By – CHITRA (University Five Year Law College, Jaipur)
ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The criminal appeal named” Mohd Naushad vs State Of(Govt. Nct, Delhi)” was a significant case that was heard in the Supreme Court of India, with the judgment being delivered on July 6, 2023. The case revolves around a series of bomb blasts that were carried out on May 21, 1996, at a bustling central request in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The charge distance professing conspiracy and prosecution of the bomb blast with the intention of destabilizing the country was presented by the execution.
The State Government of the National Capital Territory( NCT) of Delhi was the replier in this case, while Mohd. Naushad was the complainant. Multiple indicted persons were involved in the case, with some of them being declared placarded malefactors and escaping trial. The remaining indicted individualities faced trial for colorful offenses under different correctional vittles of the law.
The judgment was delivered by the Trial Court on April 8, 2010, performing in persuasions and clearings for the indicted parties. latterly, felonious prayers challenging the Trial Court’s judgment were filed in the Supreme Court by the complainant. The criminal prayers were reviewed by a bench comprising Sanjay Karol, Vikram Nath, and B.R.Gavai in the Supreme Court. The court’s decision is anticipated to give pivotal interpretations and judgments regarding the issues raised in the prayers, slipping light on the legal aspects of the case and potentially impacting the persuasions and clearings handed down by the Trial Court.
Keywords – Criminal appeal, Bomb blasts, conviction, conspiracy, Destabilizing the Country, Lajpat Nagar New Delhi, Mohd Naushad, Trial Court.
CASE DETAILS
| Judgement Cause Title | Mohd Naushad vs State Of (Govt. Nct, Delhi) |
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1269 of 2013 , 1270-1271 0f 2013, 6447-6451 of 2013 |
| Judgement Date | 6 July ,2023 |
| Court | Supreme court of India |
| Quorum | Sanjay Karol, Vikram Nath, Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai |
| Author | Sanjay Karol |
| Citation | 2023INSC605 |
| Legal Provisions Involved | IPC-1860, The Explosive Substances Act-1908, The Indian Evidence Act-1872 |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The judgment named” Mohd Naushad vs State Of(Govt. Nct, Delhi) on 6 July, 2023″ was delivered by a bench comprising judges Sanjay Karol, Vikram Nath, andB.R. Gavai in the Supreme Court of India. The judgment, bearing Felonious AppealNo. 1269 of 2013, was pronounced on 6th July 2023.
The case pertained to two First Information Reports( FIRs) registered in 1996. The execution presented a challan in connection with FIRNo. 517 of 1996, which contended a conspiracy to commit lemon blasts in order to destabilize the country. As per the charge- distance, 17 individualities, linked as A1 to A17, were indicted of being involved in the conspiracy and carrying out a blast on 21st May 1996 in a crowded request in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.
Another challan was presented in connection with FIRNo.286/1996, which related to the theft in connection with the same main crime involving four out of the seventeen indicted persons.
It’s important to note that out of the seventeen indicted, one existent( A13) had passed down, and seven individualities( A11 to A17) were declared placarded malefactors and hadn’t faced trial. The remaining nine indicted persons were facing trial for colorful offenses under different correctional vittles of the law.
The judgment provides a irregular form presenting the names of the indicted and the charges against them. Each indicted faced charges under sections similar as IPC 120B( felonious conspiracy), 124- A( sedition), 302( murder), 307( attempt to murder), and 436( mischief by fire or explosive substances). also, charges were filed under colorful sections of the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act.
The Trial Court, through a common judgment dated 8th April 2010, pronounced the verdict on the indicted facing trial. The judgment redounded in persuasions and clearings, along with the corresponding corrections awarded. The table in the judgment outlines the persuasions, clearings, and the corrections awarded for each indicted.
For case, A1( Farooq Ahmed Khan@ Anwar Sadat) was condemned under the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act and doomed to rigorous imprisonment for five times. A2( Farida Dar@ Bahanji) was condemned under the Explosive Substances Act and awarded imprisonment for the formerly experienced period.
A3( Mohd. Naushad) was condemned under colorful sections, including IPC 302( murder), 307( attempt to murder), 436( mischief by fire or explosive substances), and doomed to death. The judgment also mentioned that A4( Mirza Iftqar Hussain@ Saba) was acquitted of the charges.
The judgment provides detailed information on the persuasions, clearings, and corrections awarded to each indicted. In conclusion, the judgment in the case of Mohd Naushad vs State Of(Govt. Nct, Delhi) on 6 July, 2023, delivered by the Supreme Court of India, addressed the charges against the indicted individualities involved in a conspiracy to commit lemon blasts. The judgment outlined the persuasions, clearings, and corrections awarded to each indicted grounded on the substantiation and charges presented during the trial. The Trial Court had delivered its judgment on 8th April 2010, and the Supreme Court’s judgment acted as an appellate decision affirming or modifying the persuasions and corrections awarded by the lower court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case on 6th July 2023, between Mohd Naushad and State Of(Govt. Nct, Delhi), were as follows:
Two First Information Reports( FIRs) were filed in 1996. FIRNo. 517 of 1996 contended a conspiracy to commit bomb blasts with the intention of destabilizing the country. It was contended that on 21st May 1996, a blast passed in a crowded request in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and 17 individualities, linked as A1 to A17, were indicted of being part of this conspiracy.
FIRNo.286/1996 related to theft connected to the same main crime involving four out of the seventeen indicted persons. Among the indicted, one existent( A13) had passed down, and seven individualities( A11 to A17) were declared placarded malefactors who had finessed trial. The remaining nine indicted were facing trial for colorful offenses under different sections of the law, including IPC 120B( felonious conspiracy), 124- A( sedition), 302( murder), 307( attempt to murder), 436( mischief by fire or explosive substances), as well as vittles of the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether The validity of the substantiation presented by the execution?
- Any procedural irregularities or legal crimes committed during the trial?
- Whether the indicted individualities were involved in the conspiracy to commit lemon blasts and the posterior blast in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi?
- Whether the charges leveled against the indicted individualities under various sections of the law were substantiated by the substantiation presented during the trial?
PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for Petitioner/ Appellant submitted that They challenged the validity of the substantiation presented against them, claiming that it was inadequate to prove their involvement in the contended conspiracy and the posterior blast.
ii. They argued that there were inconsistencies and disagreement in the execution’s case, casting mistrustfulness on the trustability of the substantiation.
iii. The supplicant/ complainant contended that their rights to a fair trial and due process were violated during the proceedings.
RESPONDENT ’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that It contended the substantiation presented during the trial established the involvement of the indicted individualities in the conspiracy and the blast.
ii. They argued that the execution had produced substantial substantiation, including substantiation testaments, forensic reports, and other factual substantiation, which established the guilt of the indicted persons.
iii. The respondent emphasized that the trial court had precisely examined the substantiation and arrived at the correct conclusions.
RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
1. Indian Penal Code( IPC):
Various sections of the IPC were applied in the case to establish the felonious liability of the indicted individualities.
- Section 120B( Felonious Conspiracy) – The offense of felonious conspiracy was invoked to establish that the indicted persons were involved in a conspiracy to commit felonious acts.
- Section 124- A( Sedition) – The offense of sedition was charged against the indicted individualities for their alleged involvement in conditioning aimed at overthrowing the government or creating public complaint.
- Section 302( Murder) – The charge of murder was applied to the indicted individualities for their alleged involvement in causing the death of another person.
- Section 307( Attempt to Murder) – The offense of attempt to murder was invoked against the indicted persons for their alleged involvement in trying to cause the death of another person.
- Section 411( Dishonestly entering Stolen Property) – The indicted individualities were charged under this section for their alleged involvement in dishonestly entering stolen property. 1.6 Section 436( Mischief by Fire or Explosive Substance) – The offense of mischief by fire or explosive substance was applied to the indicted individualities for their alleged involvement in causing damage or destruction by using snares.
2. Explosive Substances Act:
The Explosive Substances Act was invoked in the case to deal with offenses related to explosive substances.
- Section 4 ( Possession or Control of Explosive Substances with Intent to Endanger Life or Property) – The indicted individualities, including Mohd. Naushad, were charged under this section for their alleged involvement in the possession and control of explosive substances with intent to jeopardize life or property.
3. Arms Act :
The Arms Act was invoked in the case to deal with offenses related to the possession, use, and trade of arms.
- Various sections of the Arms Act – The indicted individualities faced charges under specific sections of the Arms Act for their alleged involvement in the illegal possession of arms.
4. Other applicable legal vittles – Depending on the specific details of the case, other applicable legal vittles may have been invoked by the execution to establish the felonious liability of the indicted individualities.
Identification and operation of fresh legal vittles – The court, grounded on the substantiation and arguments presented, may have linked and applied fresh legal vittles to determine the guilt or innocence of the indicted individualities.
Please note that the specific operation and interpretation of these legal vittles were done by the court during the trial and posterior proceedings. The court examined the substantiation, arguments, and applicable legal vittles to arrive at its findings and judgments.
JUDGEMENT
RATIO DECIDENDI
The case involved multiple indicted persons who were charged with colorful offenses, including conspiracy and bomb blasts. The execution presented a challan in connection with FIRNo. 517 of 1996, which stated that 17 persons conspired and conducted a blast in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Another challan was presented for theft in connection with FIRNo.286/1996. Out of the 17 indicted, one expired, and seven were declared placarded offenders and didn’t face trial.
The remaining nine indicted faced trial for several offenses under different correctional vittles. The charges against each indicted and the offenses they were charged with are handed in a irregular form. The Trial Court, in a common judgment, condemned and acquitted the indicted grounded on the offenses they were charged with. The judgment also awarded the needful discipline.
The ratio decidendi of the case can be deduced from the Court’s findings and the persuasions and clearings of the indicted. The Court’s decision to condemn or acquit each indicted is grounded on the substantiation and legal vittles applicable to their separate cases. The rate decidendi establishes the legal principles and logic that led to the Court’s decision in each case.
OBITER DICTA
Obiter dicta refers to the incidental or fresh reflections made by the Court that aren’t directly applicable to the decision in the case. It includes compliances, commentary, or opinions expressed by the Court, which may not have a list effect but can give perceptivity into the Court’s logic.
In this case, the obiter dicta may include the Court’s commentary on the nature of the offenses, the impact of the crimes on society, or the need for strict corrections to discourage analogous acts in the future. These reflections, although not forming part of the rate decidendi, can give guidance and perspective on the Court’s overall view of the case and the beginning legal issues.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Naushad vs State Of(Govt. Nct, Delhi) on 6 July 2023 was pronounced byHon’bleMr. Justice Sanjay Karol, along withHon’bleMr. JusticeB.R. Gavai andHon’bleMr. Justice Vikram Nath. The judgment was granted leave. The Felonious AppealNo.1269/2013 and Felonious AppealNos. 1270- 1271 of 2013 were dismissed, while the Crl.A. Nos.@ SLP( Crl.)Nos. 6447- 6451 of 2013 were allowed, as per the signed judgment.
The operative part of the judgment states that the common judgment dated22.11.2012 rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Death Sentence ReferenceNo. 2 of 2010 and Felonious AppealNos. 948, 949, 950, and 951 of 2010 is set away. The prayers preferred by indicted Mohd. Naushad( Felonious AppealNo.1269/2013) and Javed Ahmed Khan( Felonious AppealNos. 1270- 1271 of 2013) were dismissed.
The appeal preferred by the State(Govt. NCT of Delhi),Crl.A.@ SLP( Crl.)Nos. 6447- 6451 of 2013, was allowed. As a result, A3- Mohd. Naushad was condemned under Sections 302, 307, 411, 436, and 120B IPC as well as Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. A5- Mirza Nissar Hussain@ Naza and A6- Mohd. Ali Bhatt@ Killey were condemned under Sections 302, 307, 436, 411, and 120B IPC, and A9- Javed Ahmed Khan was condemned under Sections 302, 307, 436, and 120B IPC. Considering the inflexibility of the offense performing in the deaths of innocent persons and the part played by each indicted person, all these indicted persons were doomed to imprisonment for life, without absolution, extending to natural life. The indicted, if on bail, were directed to incontinently surrender before the Court concerned, and their bail bonds stood cancelled. A5- Mirza Nissar Hussain@ Naza and A6- Mohd. Ali Bhatt@ Killey were directed to rendition forthwith.
REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred
- Major Puran v. The State of Punjab was observed.
- Kottaya v. Emperor was held.
- M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra was observed.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra was held.
- Hari Charan Kurmi & Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar was observed.
- Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State of Delhi Administration was observed.
- Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh was held.
- Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor was observed.
- Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra was held.s
- Bhuboni Sahu v. R. was observed.
- Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra was held.
- Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab was held.
- Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra was held.
- Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics was referred.
- Suresh was referred.
Important Statutes Referred
- Sections 120-A, 120-B, 124-A, 302, 307 and 436 r/w Section 120B Indian Penal Code (‘IPC) were referred.
- Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act were referred.
- Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act were referred.
- Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act were referred.
- Section 164 Cr.P.C. was referred.
- Section 10 of the Evidence Act was referred.
- Section 120-A IPC was referred.
REFERENCES