On the basis of
those materials, the learned Sessions Judge held all the above appellants
guilty of the offence and sentenced them accordingly.
F. APPEAL
Since the learned sessions Judge held all the seven persons guilty of the
offences and sentenced them with capital punishment those cases came up
before us for confirmation of the death sentence. At the same time all the
seven persons filed separate appeals as against the conviction and sentence.
We heard all the appeals along with the death reference analogously on the
above mentioned dates.
G. ARGUMENT
G.1. Sahid Imam
G.1.1. Mr. Imam appeared for Boby, Aftab and Jamiluddin Nasir. He
submitted principally on the confessional statement and tried to impress
upon us that it was nothing but a fake recording made by the prosecution by
33
utilizing blank signatures obtained from the accused from time to time. He
also contended that the learned Magistrate while taking down the statement
did not observe the safeguards required therefor which would make such
statements fatal and could not be relied upon. In any event those were
retracted by the statement makers at the appropriate time. He submitted
that Nasir did not know Hindi, even then his statement was recorded in
Hindi and not in Urdu language which Nasir was fluent with. Mr. Imam
further contended that the incident could well be proved by the close circuit
cameras installed by American Centre, unfortunately those were not brought
by the prosecution in evidence. The AK-47 rifle seized from Hazaribag and
brought down to Calcutta did not match the bullets and/or the cartridges
found and/or seized in the incident and tendered during the trial and in any
event the said rifle was not exhibited by the prosecution. Mr. Imam also
made detailed argument the way Nasir was produced before the Magistrate to
support his case that the procedural safeguard was not observed before
recording such statement.
G.1.2. Arguing on behalf of Boby, Mr. Imam contended that the Ramlila
incident took place in 2000 in which Asif was involved whereas according to
the prosecution the shoot-out incident took place as a result of the conspiracy
34
hatched by the accused to take revenge against the police authority for killing
of Asif. Hence, Ramlila incident could not have any nexus with the prime
episode and Boby could not be entangled with the same.
G.1.3. On the issue of Arms Act Mr. Imam contended that the sanction
was granted on August 14, 2002 long after the chargesheet had been filed.
Hence, the proceeding was bad for want of appropriate sanction required
under Section 39 of the Arms Act as on the date of submission of the
chargesheet.
G.1.4. As and by way of an alternative submission, Mr. Imam contended
that assuming Aftab was guilty of the charges brought against him he could
not be imposed the capital punishment in view of an assurance given by the
Central Government at the highest level to the appropriate Governmental
Authority at Dubai. According to Mr. Imam, Aftab was brought down to
India from Dubai by virtue of an Extradition Treaty, India had with Dubai,
under which no person could be punished as and by way of capital
punishment. We called the Additional Solicitor General and requested him to
take appropriate instruction in the matter. The learned Additional Solicitor
General produced a Xerox copy of the written communication dated January
35
20, 2010 received by him from Ministry of Home Affairs wherefrom it
appears that Aftab was never extradited. He was deported from United Arab
Exirates to India on February 20, 2002. Hence the submission made by Mr.
Imam on that score is of no consequence.
G.1.5. On merits Mr. Imam contended that two civilians being Motilal
Yadav and Aubray Gallyot sustained bullet injury although their injury
reports were not tendered in evidence. In fact Yadav was not called to give
evidence. According to Mr. Imam, the dying declaration of Zahid was not
properly recorded and, as such, could not be relied upon by the prosecution.
He also made elaborate arguments on the description of the incident as to
who was driving the Motorcycle and who was firing from AK-47 as there had
been contradiction between Kausalya Nand Chowdhury on one hand as per
Zahid's statement and the police official on the other including Sahid Ikbal,
Beniapukur Milk Booth Witness. Mr. Imam also commented on the
procedural irregularity in the matter of holding of the test identification
parade. According to him, the sanction granted by the Home Secretary as
well as the chargesheet would depict total non-application of the mind.
According to him, shoot-out incident took place involving killing of police
personnel. There was no evidence to show that the principal attack was on
36
American Centre to implicate Section 121, 122 and 121-A of the Indian Penal
Code. According to him, the E-mails could not conclusively prove
involvement of Nasir and Aftab. He prayed for their acquittal.
G.2. Mr. Subir Ganguly & Mr. Ashok Mukherjee
Both of them argued on behalf of the Rohit. According to them, the
confessional statement was not voluntary and the statement was retracted at
an early stage. There had been procedural irregularities in recording such
statement. Hence, such retracted confession could not be made the basis of
conviction without any corroboration from independent witnesses. They also
contended that exhibit 45 being the diary of Aftab did record payment of
diverse sums to Rohit. However Rohit named in the said dairy and the
accused Rohit were not the same person, at least it was not proved through
independent evidence. No independent witness identified Rohit. No
opportunity was afforded to him to explain the evidence appearing against
him relating to transaction referred to in the diary. According to them, Rohit
had no role to play in the commission of alleged offence and his conviction
was based upon surmise, conjecture and presumption and as such should be
set aside.
37
G.3. Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
G.3.1. Mr. Chatterjee argued on behalf of Raju alias Hasrat. He also
assisted Mr. Joymalya Bagchi who argued on behalf of Monti and Adil.
G.3.2. On behalf of Hasrat Mr. Chatterjee contended that there was no
evidence that Hasrat took part in the conspiracy. Even if it was proved that
he printed those fake certificates, those would at least implicate him under
appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code for forging Government
documents under Section 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and in
no stretch of imagination could support his conviction under Section 121, 121-
A or Section 27 of the Arms Act or Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code. He contended that Hasrat did not have any role to play in
the commission of alleged offence before the American Centre and, as such,
he could not be charged with the offence of waging war against the
Government or possessing prohibited arms attracting the provisions of
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
G.4. Mr. Joymalya Bagchi
Mr. Bagchi argued on behalf of Monti and Adil. According to Mr. Bagchi they
neither took part in any conspiracy nor anything came out in evidence save
38
and except that they were distantly related to Nasir. Hence, their conviction
was totally unjust. No material could be produced by the prosecution to
implicate them under the appropriate provisions as per the chargesheet
submitted by the prosecution as against them.
G.5. Public Prosecutor
G.5.1. Mr. Asimesh Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor defended the
State in the appeals as well as supported the death sentence in the death
reference case. According to Mr. Goswami, although the confessional
statements were retracted by the makers at a much belated stage those
statements could be relied upon and were rightly relied upon by the learned
sessions Judge being corroborated by independent witnesses. He referred to
the statements as well as the corroboration made by different witnesses
referred to above. According to Mr. Goswami, Asif and Nasir were friends
from childhood. One persuaded other to join the terrorist group. They
started operation by extortion through abduction and ultimately procured
prohibited arms. Aftab was master-mind behind them. Their each and every
involvement was supported by independent witnesses as also materials on
record tendered at the time of trial. According to Mr. Goswami the learned
sessions Judge was right in holding all of them guilty of the offence.
39
Referring to the deposition of the Magistrates, recording statement under
Section 164, Mr. Goswami contended that the learned Magistrate complied
with the formalities subjectively and the procedural irregularities, if any, were
nominal in nature and could not be fatal which would lead to elimination of
those statements. Mr. Goswami referred to the evidence that came out
relating to acquisition of Tilzala flat as well as the Hazaribag flat. According
to him, no illegality was committed by the Court of sessions taking
cognizance under the Arms Act considering the sanction granted under
Section 39 thereof. In this regard he referred to two Apex Court decisions in
the case of Government of NCT of Delhi -VS- Jaspal Singh (2004,
Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page 933) and in the case of
Sardul Singh Caveeshar -VS- The State of Bombay (All India
Reporter, 1957, Supreme Court, Page-747).
G.5.2. Mr. Goswami prayed for confirmation of the death sentence
imposed by the learned sessions Judge on Aftab and Nasir.
G.5.3. Mr. Goswami however in his usual fairness did not put other five
accused on the same pedestal. He conceded that the evidence as against
Monti and Adil was scanty and it would be unsafe to rely on those evidence to
40
come to a definite conclusion about their involvement in the crime. He left
the matter to the Court for a decision on that count.
G.5.4. On the printer group, Mr. Goswami in his usual fairness did not
put them on the same pedestal with Aftab and Nasir. Amongst the three,
according to him, Rohit could be placed in Serial no.1 by placing Boby at
serial no.2 and Hasrat at serial no.3. Their cases were also left to the
discretion of this Court.
H. CASES RELIED
Almost all the counsel appearing for the prosecution as well as defence relied
on the Apex Court decision in the case of State -VS- Navjot Sandhu reported
in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal), Page-1715 wherein the Apex Court
dealt with the Parliament Terrorist Attack Incident. We would deal with the
said case separately little later as it would be of immense help to us to decide
the present case as there are many resemblance both on facts as well as in
law. The said case was relied upon by the parties on different issues. Let us
now deal with the cases cited by the parties topic wise :-
H.1. Circumstantial Evidence
41
i) Sardar Khan -VS- State of Karnataka (2004, Supreme Court
Cases [Criminal] Page-564). The Apex Court in paragraph 20 of this
decision once again explained what would constitute circumstantial evidence.
According to the decision, the circumstance from which an inference of guilt
is to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; should have a
tendency to unerringly point to the guilt and taking cumulatively would form
a chain wherefrom there was no escape in all human probabilities that the
crime was committed by the accused and nobodyelse.
ii) State of Uttar Pradesh -VS- Madan Mohan and Others (1989,
Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-585). In this decision the
Apex Court considering the facts involved therein observed that failure of
prosecution and/or the eyewitness to explain the injury on the accused would
raise doubt.
iii) Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod -VS- State of Gujarat (
2009, Volume-IV, Supreme Bound Reports, Page 458). Paragraph
15 of this decision once again reiterated the formula to be followed to find out
circumstantial evidence.
iv) Batcu Venkateshwarlu and Others -VS- Public Prosecutor
(2009, Volume-II, Supreme Bound Reports, Page-438). In
42
paragraph 38 and 39 of this decision the Apex Court distinguished the
phrases "proof" and " doubt".
v) Haru Ghosh -VS- State of West Bengal (2009, Volume-IV,
Crimes, Page-1 [Supreme Court])
vi) State of Haryana -VS- Ram Singh (2002, Supreme Court
Cases [Criminal], Page-350)
vii) Bachittar Singh and Another -VS- State of Punjab (2003,
Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-233)
viii) Bodhraj and Others -VS- State of Jammu and Kashmir
(2003, Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-201). The Apex Court
in this case held that conviction could be based solely on circumstantial
evidence, however such evidence must be tested by the touchstone of law
relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Hanumant Govind -VS- State of Madhya Pradesh ( All India
Reporter, 1952, Supreme Court, Page-343).
ix) Subhash Ram Kumar Bind and Another -VS- State of
Maharashtra (2003, Criminal Law Journal, Page-443)
x) Palanisamy and Raju -VS- State of Tamil Nadu (1986,
Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-97).
43
H.2. CONFESSION
a) Govinda Pradhan and Another -VS- State (1991, Criminal Law
Journal, Page-269). Paragraph 8 of this decision spoke about the
procedural to be followed while recording confessional statement. The Apex
Court observed that it was the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself that
the accused was free from any possible police influence.
b) Chandran -VS- State of Tamil Nadu (1978, Supreme Court
Cases [Criminal], Page-528). Here, the Magistrate in his certificate
recorded that he hoped that the confession was voluntary. The word "hope"
was considered by the Apex Court not a "satisfaction" required under Section
164 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
c) State of Rajasthan -VS- Darbara Singh (2000, Criminal Law
Journal, Page-2906). According to this decision, the Magistrate must
satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary. It is not necessary that he
should record that he was satisfied as to the voluntary nature of the
statement. Paragraph 30, 31 and 32 of this decision dealt with the issue of
retraction. The Apex Court herein observed that the accused did not
retract the confession at the earliest opportunity. Hence, it could
be acted upon.
44
d) Esher Singh -VS- State of Andhra Pradesh (2004, Criminal
Law Journal, Page- 5021)
e) Jit Singh -VS- State of Punjab (1976, Supreme Court Cases
(Criminal), Page-341)
f) Bhagwan Singh and Others -VS- State of Madhya Pradesh
(2003, Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-712). In this decision
the Apex Court once again discussed about the safeguards the Magistrate
should take while recording confession. The Apex Court also observed that it
must be taken in question answer form.
g) Shri Lalhunpuia -VS- State of Mizoram (2004, Volume-IV,
Crimes, Page-545). In paragraph 8 and 9 of this decision the Apex Court
discarded a confessional statement after observing that it was not recorded in
the manner it ought to be. The learned Magistrate in this case did not record
his observation that the statement was voluntary according to his belief.
h) Paramananda Pegu -VS- State of Assam (2004, Supreme
Court Cases [Criminal], Page-2081). This case dealt with the issue of
retracted confession. The Apex Court observed that the Court should be
assured of its voluntary nature and truthfulness. The Court should also have
regard to the corroboration from other evidence. On facts, the Apex Court
discarded the retracted confession after observing that it did not have any
45
corroboration from other evidence and was contradictory to the medical
evidence available on record.
i) State of Maharashtra -VS- Damu Gopinath Shinde and Others
(All India Reporter, 2000, Supreme Court, Page-1691). In this case
the Apex Court discarded the argument of the defence that since the
investigating officer did not explain as to how he could come to know that the
accused was willing to make confession. The Apex Court was of the view that
the confession was recorded after almost a full month after the accused was
removed from police custody to judicial custody the same could be safely
relied upon.
H.3. CONSPIRACY
a) Saju -VS- State of Kerala (2001, Criminal Law Journal, Page-
102). The Apex Court considering the evidence came to a conclusion that
there was no evidence as to the circumstance of motive. Hence, the accused
was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
b) Nazir Khan and Another -VS- State of Delhi (2003, Supreme
Court Cases [Criminal], Page-2033). According to the Apex Court,
essential ingredient of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to
commit an evidence. Such an agreement can be proved by direct
46
evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Once the agreement was
proved proof of overt act was not essential.
c) State of Maharashtra -VS- Sadruddin Jan Mohommad Bardia
and Others (1992, Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-974).
d) K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Another -VS- Union of India (1992,
Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-572).
e) Government of N.C.T. of Delhi -VS- Jaspal Singh (2004,
Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-933). The Apex Court
observed, conspiracy is proved by showing that two or more persons
have agreed to do or cause to do an illegal act or an act which is not
illegal by illegal means and that some overt act was done by one of
the accused in pursuance of the same. It further observed, where
their common object or design is itself to do an unlawful act, the
specification of such act itself which formed their common design
would suffice.
f) Aloke Nath Dutta & Others -VS- State of West Bengal (2008,
Volume-II, Supreme Court Cases (Criminal), Page-264)
H. 4. Evidence Act
47
a) Pramod Kumar -VS- State (1990, Criminal Law Journal, Page-
68). Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was discussed in this decision. The
Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that conviction could not be based
on identification as there was possibility of the accused being seen by the
witnesses during recovery of weapon.
b) Dudh Nath Pandey -VS- State of Uttar Pradesh (1981 Supreme
Court Cases [Criminal], Page-379). Section 11, 27 and 45 were
discussed herein. The Apex Court held that mere recovery of the arm did not
ipso facto proved the offence. The evidence of the Ballistic Report was also
important.
c) Kora Ghasi -VS- State of Orissa (1983, Supreme Court Cases
[Criminal], Page-387. Section 27 of the Evidence Act was considered.
The Apex Court observed, recovery of crime articles from an open space
should not be given much weight.
d) Vijender -VS- State of Delhi (1997, Supreme Court Cases
[Criminal], Page-857. The Apex Court observed that hearsay evidence
was not admissible, however could be relied upon as corroborative evidence
under Section 157 of the Evidence Act.
e) Sardul Singh Caveeshar -VS- The State of Bombay (All India
Reporter, 1957, Supreme Court, Page-747). Section 10 and 14 of the
48
Evidence Act were discussed. The Apex Court herein observed, on a charge
of conspiracy evidence not admissible under Section 10 as proof of
the two issues to which it relates viz., of the existence of
conspiracy and of the fact, of any particular person being a party
to that conspiracy, is not admissible at all. What is sought to be
admitted in such a case is, something said, or done, or written by
any one of the co-conspirators behind the backs of the others as
being in law attributable to the others.
f) Kanan and Others -VS- State of Kerala (1979, Supreme
Court Cases [Criminal], page-621. Identification of the accused in
Court without T.I. parade was unsafe to rely upon.
g) Mohd. Abdul Hafeez -VS- State of Andhra Pradesh (1983,
Supreme Court Cases [Criminal], Page-139).
h) State of Himachal Pradesh -VS- Lekh Raj and Another
(Judgment Today, 1999, Volume-IX, Supreme Court, Page-43)
i) Sanjeeb Kumar -VS- State of Himachal Pradesh (Judgment
Today, 1999, Volume-I, Supreme Court, Page-116)
H. 5. Arms Act
49
a) Laxchami Prasad Agarwal -VS- The State of Bihar (1993,
Volume-II, Patna Law Journal Reports (PLJR), Page-460). The
learned single Judge of the Patna High Court observed that Section 39 has no
application in case of a prosecution under Section 27.
b) Vinod Kumar Shukla -VS- State of Madhya Pradesh (2000,
Volume-I, Crimes, Page-33). This was a case under Section 25(1)(a)
where the learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed
that sanction under Section 39 was a condition precedent on the basis of
materials collected during investigation.
c) Puran Singh -VS- State of Uttaranchal (2008, Volume-I,
Calcutta [Criminal] Law Reporter [Supreme Court], Page-834).
d) Mahendra Pratap Singh -VS- Uttar Pradesh (2009, Volume-
III, Supreme Court Cases, Page-1352).
e) Bapu -VS- State of Madhya Pradesh (2004, Volume-II, Crimes,
Page-609). It is also a case under Section 25(1)(a) where the learned single
Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted the accused as the sanction
was not obtained by observing the formalities reported under Section 39. The
learned Judge relied on the fact that the pistol was not produced before the
authority at the time of sanction.
50
H. 6. Death Sentence
Jagdish -VS- State of Madhya Pradesh (2009, Volume-VI,
Supreme, Page-692). In this case the Supreme Court rejected the plea
that there had been delay in execution of the death sentence and as such it
should be converted into life imprisonment.
H. 7. Miscellaneous
a) State of West Bengal and Another -VS- Md. Khalid and Others
(All India Reporter, 1995, Supreme Court, Page-785). In this
decision the Apex Court refused to interfere with the sanction to prosecution
in writ jurisdiction after being satisfied on merits about the involvement of
the accused in terrorist activities.
b) S. Nalini and Others -VS- State (1999, Supreme Court Cases
[Criminal], Page 691). This decision dealt with various aspects of TADA
Act while dealing with Rajib Gandhi Assassination Case.
c) Chonampara Chellappan -VS- State of Kerala (1979, Supreme
Court Cases [Criminal], Page-1029).
d) Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani -VS- State of Maharashtra (1982,
Supreme Court Cases (Criminal), Page-334)
51
e) Bhuboni Sahu -VS- The King (1949, Law Reports, Volume-76,
Indian Appeals, Page-147).
f) Kaptan Singh and Others -VS- State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another (1997, Volume-VI, Supreme Court Cases, Page-185).
g) Yash Pal Mital -VS- the State of Punjab (1978, Criminal Law
Journal, Page-189).
h) Hardao Singh -VS- State of Bihar and Others (2000, Criminal
Law Journal, Page-2978)
i) Sudhir Shantilal Mehta -VS- CBI (2009, Volume-III, Supreme
Court Cases [Criminal], Page-646.
H. 8. We have discussed the cases cited before us which we felt relevant
herein. The other cases cited are merely referred to.
I. LAW ON THE SUBJECT
I. 1. WAGING OF WAR
I.1.1. Section 121, 121-A and 122 and 123 of the Indian Penal Code deal
with the crime of Waging of War.
52
I.1.2. Under Section 121 whoever wages war against the Central
Government or attempts or abets to do such would be punishable either with
death sentence or imprisonment for life along with fine. This particular
Section deals with the offence against the Central Government only.
I.1.3. Section 121-A inter alia provides that when someone conspires to
wage war against the Central Government or the State Government by
conspiring to overawe by means of criminal force he shall be liable for
punishment either imprisonment for life or punishment up to ten years as
also fine. If we make a distinction between these two provisions we would
find that if someone wages war or attempts or abets to do it as against the
Central Government he would be given a punishment of death or
imprisonment of life whereas a conspiracy to wage war against the Central
Government or the State Government would attract a lesser punishment of
imprisonment of life or imprisonment up to ten years. So there is a
distinction between actual committing of crime or conspiring for the same
with criminal force.
53
I.1.4. Section 122 deals with collection of arms for waging war against
the Central Government having the equal punishment as one gets under
Section 121-A.
I.2. CONSPIRACY
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code deals with inter alia criminal
conspiracy. If someone conspires with another to commit an offence
punishable for a term of two years or upwards including the capital
punishment he would get the identical punishment as if he had abetted such
offence.
I. 3. CONFESSION
Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests a complete procedure to
be followed by any Magistrate for the purpose of recording a confessional
statement of an accused which can be used in trial against the said accused.
The Magistrate however before recording such confession must explain to the
person making it that he was not bound to make such confession and in case
he makes it the same might be used against him in evidence. The Magistrate
must be satisfied that to his belief such confession was voluntary.
54
I. 4. ARMS ACT, 1959
I.4.1. Section 2 has defined inter alia "prohibited arms" which means a
firearm so designed that if pressure is applied to the trigger it would start
continuous firing so long the cartridge loaded in the firearm does not become
empty.
Section 3 inter alia provides that unlicensed acquisition or possession of any
firearm would amount to offence punishable under the said provision.
I.4.2. Section 5 deals with unlicensed manufacture or sale or transfer of
any firearm which would amount to an offence punishable under the said
provision.
I.4.3. So, in case of any ordinary firearm possession/acquisition would
attract Section 3 whereas manufacture and/or sale would attract Section 5.
I.4.4. Section 7 however deals with "prohibited arms" and would attract
punishment in case of acquisition or possession or manufacture or sale or
transfer or in any way dealing with any manner without sanction of the
Central Government. Hence, Section 7 is a composite provision in case of a
55
prohibited firearm, whoever deals with it in any manner whatsoever without
permission from the Central Government, would be vulnerable under this
provision.
I.4.5. Section 25 deals with punishment for certain offences under the
said Act of 1959. Sub-section 1(a) deals with punishment for contravention of
Section 5 whereas Sub-sections 1-A as well as 1-AA deal with contravention of
Section 7. The said two provisions (Sub-section 1-A and 1-AA) inter alia
provide for punishment from 5 to 10 years in case of acquisition or possession
or 7 years to imprisonment for life in case of manufacture, sale, transfer etc.
I.4.6. Section 27(2) inter alia provides that contravention of Section 7
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 7 years but
may extend to imprisonment for life in case of usurer.
I.4.7. Section 27(3) however provides that in case of such usurer causes
death to any person the penalty would be death sentence.
I.4.8. Section 39 obligates the prosecution to take appropriate sanction
from the District Magistrate before trying any offence under Section 3.
56
I.4.9. On a composite reading of the aforesaid provisions, in our
considered view, if any offence is committed by any person for acquisition or
possession of any ordinary firearm discretion is left to the District Magistrate
whether he would be proceeded with or not, despite committing such crime.
This safeguard is however not available to any other offences under the said
Act including dealing with prohibited arms.
J. LAW AS DECIDED BY THE APEX COURT ON AN
IDENTICAL ISSUE
J.1. Our task has become easier in dealing with the present case as we
get immense guidance from the Apex Court decision in the case of Navjot
Sandhu (Supra). In the said decision the Apex Court dealt with each and
every relevant provision of the statute as well as the factual matrix involved in
the said case before application of the appropriate law on the subject. We,
thus intend to discuss the relevant excerpts.
J.2. In Parliament Shoot-out case all the five shooters were killed and
hence they were not available for trial. In our case, out of two shooters one
was killed subsequently and the other was absconding till the learned
sessions Judge held the trial. During pendency of the appeal the other
shooter was arrested and is now facing trial. The persons behind the screen
57
were proceeded with in both these cases. Hence, we get ample support from
the said decision.
J.3. Four persons were involved in the said case who were proceeded
with on the allegation of not only conspiring for the crime but also giving
active support to the militants involved in such shoot-out incident. In this
backdrop the observations of the Apex Court are as hereunder :-
i) Waging of war against the Government of India - what is necessary is
that object and purpose is to strike at the sovereign authority of
Government to achieve a public and general purpose, intended to be
achieved by use of force and arms and by defiance of Government troops or
armed personnel deployed to maintain public tranquility. There is no
hard and fast rule in order to constitute offence of waging war.
ii) As criminal acts took place pursuant to the conspiracy to attack
Parliament House, the appellant Afzal was a party to the conspiracy,
though not having been part of the attack himself, shall be deemed
to have abated the offence.
iii) The criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a mere
positive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an
overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one tacitly
58
consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other
conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into
effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime.
iv) There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of
means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators.
v) The offence continues to be committed so long the combination persists,
that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its
performance.
vi) the twin tests to be applied to evaluate a confession are -
a) Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, and
b) If so, whether it is true and trustworthy.
vii) Court may take into account the retracted confession, but it must look
for the reasons for the making of the confession as well as for its retraction,
and must weigh the two to determine whether the retraction affects the
voluntary nature of the confession or not.
viii) There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant of time for reflection
before recording a confession.
ix) The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or
effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting
59
to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the
scheme.
x) When men enter into an agreement for an unlawful end, they became ad
hoc agents for one another and have made a partnership in crime.
xi) In order to constitute a single conspiracy there must be a common
design. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and
united effort to achieve the common purpose.
xii) In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share
information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
xiii) It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some
kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement,
however, need not be proved. The evidence as to transmission of
thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.
K. OUR VIEW ON THE LAW ON THE SUBJECT
K. 1. WAGING OF WAR
The common purpose to cause a concerted attack on the Governmental
machinery including police force amounts to "waging of war". From the
nature of the attack it is clear that the strategy was not only to attack the
police force but also the police force guarding the American Centre to attract
global attention. This strategy can safely be called as "waging of war" against
60
the Central Government attracting the mischief of Section 121 and 121-A of
the Indian Penal Code.
K.2. ARMS ACT
"Prohibited arm" is distinctive from ordinary firearm. Possession and/or
acquisition of ordinary firearms without a licence contravenes Section 3 and
is liable to be proceeded with a prior sanction from the appropriate authority
under Section 39. In case of prohibited arms, mere dealing with it in any
manner whatsoever is totally prohibited unless specifically permitted by the
Central Government, under Section 7. User of the said prohibited arms
causing death to any one automatically attracts contravention of Section
27(3) liable for capital punishment. Such proceeding does not require any
prior sanction at all. Hence considering the factual matrix involved herein
the sanction was superfluous.
K.3. CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy has two parts. We are concerned with Sub-section (1) of Section
120-B of the Indian Penal Code which deals with a pre-concerted effort by
two or more persons by meeting of minds and entering into an agreement to
commit a crime. Here, before the American Centre Incident there was
enough evidence which would help us to come to a definite conclusion that
61
such incident was a result of a pre-concerted effort after an agreement being
arrived at by the conspirators to commit such crime. Hence, Section 120-B
(1) squarely applies in the instant case.
K.4. FORGERY
The Government is only authorised and entitled to issue tax token and/or
vehicle registration certificate through the prescribed authority under the
Motor Vehicles Act. Printing of those certificates and/or tokens thus falls
within the exclusive domain of the Government. Whoever prints it without
the authority of the Government and that too for an oblique purpose to
counterfeit the same, attracts penalty and/or punishment under Section 467,
468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, tax token
registration certificate etc. were recovered from Tiljala flat as well as Hasrat's
residence. Those were proved to be fake. Printing of those articles by the
concerned accused got corroboration from the confession statements made
by two of the accused. Hence, those three provisions are squarely attracted in
the instant case.
L. APPLICATION OF LAW CONSIDERING
INVOLVEMENT OF THE ACCUSED JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY
62
Altogether seven accused are involved in the above appeals and/or death
reference. They are compartmentalized in three categories -
1.Master-mind / Core Group
2. Printer Group
3. Hajaribag Residents L.1. Core Group L.1.1. From the evidence we are not hesitant to place Aftab and Nasir in this group. It is true that Aftab was not present in Kolkata at the time of shoot-out incident, at least we do not get any supportive evidence for the same. If we consider his pre-concerted effort, from the very beginning we would find that he initially tried to mobilize youths for criminal activities by luring them with money and/or job either by himself or through Asif or subsequently through Nasir. He got the tax token and/or registration certificates printed through Boby, Rohit and Hasrat and they did it in lieu of money without knowing as to how those would be used. He also lured some of them that if they wanted to make money they would have to abduct rich people for a ransom. Printing and abduction might not have any direct link with the shoot out incident, at least we do not get any positive linkage and as such we have to keep Rohit, Boby and Hasrat out of this group by giving 63 benefit of doubt, at least in case of Rohit. Mr. Imam made frantic attempt to distinguish the evidence. According to him, there was no direct evidence implicating Aftab. He made comment on the E-mails by saying that the authenticity of those were doubtful as anybody could send E-mail to any address if the address was known to the addressor. Similarly, the reply to the E-mail did not specifically prove that those were sent by Aftab. We are unable to accept. These E-mails were retrieved in presence of Nasir as well as cyber café owner and its employee. Those could not be retrieved unless the password was made known to the retriever. Those passwords were supplied by Nasir as per the evidence of the concerned police inspector being corroborated by the cyber café owner and/or its employee. From the confessional statement of Nasir as well as Rohit the presence of Aftab was proved. Such statement got corroboration from Hamid, Ali Reza Khan and other independent witnesses.
L.1.2. From the evidence of Ali Reza Khan (P.W.39) we come to know that Asif went to Kashmir and became jehadi after being trained to the said extent. From such evidence it is also clear that conspirators had taken recourse to the act of terrorism.
64L.1.3. Contents of the e-mails as discussed herein before would complete the chain of conspiracy.
L.1.4. Nasir initially was engaged by Asif as his salaried employee. It was not for any illegal purpose. He might have been trapped. However, his subsequent involvement clearly suggests that he knew what he was doing. In shoot-out incident he arranged accommodation for the shooters. He actively participated at the time of incident as and by way of back-up force. He arranged for their escape and hide-out.
L.1.5. With regard to Nasir Mr. Imam contended that Nasir was a paid employee of Asif and he was doing what he was asked to do, without knowing the main purpose. We are unable to accept, at least evidence does not permit us to do so. Nasir made the confessional statement before the Magistrate. The Magistrate proved such statement. The retraction was made after more than one year and that too after the trial had commenced. Even the retraction was lawfully made such retracted confession was entitled to be relied upon as it found corroboration from independent witnesses as discussed hereinbefore. Nasir was certainly a direct activist in such shoot-out incident and could safely be charged with the offence of "waging of war" along 65 with Aftab. We confirm their conviction as held by the learned sessions Judge.
L.1.6. We have already affirmed the conviction of Aftab and Nasir on "waging of war". Such waging of war was a conspiracy against the State. They actively guided the shooters in the shoot-out incident. Nasir acted as a back-up force while driving the Motor car. Hence, their involvement could safely attract contravention of Section 27(3). It might be so, that there was no direct evidence that either of them touched the AK-47 rifle used in the shoot- out incident, but from the circumstantial evidence it was proved that the entire strategy was to attack the American Centre and the cops present there with the help of AK-47. In case of Nasir, he drove the Maruti Car to help one of the shooters escaped from the scene along with AK-47 rifle. Such involvement can safely relate to contravention of Section 27(3), Arms Act/120-B I.P.C. Hence, their conviction and sentence for contravention under Section 27(3) Arms Act / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is also affirmed along with Section 302 read with Section 120-B. Similarly, their conviction and sentence under Section 467, 468 and 471 / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is also affirmed as at their instance those fake documents were printed.
66L.2. PRINTER GROUP As observed by us hereinbefore, printing of tax token and registration certificate for the purpose of using them to counterfeit original certificate attracts penalty and/or punishment under Sections 467, 468 and 471. From the analysis of the evidence as discussed hereinbefore, Boby, Rohit and Hasrat were equally responsible along with Aftab, Asif and Nasir. Their convictions and sentences under the provisions of Sections 467, 468 and 471 read with 120-B is confirmed. We hold that Boby, Rohit and Hasrat are not guilty of the other charges brought against them and accordingly their conviction and sentences are set aside.
L.3. HAZARIBAG GROUP Monti and Adil were not parties to the printing job, at least there is neither direct nor indirect evidence to the said effect.
Monti and Adil were distantly related to Nasir. They were admittedly residents of Hazaribag. Let us bring the evidence that came out in trial in a narrow campus involving both of them.
67L.3.1.Adil Nasir in his confessional statement stated, Monti told him that Adil would join them soon. This statement was made de hors the context Nasir was discussing. Why Monti said so and what for Adil would join, is not clear. Such statement was made by Nasir while referring to his visit at Hazaribag when he says that he occasionally stayed in the house of Adil who was the brother in-law of Monti being his distant maternal uncle. It might be so, that Monti and Adil became the nucleus for establishing a centre at Hazaribag. Unfortunately we do not get any such evidence. Thus we get, Adil used to give shelter to Nasir whenever he was at Hazaribag. Adil told Monti that he would join them soon. Monti however did not make any such statement in the trial. It was hearsay evidence that came out by way of confession under Section 164 from Nasir without having any corroborative evidence. We are unable to find out any reason to come to a conclusion that Adil was involved in any of the crimes, either in the shoot-out incident or in the conspiracy or in the printing episode or giving shelter to the shooters after the shoot-out incident for which we could safely affirm his conviction. His conviction and sentences under all the charges framed are set aside. L.3.2.MONTI 68 Monti was present at the flat at Hazaribag when Zahid and Salim were there. This was watched by Abdul Mazid when he went to enquire whether the tubewell was properly working or not. Monti introduced Zahid and Salim as staff of Nasir. From the confessional statement of Nasir we also find that Monti drove the Motorcycle from Hazaribag to Kolkata and left Kolkata after delivery. This evidence was not safe to affirm the conviction. Against this evidence we do not find any corroboration from any one out of 123 prosecution witnesses that Monti was involved in the crime. Kausalya Nand Chowdhury, Hazaribag Inspector made a passing reference that he was giving shelter to the terrorists. Such statement also did not get any corroboration. Doubt also arises in our mind when we find that out of the two raiding parties one meant for Hasmia Colony did not report back what had happened, at least such report did not come in evidence. Kausalya Nand Chowdhury could not throw any light on that. Pertinent to mention, Hasmia Colony residence belonged to Monti.
L.3.3. If we consider Navjot Sandhu (Supra) we find in paragraph 320 the Apex Court narrowed down the involvement of Shoukat. The important circumstances against Shoukat are as follows :-
69
"1. Taking a room on rent along with Afzal at Christian Colony Hostel into which Afzal inducted the terrorist Mohammad about a month prior to the incident. Soukat used to go there.
2. The Motorcycle of Shoukat being found at Indira Vihar, one of the hideouts of the terrorists which was hired by Afzal in the first week of December 2001.
3. His visits to Gandhi Vihar House which was also taken on rent by Afzal in December 2001 to accommodate the terrorists and meeting Afzal there quite often, as spoken to by PW-34.
4. Accompanying Afzal and Mohammad for the purchase of Motorcycle by Afzal.
5. His frequent calls to Afzal especially on the date of attack. 70
6. His leaving Delhi to Srinagar on the date of attack itself in his truck with Afzal who carried a mobile phone, laptop used by the terrorists and cash of Rs. ten lakhs.
7. The fear and anxiety with which he and his wife conversed over the phone on the night of the following day."
L.3.4. On the above facts Soukat was acquitted of the charges under Section 121 and 121-A and was imposed a lighter punishment of ten years imprisonment for concealment of the strategy of waging of war taken by the other prime accused. In our case, Adil and Monti were seen together with Zahid and Salim at the Hazaribag Flat of Nasir. They possibly helped Nasir in getting that flat (there is no definite evidence on that score). Monti drove the Motor Cycle from Hazaribag to Calcutta and left Calcutta after delivery, according to the confessional statement of Nasir. We do not find any corroboration from any other evidence on that score. Even if we give full credence to such statement of Nasir and compare with the evidence in case of Shoukat we are unable to approve the conviction either under Section 121 or under Section 121-A in case of Adil and Monti. We are unable to affirm the 71 conviction of Monti on any of the charges and his conviction and sentence are set aside.
M. PUNISHMENT M.1. We have confirmed the conviction of Aftab and Nasir on the charges of waging of war, printing of fake documents and dealing with prohibited arms resulting in casualty. We do not find any reason to alter the punishment in their cases. In any event, the conviction under Section 27(3) automatically attracts capital punishment. Hence, there is hardly any scope for the Court to give any lighter punishment. We are constrained to hold that the punishment imposed on Aftab and Nasir does not deserve any alteration and/or modification and thus is confirmed.
M.2. In case of printer group, we have already given benefit of doubt to Rohit for his involvement in the conspiracy of "waging war". We however hold him guilty of the charges of printing of fake documents along with Boby and Hasrat. The punishment imposed by the learned sessions Judge under Section 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B to the extent of printing of fake documents is thus affirmed.
72M.3. We have already set aside the conviction of Monti and Adil and as such they are acquitted of all the charges. They be set at liberty at once if not wanted in any other case.
N. RESULT The death reference is accordingly answered. The appeals filed by Aftab and Nasir are dismissed. Appeals filed by Rohit, Boby and Hasrat are allowed in part and are disposed of accordingly. The appeals filed by Monti and Adil are allowed.
O. DIRECTION O.1. A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the correctional home to be given to each of the accused. The Jail Superintendent is also directed to act accordingly.
O.2. We have confirmed the conviction and sentence as against Aftab and Nasir. We have also approved capital punishment imposed upon them. Let such punishment be not executed for a period of three months from date to enable them to approach the Apex Court.
73O.3. Let the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once.
O.4. Urgent xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.
[ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.] KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J:
I agree.
[KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J.]