Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
Judgement-Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case
INTHECOURTOFSHSPGARG,DJIV/ASJ
NEWDELHIDISTRICTPATIALAHOUSECOURTS,
NEWDELHI
(1)SessionsCaseNo.47/09
StateVs1 FarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat
S/oGulamKadir
R/oJanglatMandi,Distt.AnantNag
(J&K) .....A1
2 MrsFaridaDar@Bahanji
W/oMohd.MaqboolDar
R/oHouseNo.1DilsauzColony
Natipora,Distt.Badgaon
(J&K) .......A2
3 Mohd.Naushad
S/oAbdulRashid
R/oP7,DDAFlats,TurkmanGate
Delhi .........A3
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 1of408
2
4 MirzaIftqarHussain@Saba
S/oLateMirzaAliMohd
R/oNumchabalnearGMCollege
SriNagar,(J&K) ..........A4
5MirzaNissarHussain@Naza
S/oLateMirzaAliMohd
R/oKhankaiMohalla
NumchabadnearGMCollege
SriNagar(J&K) ...........A5
6 Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey
S/oHaziSherAli
R/oHusanabad,Rainabari
SriNagar(J&K) ............A6
7 LatifAhmedWaza
S/oGulamMohdWaza
R/oMohallaSamauwari
nearGandhiMemorialCollege
SriNagar(J&K) ........A7
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 2of408
3
8 SyedMaqboolShah
S/oSyedMohd.Shah
R/oJanMohalla
LalBazarnearIgatMissionSchool
SriNagar(J&K)........A8
9 JavedAhmedKhan@JavedJunior@
ChhotaJaved
S/oMohd.Shafi
R/oNowpora,PS:Khanyar
SriNagar(J&K).........A9
10 AbdulGani@Assadullah@Nikka
S/oBahauddinGani
R/oMohallaPassi,Badaiwah
Distt.Doda(J&K) ..........A10
11 BilalAhmedBeg
S/oMohd.YusufBeg
R/oMohallaBegumAli
AloochaBagh
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 3of408
4
SriNagar(J&K) .........A11
(sinceP.O)
12 Juber@Mehrazuddin
R/oPuranaMohalla
Nalipora,SriNagar(J&K).........A12
(SinceP.O)
13 RiyazAhmedSheikh@Riyaz@Mulla
S/oMohd.YusufSheikh
R/oSheikhMohalla
ChoudharyBag,Rainabau
SriNagar(J&K) ........A13
(sincedead)
14 Mohd.AshrafBhatta
S/oGulamKadirBhatta
R/oBahriKadal,PPUrduBazar
PSMaharajGanj,
SriNagar(J&K).........A14
(sinceP.O)
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 4of408
5
15 JavedKariwar@JavedAhmedGoojri
S/oGulamAhmedGoojri
R/o11/2BabaDamNalamarRoad
KailashPora
PSMagarajGanj
SriNagar(J&K).........A15
(sinceP.O)
16 IbrahimAbdulRazakMenan@Muslaq
@TigerMenan
S/oAbdulRazakMenan
R/o2225and26AlHussaini
CooperativeHousingSociety,
DargahStreet,Mahim,Mumba.........A16
(sinceP.O)
17 DaudHassanSheikhKaskar@Daud
Bhai@DaudIbrahim
S/oIbrahimSheikKaskar
R/o33PakmadiaStreet
HaziIsmailMusafirKhana
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 5of408
6
Dongri,Mumbai.........A17
(sinceP.O)
FIRNo.517/96
U/s302/307/12B124A,212IPC&
U/s3,4&5ExplosiveSubstanceAct&
U/s25ArmsAct
PS:LajpatNagar
2281996ChargesheetfiledintheCourtofld.MM.
21071997Casecommitted/allocatedtoSessions.
17032010Datereservedforjudgment.
08042010Dateofannouncementofjudgment.
(14yearsoldcase)
(2)SessionsCaseNo.41/09
StateVs 1 Mohd.Naushad
S/oAbdulRashid
R/oP7,DDAFlats,TurkmanGate
Delhi .........A3
2 MirzaNissarHussain@Naza
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 6of408
7
S/oLateMirzaAliMohd
R/oKhankaiMohalla
NumchabadnearGMCollege
SriNagar(J&K) ...........A5
3 Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey
S/oHaziSherAli
R/oHusanabad,Rainabari
SriNagar(J&K) ............A6
4 SyedMaqboolShah
S/oSyedMohd.Shah
R/oJanMohalla
LalBazarnearIgatMissionSchool
SriNagar(J&K)...........A8
FIRNo.286/96
U/s379/411IPC
PS:Nizamuddin
22081996ChallanfiledintheCourtofld.MM.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 7of408
8
24071997AllocatedtoSessions
17032010Datereservedforjudgment.
08042010Dateofannouncementofjudgment.
(14yearsoldcase)
JUDGEMENT:
1 AccusedA1toA10werearrestedbythepoliceofPS
LajpatNagar/SpecialCellincaseFIRNo.517/96,u/s302/307/120
B/124A/212IPC, u/s3/4/5ExplosiveSubstanceActandu/s25
subsequently,afterfilingofthechallanagainstA1toA10,A13
wasapprehendedinthiscaseandsupplementarychallanwasfiled
againsthim.However,duringpendencyoftrialA13expiredand
proceedingswereorderedtobedroppedagainsthimvideorder
dated23/10/1998asabated.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 8of408
9
asprojectedincaseFIRNo.517/96,PSLajpatNagaragainstthe
accusedpersonsmaybestatedthus:
(A)BriefFacts:
3 On21.5.96apowerfulexplosiontookplaceatabout
alongwithstaffrushedtothespotandmetwithhorrificsight.Many
shopsatPushpaMarketwereonfire.Numberofpersonshaddied
crying.Onreachingatthespotwiththeassistanceofhisstaffand
thepublicpersonspresentthere,thepoliceremovedtheinjured
assistantoffiretenders,firewasputoff.NSGs'experts,explosive
expertsfromCFSLweresummonedatthespot.
4 PresentcasewasregisteredonthestatementofSh
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 9of408
10
SubhashChandKatar,ashopkeeperofPushpaMarketwhoinhis
statementtothepoliceinformedthatatabout6.30p.m.,hewas
checkingbillbookatthecounterofhisshop. Allofasudden,
therewasaloudblastinaMaruticarofwhitecolourstandingata
smearedinbloodontheground.Thecarinwhichtheblasthad
takenplacewasinflames.Firehadspreadtofourorfiveadjacent
cars.Havingfearofanotherexplosion,heimmediatelycameout
ofshopandwentintheadjoiningstreet. Therehesaw2or3
boysininjuredconditionlyingontheground.Thesaidboyswere
strugglingtocomeoutofaclothshopwhichwasonfire.
5 Thecomplainantfurtherinformedthepolicethatone
chowkidar/parkingmanwhosenamehedidnotrememberused
ascertainedfromshopkeeperAshokThakur.Thesaidchowkidar/
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 10of408
11
parkingmanhadnotcomeondutyonthatday.Heusedtositon
thechairinfrontofhisshop. Thecomplainantinformedthathe
explosionhadtakenplace.Hedidnotknowastowhohadparked
thesaidcarinfrontofhisshop.
photographer, NSGexpertsanddogsquadweresummonedat
thespot.CopyoftheFIRwassenttotheseniorofficersthrough
specialmessenger. IOpreparedroughsiteplanoftheplaceof
occurrence.Hegotthesceneofincidentphotographed.Carused
EightMaruticarswhichwereinburntconditionwereseizedvide
seizurememos.CasepropertywasdepositedintheMalkhanaof
witnessesu/s161CrPC.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 11of408
12
andsections302/307IPCwereaddedasnumberofinjuredhad
expiredinthehospitals.
sustainedinjuries,8Maruticars/vansgotburntand14buildings
sufferedextensivedamages. Postmortemonthedeadbodiesof
deceasedweregotconductedandMLCsofinjuredpersonswere
CFSL.
9 Furthercaseoftheprosecutioninthechargesheetis
thatinquiriesweremaderegardingthepersonswhohadparked
maruticarusedintheblast.OnthebasisofEngineNo.923255,
ChasisNo.632905ofthemaruticar,itsregistrationnumberwas
furtherinvestigation,ittranspiredthatthiscarwasstolenonthe
interveningnightof17/18596fromA51,NizamuddinEastand
ownerofthecar,ShAtulNathhadgotregisteredacomplaintat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 12of408
13
registeredthere.
responsibilityforcausingbombblastatLajpatNagarbymaking
telephonecallstopress/media.Theyalsotookresponsibilityfor
causingbombblaston22.5.96inabusatDausa,Rajasthanby
telephonecalls,itcametonoticethatthosetelephonecallswere
madefromtelephonenumber22315atAnantNag,Kashmir.J&K
arrestedbypoliceofPSSherGarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94.
requiredinformationfromJ&Kpoliceabouttheapprehensionof
A1andA2,NBWsweregotissuedagainstthemfromthecourt.
Insp.JasbirSinghalongwithhisteamwenttoJ&Ktoapprehend
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 13of408
14
PatialaHouseCourt,NewDelhi.Theywereinterrogatedandtheir
disclosurestatementswererecorded.A1confessedthathehad
bombblastcase.
12 Ondirectionsofseniorofficers,furtherinvestigationof
thecasewastransferredtoSpecialStaff/SBIIon26.5.96. Insp.
ParasNathofOperationCellcarriedoutfurtherinvestigationinthe
case.
13 A1andA2wereinterrogatedintensively.Therecord
oftelephoneno.22135fortheperiodfrom10.5.96to30.5.96was
collectedfromthetelephoneexchangeatAnantNaganditwas
foundthattelephoneno.22135wasinstalledattheresidenceofA
1atJanglatMandi,AnantNag,J&KsinceMarch,1996anditwas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 14of408
15
foundthaton21.5.96atabout8.39p.m.,varioustelephonecalls
residence.
SinghwenttoJ&KforsearchofA11andA12.On2.6.96ATS,
Ahmedabad,GujratinformedDelhipolice aboutapprehensionof
A9andA10alongwithAbdulRashidShah@Jalaluddin,Ayub
Bhatta@Zulfikar@TazamulandalsoaboutinvolvementofA9
and A10 in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case. Insp. Ram
informedregardingthismessage.HewasinstructedtosearchA
15andhisassociates.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 15of408
16
someincriminatingdocuments.
theirdisclosurestatementswererecorded.Bothdisclosedtoget
BothA1andA2ledthepoliceteamconsistingofACPP.P.Singh
andInsp.PawanKumartoJ&K.AtJ&KassistanceofBSFwas
taken.On7.6.96,A1gotrecoveredoneAK56AssaultRifle;two
prepared.Inpursuanceofherdisclosurestatement,A2ledthe
policeteamtoherresidence,i.e.1,DilsauzColony,Natipora,Sri
Nagar and from there, she got recovered one raxine bag lying
underneaththelandnearAnaartree.Oncheckingthebag,itwas
foundcontainingtwoRDXslabsand5timers.Necessaryseizure
memoswerepreparedaftersealingthearticlesinapullanda.SI
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 16of408
17
roadtoDelhianddepositedthecasepropertyinMalkahanofPS
LajpatNagar.
17 On10.6.96bothA1andA2wereproducedatPatiala
HouseCourtsandtheirJCremandtill24.6.96wasobtainedinthis
case.OnthatdayofficialsofCrimeBranch,DelhitookbothA1
andA2inpolicecustodyinconnectionwithcaseofbombblastat
ConnaughtPlace.
18 Furthercaseoftheprosecutionisthatonthebasisof
informationreceivedfromAhmedabadpolice,inquiriesweremade
Wazidwasjoinedintheinvestigationandhisstatementu/s161
CrPCwasrecorded.OnthebasisoftheinformationgivenbyPW
Wazid,itwasfoundthatA3involvedinthiscasewasresidingat
P7,TurkmanGate,DDAFlats,DelhiEffortsweremadetotrace
A3athisresidencebuthecouldnotbetraced. Hishousewas
keptundersurveillance.
19 On14.6.96onthebasisoftheinformationofsecret
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 17of408
18
informer,A3andA4werearrestedatPlatformNo.4,NewDelhi
RailwayStationwhentheywereboardingVaranashiExpresstogo
statementswererecorded.Theydisclosedthattheyweregoingto
GorakhpurtocollectcashfromtheirassociatesA5andA6and
who were also involved in the bomb blast case. From the
nd
possessionofA3,onerailwayticketof2 classfortwopersons
wasseized.A3andA4werebroughtatOperationCellandwere
recorded. On15.6.96disclosurestatementofA3wasrecorded
whorevealedastohowandunderwhatcircumstancesthebomb
blastwascaused.
20 On15.6.96inpursuanceofdisclosurestatement,A3
ledthepoliceteamtohisresidenceatP7,FirstFloor,DDAFlats,
TurkmanGate,Delhiandfromthere,hegotrecoveredtwoRDX
slabs, one timer,one iron solder, one wire cutter, two araoldite
tubes, one gas cylinder, one detonator. All these articles were
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 18of408
19
seizedvideseizurememosand depositedinthePSMalkhana
alongwithCFSLforms.
documentspertainingtoA9andA10incaseFIRNo.12/96u/s
121,121A,122,123,120Betc.PSATSAhmedabad(Gujrat).
possession,onthebasisofwhichRs.1lacweretobecollected
fromShMangalChandofShalimarBaghtobegiventoA3byA
4. Someotherincriminatingdocumentwerealsorecoveredfrom
broughttoDelhiandtheirdisclosurestatementswererecorded.
23 On16.6.96Re.twocurrencynoterecoveredfromthe
possessionofA7washandedovertoA4.On17.6.96, A4led
thepoliceteamattheresidenceofShMangalChandatBJ24,
ShalimarBagh,Delhiandonproducingthesaidcurrencynoteof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 19of408
20
Re.two,cashofRs.1lacwasobtainedfromShMangalChand.
CurrencynoteofRs.2/andcashofRs1lacwererecoveredand
seizedbythepolice.Necessarymemoswereprepared.
24 On7.6.96,investigationofcaseFIRNo.286/96,PS
Insp.ParasNathcarriedouttheinvestigationinthesaidcasealso.
searchofhishouse,somedocumentsandclothespertainingtoA
1wererecovered.OnestepneyofMaruticarNo.DL2F5854was
arrestedincaseFIRNo.286/96also.
26 On17.6.96A5wasarrestedfromMussorieandhis
disclosurestatementwasrecorded.
27 On18.6.96A3,A4,A5ledthepoliceteamandgot
recoveredfrontandrearnumberplatesofmaruticarNo.DL2F
DupattawheretheyhadparkedthevehicleinquestionatCentral
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 20of408
21
Market,LajpatNagar.Sh.SumitKumar,ownerofthesaidshop
wasexamined.Theseaccusedpersonsalsoledthepoliceteamto
shopofMohd.Alamfromwheretheyhadpurchasedarlditetubes.
Theseaccusedpersonsalsoledthepolicepartytotheshopof
Mohd.Aslamfromwheretheyhadpurchaseddrillmachine;shop
ofMohd.Nasimfromwheretheyhavepurchasedwires. These
accusedpersonsalsoledthepoliceteamtotheplacefromwhere
theyhadgotpreparedduplicatekeyofthecar.
28 On18.6.96SIBaljitSinghcollectedreservationchart
fromrailwaystafffortrainNo.4673UPShaheedExpressdated
collectedrecordofGuptahotelatGorakhpurwhereon27.5.96A3
hadstayed.
investigationA3,A4andA5alsoledthepoliceteamatshopof
ShVijayKapoorfromwheretheyhadgotconnectedterminalsof
batterycell.TheyalsoledthepoliceteamtoshopofMahmood
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 21of408
22
KamalwhereA3andA5hadpurchasedtwogascylindersforRs.
580/.TheyalsopointedoutshopofShRajeshKumarfromwhere
theyhadpurchased9voltbatterycell.Hewasexaminedinthis
case.ShYogeshGuptaofM/sImperialGramophoneCowasalso
accusedpersonshadpurchasedvariousarticlestoexplodebomb
wereexaminedinthiscase.
30 On27.6.96inpursuanceofdisclosurestatementA6
gotrecovered500grams explosivesubstance,twosilvercolour
dischargecapfromhisresidenceatSriNagarwhichwereseized
alsorecoveredfromhishouse.
grenadesetcandsomedocumentsfromhisresidencewhichwere
seizedvideseizurememos.
32 A5alsogotrecoveredonestickhandgrenadefrom
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 22of408
23
hisresidencewhichwasseizedbyInsp.JagmalSingh.
33 On26.7.96A9andA10whohadbeenarrestedby
FromJaipur,bothA9andA10werebroughttoDelhiandwere
recorded.
documentsondifferentdates.ExhibitsweregotsenttoCFSLand
subsequentlyCFSLreportswerecollected.Specimensignatures
ofA1andA3wereobtainedandreportsfromhandwritingexperts
concernedwitnessesatdifferentstagesofinvestigation. Itwas
concludedthattheincidentwasaresultofconspiracywhichwas
mastermindedbyA11andhisassociatestocauseandcarryout
actsofterrorismanddisruptiveactivitiesinIndiabyuseofbombs
explosionetc.,soastoscareandcreatepanicbysuchactsinthe
mindofthepeopleandtherebytostriketerrorinthepeople.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 23of408
24
filedagainstA1toA10fortheaforesaidoffencesinthecourtof
caseswithcaseFIRNo.286/96wereclubbedtogether.
(B)BriefFactsofFIRNo.286/96:
36 CasevideFIRNo.286/96,u/s379/411/120BIPC,
Nizamuddinon18.5.96onthecomplaintofShAtulNathwhenhe
informedthepolicethatmaruticarno.DL2F5854ofwhitecolour
wasstolenfrominfrontofhishouseNo.A51,NizamuddinEast,
NewDelhiinbetween10p.m.,to6a.m.,onthepreviousnight.
PriortothatDDNo.7Adated18.5.96wasrecordedinthisaspect.
During investigation efforts were made to trace the car but the
samecouldnotbetraced.
37 Subsequently,onarrestofaccusedpersonsincase
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 24of408
25
statementsoftheaccusedpersons,itwasfoundthatcar stolen
fromtheareaofPSHazratNizamuddinwasusedincausingbomb
blastatCentralMarket,LajpatNagaron21.5.96.A3,A5,A6&
investigationin thiscase,policefiledchallanagainstthesefour
Magistrate.
(C)Committalofbothcases:
38Aftercomplianceoftheprovisionsofsections207
and208Cr.P.C,theLd.M.M committedthecaseregistered
videFIRNo.517/96totheCourtofSessions.
39 Videorderdated4.6.97,Ld.M.M.Committedthe
caseregisteredvideFIRNo.286/96tothesessionscourtasit
wasconnectedcasewithmaincasevideFIRNo.517/96.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 25of408
26
40 Subsequently,boththesecasesweretriedtogether
and evidence was recorded in the main case vide FIR No.
517/96,PS:LajpatNagar.
(D)Charges:
41 AfterhearingLd.SpecialPPfortheStateandtheLd.
chargeu/s120B,124A,120Br/wSec.302IPC, 120Br/w
Sec. 307 IPC, 120B r/w Sec. 436 IPC was ordered to be
framedagainstA1toA10videorderdated20112000.
42 Separatechargesu/s4r/wSec.5ExplosiveSubstance
ActwasorderedtobeframedagainstA1,A2andA3.
43 Separatechargeu/s212IPCwasorderedtobeframed
againstA8.
44 Separatechargeu/s25ArmsActwasorderedtobe
framedagainstA1
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 26of408
27
chargesframedagainstthemandclaimedtrial.
46 IncaseFIRNo.286/96PSHazratNizamuddincharge
u/s379/411IPC r/wSec.34IPCwasorderedframedagainst
A3,A5andA6.
47 Separatechargeu/s411r/wSec.34IPCwasordered
tobeframedagainstA3,A5,A6&A8forpossessingstolen
personspleadednotguiltytothechargesframedagainstthem
andclaimedtrial.
(E)ProsecutionWitnesses:
48 Toproveboththesecases,prosecutionexamined
JeevanSingh,PW105ACPPPSingh,PW106SubhashChand
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 27of408
28
andPW107SanjeevKumar.
(F)StatementsofAccusedPersonsu/s313Cr.P.C:
49 Statementsoftheaccusedpersonswererecorded
u/s313CrPC. Incriminatingmaterialappearingagainstthem
wereputtothem.Accusedpersonsdeniedtheirinvolvementin
thecommissionoftheoffences.
50 PleaofA1isthathewasworkingasJuniorEngineer
accommodationat22K,ChhnaraPura,LalNagar,Kashmir.
Hewasnotstayingwithhisparentsevenbeforehismarriage.
HewasarrestedbyJ&KTaskForceon23.5.96withoutbeing
producedbeforeanyMagistrate. HewastorturedatPSLodhi
Colony. Telephoneinquestionwasnotinstalledinhisname.
Thetelephonewasinstalledinthenameofhisfatherbutthere
wasnoSTDfacility.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 28of408
29
innocenceclaimingthatsheisahousewifehaving twosons
andonedaughter.Shehasbeenfalselyimplicatedinthiscase.
recoveredatherinstance.
52 A3inhisstatementu/s313CrPCclaimedthathe
wasarrested14dayspriortothedateshownasthedateofhis
arrest.HewasarrestedfromhishouseatTurkmanGate,DDA
interestedwitnessesandrecoverieshavebeenplanted.
53 Inhisstatementrecordedu/s313CrPCA4pleaded
days.Nothingwasgotrecoveredbyhim.
54 A5pleadedthaton8.6.96hewaspickedupbyNepal
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 29of408
30
personswasbroughttoSaonali,IndoNepalBoarderandwas
handedovertoACPPPSingh.Theywereproducedbeforethe
madeanydisclosurestatementandnothingwasrecoveredat
hisinstance.
KashmirisworkinginNepalwerearrestedbyNepalpolice.He
alongwithA5andA7washandedovertoDelhipolicebyNepal
nevervisitedDelhipriortothesaiddateatleastforaboutone
year.
since1992. A9wastheowneroftheestablishmentandhe
washisrelation.HewasdoingcarpetsellinginKathmandu.On
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 30of408
31
7.6.96hewaspickedupbyNepalpoliceandwasbroughttoPS
havingjurisdictionofDelhiBazararea.Hewasnotproduced
beforeanyMagistrate.On9.6.96amongstmanyKashmiriswho
hadbeenbroughttothePSwithhim,hefoundA5andA6
Magistrateandduringthisperiodhissignatureswereobtained
onvariouspapers.Nodisclosurestatementwasmadebyhim
andnothingwasrecoveredathisinstance.
57 Inhisstatementu/s313CrPCA8expressed his
ignorancetotheincriminatingcircumstanceappearingagainst
27/28.5.96andmadenodisclosurestatement.
58 Inhisstatementu/s313CrPCA9pleadedthathe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 31of408
32
AhmedabadandwasnotproducedbeforeanyMagistrate.
59 PleaofA10isthathewasfalselyimplicatedinthis
producedbeforeMetropolitanMagistrate.Hedidnotmakeany
disclosurestatement.
(G)DefenceWitnesses:
DW2ArunKumarSharmaintheirdefenceevidence.
61 IhaveheardtheLd.SpecialPPfortheStateand
theLd.DefenceCounselsfortheaccusedpersons.Ihavegone
throughthevoluminousrecord. Ihavealsogonethroughthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 32of408
33
writtensubmissionsfiledonrecordbytheaccusedpersons. I
havealsogonethroughtheauthoritiesrelieduponbytheLd.
DefenceCounselsfortheaccusedpersons.
(H)ArgumentsonbehalfofState:
personsbeyondreasonabledoubt.Theprosecutionwitnesses
examinedbytheprosecutionhavefullysupportedthecaseof
theprosecutionandthereisnothingtodisbelievetheirpositive
residencewherebyheownedresponsibilityofhisorganization
JKIFtohavecausedbombblasttovariousnewsagenciesin
theymadedisclosurestatementsandinpursuancethereofgot
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 33of408
34
pursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement.Prosecutionwasableto
provethatalltheaccusedpersonshatchedcriminalconspiracy
variousarticlesforcausingtheexplosion.
(I)ArgumentsonbehalfofallaccusedexceptA2:
63 OntheotherhandtheLd.DefenceCounselforall
commissionofanyoffenceinconspiracywiththecoaccused
prosecutionwitnesses.
64 Itisfurtherarguedbytheld.defencecounselforthese
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 34of408
35
accusedpersonsthatnoindependentpublicwitnesswasjoinedby
ammunitionshavebeenplantedupontheaccusedpersons.The
accusedpersonswereliftedfromtheirrespectiveresidencesmuch
priortotheirarrestshowninthiscase.Theywerekeptinillegal
detentionandsubsequentlyfalselyimplicatedinthiscase. The
independentpublicwitnessesexaminedbytheprosecutionhave
incriminatingwasrecoveredfromthepossessionoftheaccused
personsorattheirinstance. Theprosecutionfailedtoproveon
recordanycogentevidencetoshowifpoliceofficialshadvisitedJ
&K,Gorakhpur,Mussorieetc.Noproofregardingtheirvisitwas
placedonrecord.Theprosecutionhasfailedtoproveastowhen
andatwhichplacetheallegedconspiracytocausebombblastat
CentralMarket,LajpatNagarwashatched.Nocalldetailsofthese
accusedpersonswereevercollectedbytheprosecutiontoshowif
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 35of408
36
beenletoffbythepolice.
(J)ArgumentsonbehalfofA2:
65Contentionoftheld.defencecounselforA2isthatshe
inherentdefectsinthecaseoftheprosecutionwherebytheyhave
allegedlyshownrecoveryofRDXandfivetimersatherinstance
fromherresidence.Thereisnodocumentaryevidenceonrecord
toshowifthepoliceofficialsalongwiththeaccusedpersonshad
visitedJ&Kandifsowhen.Nodocumentaryevidencehasbeen
placedonrecordtoshowastohowandunderwhatcircumstances
therecoveredammunitions/explosiveswastransportedtoDelhi.
accountastohowmuchRDXinweightwasrecoveredfromthe
depositionoftheprosecutionwitnessesastofromwhichplacethe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 36of408
37
ammunitionswererecoveredandastowhohaddugtheearthto
takeouttheRDX.Therearecontradictionsastofromwherethe
witnesseshavefailedtostatetheexactlocationofthehouseofA
ThereisnoevidencewhatsoeveronrecordtoshowifA2hatched
conspiracywithcoaccusedpersonsatJ&K.Theevidenceon
fromthepossessionofA2.NocaseunderExplosiveActwasgot
registeredagainstA2atJ&K.Delhipolicehadnojurisdictionto
prosecuteA2underExplosiveActfortheallegedrecoveryather
residenceatJ&K.Ld.defencecounselforA2hasrelieduponthe
authoritiesreportedin AIR1933Lahore50;AIR1952Bombay
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 37of408
38
(1949)1SCC57;AIR2004SC797;(1975)4SCC176;AIR1960
SC1080;(1999)5SCC253and(1979)1SCC128.
(K)Findings:
66 Ihaveconsideredthearguments oftheld.SPPforthe
havegonethroughtheevidenceadducedonrecordbyboththe
parties.
prosecutioncaserestssolelyoncircumstantialevidence.There
CentralMarketLajpatNagar.Noreliancehasbeenplacedby
theprosecutiononthetestimonyofanyeyewitnesswhohad
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 38of408
39
circumstantialevidenceagainsttheaccusedpersonstoconnect
prosecutionarebeingdiscussedindetailasunder:
(1)HomicidalDeaths:
68 Itisnotdisputedthatnumberofpersonslosttheirlives
personssustainedinjuriesintheincident.
Bansal,whohasprovedpostmortemreportsEx.PW37/AandEx.
ThesereportswerepreparedbyDrMSSagarandDrA.Sinha.
thesepostmortemreports.Thecauseofdeath wasopinedasa
resultofbombblastinjuriesinboththecases. Thiswitnesswas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 39of408
40
also not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the
accusedpersons.
70 PW47Dr.SanjeevLalwanihasprovedonrecordthe
opinedshockduetobombblastinjuries.
71 Similarly,PW47Dr.SanjeevLalwanihasprovedthe
Sood),prepared inthehandwritingofDrAlpanaSinha,whohas
sincemigratedtoUSA.PW47hasidentifiedherhandwritingand
deathwasasaresultofbombblastinjury.
postmortemreportpertainingtodeceasedChanderPrakashand
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 40of408
41
SatishKumarwhichareinthehandwritingofDrRanjitKumarDas
superficialburnsonbothhandsetcandthecauseofdeathwas
shockresultingfrommultipleinjuriesconsequentuponbombblast.
However,asperpostmortemreportpertainingtodeceasedSatish
Kumar,Ex.PW51/B,thecauseofdeathwasopinedshockasa
crossexamination.
73 ProsecutionfurtherexaminedPW53Dr.SudhirGupta,
KumarSingh,LoveKumar,PriyankaAhiyaandNareshMukhia
PW53/B,Ex.PW53/C,andEx.PW53/D.Causeofdeathincaseof
ManojKumarSinghwasopined shockasaresultofextensive
burninjuriesinbombblastexplosive.IncaseofdeceasedLove
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 41of408
42
massivedestructionofbodyduetoeffectofexplosivebast.Incase
consequentuponsustainingburninjuriesduetoexplosivebomb
blast.However,thecauseofdeathincaseofNareshMukhiyawas
instantaneousdeathduetomassivedestructionofthebodydueto
explosiveblasteffect.Thiswitnesswasalsonotcrossexamined
onthefactsdeposedbyhim.
pertainingtodeceasedRohitAhuja.Theinjuriessustainedbythe
deceasedweredetailedinthepostmortemreportEx.PW70/A.The
doctoropineddeathinthatcaseduetoheadinjuryresultingfrom
bluntforceimpactwithahardobject/splinterandalsoduetoshock
resultingfromantemortemburninjuriescausedbydryheatand
theinjurieswereopinedantemorteminnatureandconsistentto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 42of408
43
thosecausedbyabombblast.Thiswitnesswasalsonotcross
examinedbytheLd.DefenceCounselfortheaccusedpersons.
75 ProsecutionhasexaminedPW71Dr.Chanderakant,
whoconductedpostmortemonthedeadbodyofdeceased Smt.
Causeofdeathwasopinedasaresultof100%superficialand
st th
deep1 to6 degree(DUPYTRENSClassification)Type1,II&III
causedbyduetoflamesfromsomeexplosivedevicenecessarily
fatal.Thetimesincedeathwasopined42hours.Thiswitnesswas
notcrossexaminedbytheLd.DefenceCounselfortheaccused
persons.Testimonyofthiswitnessremainedunchallenged.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 43of408
44
establishedthatallthesepersonssustainedsevereburn injuries
inbombblastontheirbodiesandsuccumbedtotheinjuries.Itis
thusacaseofculpablehomicide.
(2)Injuries:
injuriesontheirperson.ProsecutionexaminedPW45Dr.P.Rama
Krishna,whohasprovedMLCpertainingtoJaiRamEx.PW45/A.
Theinjurieswereopinedassimplecausedbybluntobject.
78 ProsecutionfurtherexaminedPW53Dr.SudhirGupta,
SuvirGosh.TheMLCisEx.PW53/E.Theinjurieswereopinedas
GuptahasprovedtheMLCsEx.PW53/FtoEx.PW53/Jpertaining
thesepersonswereallegedtohavesustainedinjuriesinthebomb
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 44of408
45
blastofLajpatNagar.
79 PW55ShRSKheda,RecordClerkhasprovedthe
PW55/AtoEx.PW55/EpertainingtoAjayBakshi,Peeplani,Mani,
andtwounknownpersons.
80 PW56DrNareshSoodhasprovedtheMLCofinjured
SanjayasEx.PW56/ApreparedinthehandwritingofDrAnupam
Mittal.
PriyankaAhuja,Ravi,SangitaSahaandandsingleMLC ofPS
Dogra,Jitender,Sandeeparora,DhanSingh,AnitaRaheja,Tara,
BittooMalhotra,VinodKumar,Swarankanta,sinceMLCofRajesh,
PramodSingh,Himani,MehakKohli,UdayKumar,RakeshSood
andanunknownpersonwhichareinthehandwritingofDrRP
Singh. The MLCs are Ex. PW57/A to Ex. PW57/M. All these
personswerebroughtwithhistoryofgettinginjuredinbombblast
inLajpatNagarCentralMarket.OutofthesepatientsPrinyanka
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 45of408
46
Ahujaexpiredduetoinjuriessustainedon8.6.1996.Thiswitness
was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the
accusedpersons.
TechnicianhasprovedMLCNos. 41234,41235,41242of1996
Guchu,BabyAditiwhichareEx.PW69/AtoEx.PW69/C.
83 ProsecutionexaminedPW75ShJaiPrakash,Record
Clerk,whoprovedMLCNo.41228/96pertainingtoinjuredRaja
andMLCNo.41261/96pertainingtooneunknownmaleaged28
years,preparedbyDrSudhirGhosh.TheMLCsareEx.PW75/A
andEx.PW75/B.
84 PW89ShRamCharan, RecordClerkappearedfor
thesecondtimeandprovedtheMLCsmarkA,BandCpertaining
toinjuredRachna,RashimiandArti.
85 Fromthetestimoniesoftheabovewitnessesitstands
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 46of408
47
Nagar.
(3)LossOfProperty:
86 Besideslossoflife,therewashugelossofproperty
duetobombblast.
87 PW4NPChauhanhastestifiedthat hehadlostall
thearticleswhichwerekeptinthecarwhichcaughtfiredueto
damageofcar. Hehadgivenlistofarticlestothepolice.This
witnesswasnotcrossexaminedbytheaccusedpersonsforthe
losssufferedbyhiminthebombblast.
wascompletelyburntout. Otheradjoiningshopsweredamaged
extensively.
lossofaboutRs.10lacsashisshopwastotallygutted.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 47of408
48
90 PW72DineshKumarhasdeposedthathesuffered
lossof3.5lactoRs.4lacduetobombexplosion.Statementof
establishedthatnumberofpersons sufferedhugedamageto
theirpropertiesinthebombexplosion.
(4)ArrestofA1andA2atJ&K:
91 Caseoftheprosecutionisthatsoonafterthebomb
blastatLajpatNagar,CentralMarket,A1madetelephonecallsto
MediaandownedresponsibilityofhisorganizationJKIFofwhich
hewasthechiefspokesman.A1hasdeniedthisallegation.
92 ProsecutionexaminedPW68VinodKapri,Editor,Zee
NewsandhetestifiedthatinMay,1996,hewaspostedasSenior
CorrespondentinZeeTV.Nearly23hoursafterthebombblaston
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 48of408
49
hadundertakenresponsibilityofLajpatNagarbombblast.Despite
his efforts to know his name, he (the caller) did not reveal his
name.FromhisvoiceheappearedtoberesidentofKashmiras
hewasfrequentlyusingUrduwords.
93 Thiswitnessdidnotstateinhisexaminationinchief
astoonwhichtelephonenumberofhisoffice,thetelephonecall
wasreceived.Healsodidnotstatethetelephonenumberfrom
whichthecallerhadmadetelephonecalltohim.
comprehensivenewsonZeeTVnews onthebasisoffirstand
secondcallandfieldinformation.Hewascontactedbythepolice
afteraboutoneandhalfmonthlaterinthatconnection.Atthat
time,hedidnotshowthepoliceanytaperecordedconversation,
callerIDnumberorthenewstelecaston21/5/1996at10.00pm.
95 Thetestimonyofthiswitnessisnotatallsufficientto
connectA1withthecallreceivedbyPW68VinodKapri.IOhas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 49of408
50
thetaperecordedconversationwasnotseizedsoonafterthenews
wastelecastwherebysomeoneonbehalfofJKIFhadundertaken
theresponsibilityofbombblast.Thiswitnessdidnotstateifany
informationaboutJKIFtohaveundertakenresponsibilityforthe
blastwasgivenbyhimtothepolice.
Chaudhary,SpecialCorrespondent,PTI.Inhisstatementbefore
thecourt,thewitnessstatedthatwhileworkingasChiefReporter
inPTIon21/5/1996 atabout9.00pm,theyreceivedtelephone
EditorialSectionandthecallerinformedthatthebombblasthad
takenplaceatCentralMarket,LajpatNagarandthatwascaused
byJammuKashmirIslamicFront(JKIF).Whenheaskedthecaller
hisname,herefusedtotell.Thevoiceofthecallerappearedtobe
thatofayoungmanandhewasspeakinginHindijustlikethe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 50of408
51
Kashmirispeak.Theytransmittedtheinformationtotheofficeof
othernewspapersasusual.
97 Thiswitnessdidnottestifythetelephonenumberfrom
371662124.Thiswitnessalsodidnotstateiftheinformationwas
testimonyofthiswitnessisrelevanttofindoutthaton21/5/1996at
9.00pm,someoneonbehalfofJKIFhadownedresponsibilityof
the bomb blast at Central Market. This witness was not cross
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthat
telephoneno.371662124didnotbelongtoPTI.
workingasNewsCoordinatorwithNDTV.Inherexaminationin
chief,shedidnotsupporttheprosecutionandmerelystatedthat
she did not remember anything about the case. She did not
rememberhavingreceivedanytelephonecall. Shedidnothand
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 51of408
52
over print out of the news script regarding some person taking
Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPfortheState
deniedifstatementmarkDX90wasmadebyhertothepolice.No
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationbythe
telephonenumber,thetelephonecallwasreceived.Thetestimony
ofthiswitnessisofnohelptotheprosecution.
99 FromthetestimoniesofpeoplefromMedia,nothingis
clearifitwasonlyA1whohadmadetelephonecallstothemto
ownresponsibilityofthebombblastatLajpatNagar.IOdidnot
bothertocontactanynewsagencytoascertainastofromwhich
telephonenumbercallwasmade.PWsfrommediaalsodidnot
considerittheirresponsibilitytoalertthepoliceaboutsomeone
takingresponsibilityofbombblastsoonaftertheygotthecalls.
NoevidencewhatsoeverwascollectedbytheprosecutionifA1
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 52of408
53
prosecutiondidnotcollectanyevidenceonrecordtoshowifA1
waseverarrestedinanycaseatJ&Kregardinghisactivitiesin
JKIF.ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA1hadparticipatedin
theactivitiesofJKIFpriortotheincident.
100 ProsecutionhaspleadedthatA1alongwithA2was
arrestedbythepoliceofPSSherGarhi,J&KinFIRNo.162/94
recordanycogent documenttoshowapprehensionofbothA1
andA2intheFIRNo.162/94atPSSherGarhi.Nothingisclear
toinferastowhenA1andA2weredetainedbythepoliceofPS
SherGarhiandifsofromwheretheywerearrested.Nothinghas
comeonrecordtoshowastowhathappenedtothesaidcase.
Nothinghasbeenrevealedastohowafterdetentioninthesaid
casevideFIRNo.162/94,thepoliceofPSSherGarhidischarged
A1andA2.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 53of408
54
witnessesregardingapprehensionofA1andA2on25/5/1996.
PW25SIVijaySinghinhisexaminationinchiefhasstatedthaton
residenceofMrs.RajRaniMitra,thethenldMM, healongwith
InspJasbirMalik,Insp.RajinderSingh,SIRameshRana,LadySI
Duggal,H.Ct.SurenderhadgonetoSrinagarbyaironthemorning
of25/5/1996.Firstofall,theywentattheofficeofSPatSrinagar.
Srinagar.WhentheyreachedatPSSherGarhi,Srinagar,bothA
1andA2hadalreadybeendischargedaftertheirinterrogationby
thepoliceofPSSherGarhi.IOofthiscasearrestedbothA1and
A2andbroughtthemtoDelhi.
102 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatIOhad
preparedthearrestmemowhenA1andA2werearrestedfrom
outsidePSSherGarhi.IOhadnotobtainedhissignaturesonthe
arrestmemo.IOhadnottakensignaturesofanyoftheofficialsof
PSSherGarhionthearrestmemo.Suggestionwashoweverput
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 54of408
55
tothiswitnessthatA1wasincustodyoftheofficialsofPSSher
GarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94andA1wasnotarrestedbythem
(Delhipolice).Thewitnessfurtherstatedinthecrossexamination
detentionofPSSherGarhiandtheybothwerehandedoverto
thembythepoliceofPSSherGarhi.
103 TestimonyofthiswitnessrevealsthatbothA1andA2
werenothandedovertothembythepoliceofPSSherGarhi.IO
hasfailedtoexplainastohowandunderwhatcircumstancesthe
policeofPSSherGarhidischargedbothA1andA2inFIRNo.
162/94PSSherGarhi.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowasto
onwhatfactsbothA1andA2wereinterrogatedbythepoliceof
Garhitoclarifyalltheseaspects.InthefaxsentbyPW78Shri
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 55of408
56
wirelessmessagesEx.PW78/BandPW78/C,thereismentionof
A1andA2tohavebeenarrestedbythepoliceofPSSherGarhi
incaseFIRNo.162/94.ItshowsthatPW78ShriFarooqKhan,
SSPOperations(Srinagar)J&KinMay1996wasawareabout
thedetentionofA1andA2bythepoliceofPSSherGarhiand
blastcase.InhistestimonyalsoPW78ShriFarooqKhanstated
thattheresponsibilityofthesaidblastwastakenbyJ&KIslamic
Front.Theyhadsomecluesfromreliablesourcesaboutthesaid
organizationandworkingonthatclueswiththehelpoftheirsecret
residentofAnantNagar.Duringinterrogation,A1 disclosedhis
involvementinbombblastofLajpatNagar.Hefurthertestifiedthat
A1haddisclosedthathehadmadetelephonecallstodifferent
newsagenciesclaimingresponsibilityforLajpatNagarbombblast.
OntheleadsgivenbyA1intheinterrogation,aladysuspectA2
wasalsoapprehendedfromSrinagar. Informationinthisaspect
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 56of408
57
HoweverthiswitnessdidnotrevealastowhenandfromwhereA
1andA2werearrested.NoproceedingsinwhichA1andA2
recordedwereproducedbeforethecourt.This witnessfailedto
involvementofA1andA2inthecommissionoftheincident.He
didnotassertifhehimselfhadinterrogatedA1andA2andifso
whenandwhere.Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessexpressed
hisignoranceastofrom wherehehadarrestedA1andA2in
caseFIRNo.162/94PSSherGarhi. Hefurtherdidnotstateif
afterthearrestofA1andA2 heobtainedtheirpoliceremand
becausehedidnotrememberforhowmuchtimetheyremained
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 57of408
58
detentionofA1andA2wouldbeintherecordofPSSherGarhi.
ThiswitnessvolunteeredtoaddthathepersonallydidnotarrestA
1andA2and infact,hewasheadingtheoperationssetupin
SrinagarDistrictandsomeofhisofficialworkingunderhimmust
havearrestedA1andA2withthehelpoflocalpolice.Hefurther
didnotgiveanyreplyastowhenforthefirsttimehesawA1and
A2.Hestatedthathewasassistingthelocalpoliceinrespectof
interrogateanyofthetwoaccusedpersons.Hehoweverclarified
QuartercommonlyknowasCargoComplex,adjacenttoPSSher
Garhibyhissubordinates.Noconfessionalstatementofanyofthe
aforesaidtwoaccusedpersonswasrecordedundertherelevant
provisionsofCr.P.C.Hehoweveraddedthataccusedpersonshad
givenbythemweresenttoDelhipolicewithrespecttotheoffence.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 58of408
59
Hedidnotrememberwhethertheanswersgivenbytheaccused
personsduringtheirquestioningweresignedbythemornot.He
furthercrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatinthepresent
policeofPSSherGarhiontheirinstructions.
104 InthecrossexaminationonbehalfofA2thewitness
statedthattheconfessionofA2wasnotrecordedinhispresence.
regardingarrestofA2shouldbeavailableinthePSSherGarhi.
105 FromtheentiretestimonyofPW78ShriFarooqKhan,a
seniorpoliceofficer,nothinghastranspiredastowhenandfrom
whereA1andA2werearrested.Nothinghasbeenexplainedas
towhatledthepoliceofPSSherGarhitodischargebothA1and
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 59of408
60
awareoftheinvolvementofA1andA2intheincidentatLajpat
NagarbeforesendingthefaxandwirelessmessagetotheDelhi
detentionincaseFIRNo162/94ofPSSherGarhi,therewasno
occasionforthepoliceofPSSherGarhitodischargeorsetfree
bothA1andA2priortothearrivalofDelhipoliceatJ&Kon
25/5/1996.DelhipolicewasquicktogetNBWsagainstA1andA
2fromtheresidenceofld.MMat11.45pmandhadpurportedly
reachedatJ&Kbyairinthemorningof25/5/1996.Onreaching
theretheycametoknowfromtheofficeofPW78ShriFarooq
reaching atPSSherGarhi,theDelhiPolicewasinformedthat
afterinterrogationbothA1andA2hadalreadybeendischarged.
DelhipolicehappenedtocomeacrossbothA1andA2nearPS
apprehendA1andA2whiletheywereinthecustodyofPSSher
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 60of408
61
apprehensionofA1andA2atSrinagaron25/5/1996 doesnot
movedbeforeMs.RajRaniMitra,thethenld.MMtogetNBWsof
A1andA2atherresidence on24/5/1996,atabout11.45pm,
therewasnomentionifanyfaxorwirelessmessagewasgotfrom
PW78Insp.FarooqKhan.
removethemistregarding apprehensionofA1andA2inthe
chief,thiswitnessdeposedthatafterobtainingNBWsofA1and
A2,healongwithSIVijaySingh,Insp.Rajinderetc.proceededto
J&Kon25/5/1996attheofficeofPW78ShriFarooqKhan.He
wastoldthatbothA1andA2hadbeenarrestedbythepoliceof
PSSherGarhi.WhenhereachedatPSSherGarhi,hecameto
knowthatA1andA2whowereunderarrestweredischargedby
thepoliceofPSSherGarhi.ThereafterhearrestedbothA1and
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 61of408
62
Delhi.
107 Thiswitnessalsodidnotfileonrecordanydocumentto
showifA1andA2hadbeenarrestedbythepoliceofPSSher
Garhiandifsosincewhen. Healsofailedtoexplainastohow
andunderwhatcircumstancespoliceofPSSherGarhidischarged
bothA1andA2.Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessadmitted
thathedidnotprocureanyarrestmemoofA1andA2fromJ&K
persons.Hedidnotobtaintransitremandoftheaccusedpersons
tobringthemtoDelhi.Hedidnotseekpermissionfromanycourt
toarresttheaccusedpersons.HefurtherstatedthatA1andA2
werealreadyunderdetentionbythepoliceofPSSherGarhiin
caseFIRNo.162/94.Hedidnotclarifyaboutanyjudicialorpolice
remandbeinggivenagainstA1andA2bythecourtconcernedin
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 62of408
63
J&KinthesaidFIR.
108 InthefurthercrossexaminationonbehalfofA2the
witnessstatedthatcopyofDDNo.16dated25/5/1996PSSher
GarhiwasonthejudicialfileaboutthedepartureofA1andA2
fromSrinagartoDelhi.Howeverduringcourtobservationitwas
observedthatDDNo.16markPW49/Awasonlyasinglepage
documentandblankfromothersideandapparentlyappearedto
beunconcludedandunsigned. Onthat,thewitnessstatedthat
theDDwasrecordedbyhimintherojnamchaofPSSherGarhi
andmarkPW49/Awasonlyacopythereof.Thewitnessfurther
statedthathedidnotpreparepersonalsearchmemoofA1andA
2ashehadtakentheircustodyfromJ&Kpolice.Hedidnotjoin
anypublicwitnessatthetimeofsecuringtheircustody.
109 Theentiretestimonyofthiswitnessdoesnotexplain
categoricallyifbothA1andA2werearrestedbytheDelhiPolice
whiletheywerealreadyinthecustodyofpoliceofPSSherGarhi
oriftheywerearrestedfromoutsidePSSherGarhiafterbothof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 63of408
64
themhadallegedlybeendischarged.Thecircumstancesinwhich
SherGarhiwithoutseekingassistance oftheofficialsofJ&K.
AftertheirallegeddischargebythepoliceofPSSherGarhiincase
FIRNo.162/94, bothA1andA2werenotexpectedtoremain
presentoutsidethePSjusttoenabletheDelhipolicetoreachand
abouttheinvolvementofA1andA2intheincidentatDelhion
24/5/1996or25/5/1996,hewasnotimaginedtoallowthepoliceof
PSSherGarhitodischargeboththeaccusedpersonsbeforethe
arrivalofDelhipolice.Thepolicedidnotrecordthestatementof
anypoliceofficialofPSSherGarhitoascertainastowhenand
wereintheircustodyorwhatweretheallegationsagainstthemin
thecaseFIRNo162/94orwhathappenedtothesaidcaseorin
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 64of408
65
whatcircumstances bothA1andA2withoutpermissionofthe
courtweredischarged.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifat
thetimeofapprehensionofbothA1andA2byDelhipoliceon
Delhi. NoneofthepoliceofficialofPSSherGarhidisclosedto
DelhipoliceifduringtheirinterrogationincaseFIRNo.162/94,the
accusedpersonshaddisclosedtohavemadetelephonecallsto
differentmediaagenciesinDelhitakingresponsibilityofthebomb
blastinDelhi. PW78ShriFarooqKhanalsodidnottestifyasto
howandfromwherehehadcometoknowregardingthecontents
sentbyhimbyfaxandwirelessmessagetoDelhipolice.Inhis
depositionbeforethecourtPW78Sh.FarooqKhandidnottestify
ifon25/5/1996atthetimeofapprehensionofboththeaccused
eitherbypoliceofPSSherGarhiorDelhipolicehehadcometo
knowifA1hadmadetelephonecalltoMediaon21/5/1996andif
sofromwhichtelephonethesaidcallsweremadeandonwhich
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 65of408
66
telephonecallstheresponsibilitywasundertaken. Fromthefax
messageEx.PW78/AitrevealsthatPW78ShFarooqKhanhad
testifiedthatduringinterrogationA1haddisclosedhisinvolvement
inthebombblastofLajpatNagarandthathehadmadetelephone
callstodifferentnewsagenciesclaimingresponsibilityfortheblast.
HaditbeensoPW78ShFarooqKhanorhisofficialsatPSSher
Garhimusthaveattemptedtofindoutastofromwhichtelephone
A1hadmadetelephonecallstodifferentnewsagencies.However
evenafterdetentionofA1andA2bythepoliceofPSSherGarhi
incaseFIRNo.162/94 andevenafterapprehensionofbothof
thembyDelhipoliceon25/5/1996, noeffortsweremadetofind
outastofromwhichtelephoneA1hadmadetelephonecalls.No
searchofthehouseoftheaccusedpersonswas conductedon
24/5/1996or25/5/1996eitherbyJ&KpoliceorbyDelhipolice.
Nocalldetailsofthetelephone installedattheresidenceofA1
werecollectedon24/5/1996or25/5/1996.TheinterrogationofA
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 66of408
67
1andA2madebythepoliceofPSSherGarhiorbyPW78Shri
FarooqKhanhasnotbeenbroughtonrecord.Delhipolicealso
apprehensionanddirectlybroughtthematDelhi.Evenafterthat,in
theabsenceofA1andA2noattemptwasmadebyPW78Sh.
FarooqKhanorhisagenciestosearchthehouseofA1andA2to
findoutanyincriminatingsubstanceshowingtheirinvolvementin
theincidentatDelhi.
110 NopersonalsearchofA1andA2wasconductedat
thetimeoftheirapprehensionon25/5/1996. NoofficialfromPS
SherGarhiwasexaminedtofindoutifanyofthemhadconducted
personalsearchofA1andA2atthetimeoftheirdetentionin
KumarwhowaspostedasInspectorSpecialOperationGroupin
handedoverthejamatalashiincaseFIRNo.162/94byPSSher
Garhi,J&KofA1toSIBanwariLal. Articlesrecoveredinthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 67of408
68
personalsearchofA1Ex.PW9/1to8werehandedoverbyhim
documentsrecoveredfromA1toSIBanwariLal.Personalsearch
memoEx.PW95/ApertainingtoA2andpersonalsearchmemo
Ex.PW95/BpertainingtoA1wasseizedbySIBanwariLalvide
seizurememoEx.PW95/B.
111 Inthecrossexaminationthiswitnessadmittedthathe
rememberastowhohadarrestedA1inthesaidFIR.Hedidnot
knowastowhenA2wasarrested.HewasnotpostedinPSSher
Inspector,PSSherGarhiwhowaspresentatthetimeofpersonal
search.HehimselfdidnotinvestigateFIRNo.162/94.Personal
searchmemoofA2waspreparedbyhiminhisofficeatCargo
complex. Hedidnotrememberthenameoftheofficerwhohad
seizedthedocumentshandedovertoDelhipoliceinhispresence.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 68of408
69
personalsearchofA1andA2. Admittedlypersonalsearchof
witness.HeisnotawareastowhichofficialofPSSherGarhihad
conductedpersonalsearchofA1andA2. Prosecutiondidnot
examinetheofficer whohadconductedpersonalsearchofA1
andA2.Itisalsonotclearastowhereallthesearticlesremained
for about one month after recovering the same in the personal
searchofA1andA2bythepoliceofPSSherGarhi.Norelevant
entryintheconcernedregisterregardingdepositofthesearticles
beinghandedovertoPW95DSPShivKumarhavebeenfiledon
record.Theprosecutionhasfurtherfailedtoshowastowhyall
thesearticlesandpersonalsearchmemospreparedon24/5/1996
or25/5/1996werenothandedovertoDelhipolicesoonafterthe
apprehensionofA1andA2on25/5/1996andwhythesewere
handedoveronlyon25/6/196afteraboutonemonth.
113 Fromtheabovediscussion,Iamoftheviewthatthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 69of408
70
howandunderwhatcircumstancesandfromwhereA1andA2
howeverremainsthataftertheirapprehensionbothA1andA2
werebroughttoDelhiandwerearrestedinthiscase.
(5)RecoveryofArms&ExplosivesattheinstanceofA1:
disclosurestatementEx.39/Brecordedon4/6/1996atDelhi,A1
residence.Theweaponshavebeenplantedupontheaccused.
115 ProsecutionhasexaminedPW18Insp.PawanKumar
whoinhisdepositionstatedthatontheinstructions ofIOInsp.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 70of408
71
alongwithladyInsp.ShakuntlaKokkar,SIArvindVerma,ASIAjit
Srinagarfortheinvestigationofthiscase.BothA1andA2were
withtheminpolicecustodyandtheyweretakenalongwiththemto
J&Kon6/6/1996.On7/6/1996both theaccusedpersonsalong
J.A.D,Srinagarandtheirstaffarmedwithweaponsweretakento
AnantNagfromSrinagar.OnreachingAnantNag,thelocalBSF
unitwasalsocontactedandInsp.NBKSinghwastakenalongwith
them.Thereaftertheentirepartyalongwiththeaccusedpersons
reachedatJanglatMandi,AnantNag.A1tookthepoliceteamto
hisresidenceatJanglatMandiandonthepointingoutofA1from
thewoodencardboardaffixedinthedrawingroomfromthecavity,
filledwithlivecartridgesandonepolythenebagwhichcontained
twoslabsofblackcolourwhichweredisclosedbyA1tobeRDX
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 71of408
72
bullets. The RDX was weighed and its weight came to 1kg
pullandasandseizurememoEx.PW18/Awasprepared.Allthe
pullandasweresealedwiththesealofPKBandsealafterusewas
giventoInsp.ShakuntlaKokkarafterpreparingtheCFSLformon
whichalsoasimplesealwasaffixed.
116Thiswitnessfurthertestifiedthatthereaftersearchof
thehouseofA1wasconductedandsomedocumentssuchas
AK56Ex.PW18/1,cartridgesEx.PW18/2to61,twomagzines
Ex.PW18/62and63andRDXslabsEx.PW18/64and65tobe
thesamewhichweregotrecoveredbyA1fromhisresidence.
suggestionoftheld.defencecounselforA1thathealongwith
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 72of408
73
accusedandotherinvestigationteamhad leftDelhiforSrinagar
byairontheeveningof7/6/1996.Thewitnessclarifiedthatthey
reachedatSrinagar.FromtheairportatSrinagar,theyallwentto
theirmovementswererestrictedorcontrolledbyBSF.Hestated
thattherewasnointerferencefromBSFintheinvestigation.The
suggestionthatportionencircledin'red'inthesiteplanEx.PW
18/HwascompletelyinthehandsofA1drawnbyhimbeforehe
wastakentoSrinagarbyair.Thewitnessadmittedthesuggestion
oftheld.defencecounselthattheirvisittoSrinagarwasalready
knowntoBSF. Thewitnessdisclosedthatperhapson8/6/1996
personsandwithassaultrifleinapullanda.Therestoftheseized
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 73of408
74
articlesweresentbyroad.Adeclarationwasmadeforcarryingthe
assaultriflefromSrinagartoDelhibyair.Thepullandacontaining
8/6/1996.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthattheyremainedpresentat
thehouseofA1forabout1hours.FatherofA1andhiswife
werepresenttherewhentheyhadvisitedthesame.Hedeniedthe
suggestionthatfatherofA1wasnotpresentatthehouseorthat
hewaspresentatAmritsaratBabaNursingHometolookafterhis
another son who was admitted there as his right leg was got
imputed.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthattheydidnotfind
anybodyinthehouseofA1atAnantNag.
118 Overalltestimonyofthisofficialwitnessrevealsthat
nomaterialinconsistenciesorcontradictionshavebeenelicitedby
theld.defencecounseltodiscardhistestimony onthisaspect.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 74of408
75
ordersfromtheseniorofficerscan'tfabricatehisvisittoJ&Kon6
61996/761996.Nomotivehasbeenimputedtothiswitnessto
investigationbeingconductedbyInsp.ParasNathandhadgone
toJ&Konhisinstructions.BothA1andA2werealreadyinthe
custodyofDelhipoliceafterhavingbroughtthemfromJ&Kon
May25,1996.OnlyinpursuanceofthedisclosurestatementEx.
PW39/Brecordedon4/6/1996,Delhipolicecametoknowabout
theavailability/concealmentoftheseweaponsattheresidenceof
A1.Theseweaponswerefoundlyingconcealedinsidethecavity
ofwoodencardboardintheroomofA1anditwashewhotook
outthesame.Delhipolicewasnotawareaboutthepresenceof
thesearmsandammunitionsattheresidenceofA1.HadDelhi
policeanevilintention,theycouldhaveplantedtheweaponseven
onthedaywhenA1wasapprehendedatJ&Kandwasbrought
placeofA1withoutthedisclosurestatementofA1togetrecover
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 75of408
76
theweapons.Fromthesuggestionputtothewitness,itreveals
thatevenld.defencecounselforA1hasnotdisputed visitof
witnessregardingthepresenceofparentsofA1athishouseat
rebuttedbyleadinganyevidenceindefencebyA1. A1didnot
produceonrecordanydocumenttoshowifonthatdayortimehis
fatherwasnotavailableinsidethehouseorthathewaspresentat
BabaNursingHome atAmritsarforthetreatmentofhisanother
sonassuggested. A1didnotdaretoexaminehisfatherorhis
motherindefence tocontrovertthevisitofDelhipolicetohis
houseandrecoveryofarmsandammunitionthere.Considering
thedisturbedconditionsinJ&Kin1996,Delhipolicehadtaken
assistanceofBSFtoeffectrecoveryattheresidenceofA1.Under
thosecircumstancestherewasleastpossibilityofDelhipoliceto
joinanyindependentpublicpersonfromthelocalityatthetimeof
recoveryofarms.Delhipoliceitselfwasstrangertotheplaceof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 76of408
77
personsofA1.Theymustbereluctanttojoin theinvestigation
withDelhipoliceagainstA1.
119 Materialfactsassertedbythiswitnesshaveremained
unrebuttedinthecrossexamination.A1hasfailedtoshowifsite
planEx.PW18/HwaspreparedbyhimatDelhi.Hedidnotlodge
anycomplaintwithanyauthorityorcourtifhewasforcedtodraw
siteplanEx.PW18/H. HugerecoveryofassaultrifleandRDX
slabswhicharenoteasilyavailableinthemarketisnotimagined
tobeplantedbyDelhipoliceandthattooattheresidenceofthe
accusedathisnativeplacemuchfarawayfromDelhi.Thereis
nothingonrecordtoshowifDelhipolicehadtakenallthesearms
andammunitionswiththemfromDelhitobeplanteduponA1at
theld.defencecounselforA1arenotfataltothetestimonyofthis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 77of408
78
seekingassistancefromthelocalpoliceetcwerenotperformedor
testimonyofPW18Insp.PawanKumar. A1didnotexaminein
defenceanyneighborertofalsifythepleaofPW18Insp.Pawan
KumarthathealongwithhisteamnevervisitedthehouseofA1
orthatnosuchrecoverywaseffectedfromthere.A1didnotdeny
that the house from where the recovery was effected did not
belongtohimorthatitwasnotbeingoccupiedbyhim.A1also
failedtostateastowhoelsewaspresentinsidethehouseatthe
timeofrecoveryinquestion.AftertherecoveryoftheweaponsA1
orhisld.counseldidnotmakeanycomplainttold.MMforfalse
plantation.
statementEx.PW39/Bweresubsequentlynotconnectedwiththe
commissionoftheincidentofthiscase.Hadtherebeenulterior
motiveforDelhipolicetofalselyimplicatetheaccused,theycould
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 78of408
79
haveplantedtheweaponsconnectedwiththecommissionofthe
offenceinthiscase.
Srinagar. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,hetestifiedthaton
requestedforassistanceinaraidandsearch. Thepoliceparty
consistedofInsp.PawanKumar,Insp.Shakuntlaandotherstaff,
MadhusudanSharmaJAD(G)Insp.N.B.K.SinghandDelhipolice
proceededtoAnantNaginthefirstpartoftheday.AItookthem
tohishouseinJanglatMandiandpointedoutasafeinhishouse.
Thesafewasawoodenalmirahtypewhichwashavingalock.The
lockwasbroken.FromthealmirahoneAK56andtwomagzines
containing59roundswererecovered.Explosivesmorethan1kg
werealsorecoveredfromrexinebag/polythenebag.Thearms
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 79of408
80
andammunitionsandexplosivesweresealedinaclothpullanda
withthesealofPKBandseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW18/A
whichcontainedhissignatureatpoint'A'.Somedocumentswere
alsorecoveredduringthesearchofthehouseoftheaccusedand
the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 18/B. The
identifiedthecasepropertyrecoveredfromthehouseofA1.
122 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.AddlPPfor
theStateonsomefactsandinthecrossexamination,headmitted
that with all the recoveries, form CFSL was also filled by the
Inspectoratthespot.
123Thiswitnesswastestedinthecrossexamination.Inthe
crossexaminationthiswitnessstatedthatrecoverieseffectedby
Delhipolicewerenotreportedtolocalpolice.On7/6/199around9
amhewastoldbyhissuperiorthattheyhadtogotoAnantNagto
help Delhi police in the investigation of the case for raid and
search.At9.30amon7/6/1996InspectorPawanKumarmethim
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 80of408
81
inhisofficepremises.TheyreachedatAnantNagat11.30am.In
Insp.N.B.K.Singh.TheyleftAnantNagafter2.00pm.Afterseizure
ofthearticlesrecoveredfromAnantNag,thesameremained in
thecustodyofDelhipoliceandtheirguardswereguardingthem.
deniedthesuggestionthatnorecoverywaseffectedatAnantNag
atthehouseofA1.Thewitnessadmittedthesuggestionoftheld.
defencecounselthatrecoveryandraidwasconductedunderthe
supervisionofSh.M.S.Sharma,thethenJointDirector,BSF.
124 Theentiredepositionofthiswitnessfullysupportsthe
givenbyPW18Insp.PawanKumar. Presenceofthewitnessat
thespotatthetimeofrecoveryhasnotbeencontrovertedinthe
crossexamination. Nothingwassuggestedtothiswitnessifany
familymemberoftheaccusedwaspresentatthespotatthetime
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 81of408
82
recoveryorthathewaspresentatAmritsaratBabaNursingHome
allegerecoveryofarmsandammunitionsattheinstanceofA1.
Thiswitnesshadnoconcern/connection/nexuswithDelhipolice
BSFunitwaspresentalongwithDelhipoliceontheirrequestto
havingnoprioracquaintancewiththiswitnesstojoinhimfalselyin
theraid.Thiswitnesswasdeputedtoassist Delhipoliceinthe
ordinarycourseofhisdutiesbyhissuperiors.
125 Themannerinwhichtherecoverieswereeffectedat
theinstanceofA1fromthehishouseasdescribedbythewitness
gavedetailaccountastohow,whenandfromwhereA1hadgot
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 82of408
83
possibilityofDelhipoliceorBSFunittoplanttheseheavyarticles
whichwerenotavailableinthemarketeasily.Nosuggestionwas
assistance. SinceconditionsinSrinagarweredisturbed,itwas
naturalandprobableforDelhipolicetoseekassistanceofBSF
spot.
126 NumberofdocumentsEx.PW19/18pertainingto
A1werealsorecoveredatthetimeofhousesearchofA1. No
suggestionwasputtobothPW18andPW19thatthesedocuments
didnotbelongtoA1orthatthesamewerenotrecoveredinthe
documentswhichweremostlypersonaltohim.Recoveryofthese
personaldocumentsofA1furtherlendscredencetothefactthat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 83of408
84
Delhipolicevisitedthehouseoftheaccusedon7/6/1996.Number
documentsalsocontainsignaturesofPW19Insp.BallabDhayani
BallabDhayaniisnotexpectedtosubsequentlyvisitDelhitoput
hissignaturesontheseizurememos.
127 AgainA1didnotexamineanywitnessfromhisfamily
recoveryofallthesearmsandammunitions.
P.P.Singh,Insp.PawanKumar,Insp.ShakuntlaKhokar,ASIAjit
SinghandSIHarinderhadgonetoSrinagarfortheinvestigation
ofthiscase.AtthetimeofhousesearchofA1twoofficialsofBSF
andSh.Dhayaniwerejoined. On searchofthehouseofA1
documentsEx.A1toA8wererecoveredwhichwereseizedvide
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 84of408
85
seizurememoEx.PW18/B.Inthecrossexaminationaccuseddid
notdenythatthesedocumentsdidnotbelongtoA1.Ratherinthe
crossexaminationthiswitnessrevealedthatsiteplanEx.PW18/G
was prepared in his hand. This official witness can't plead his
presenceoutofstationatJ&K. Thereisnosubstanceinthe
suggestion of the ld. defence counsel for the accused that this
witnesswasnotpresentatthespotatthetimeofhousesearchof
A1.
standsestablishedthatthearmsandammunitionsandexplosives
Ex.PW18/1;Ex.PW18/2to61;Ex.PW18/62to63;Ex.PW
18/64to65weregotrecoveredbyA1inpursuanceofdisclosure
statementEx.39/Bmadetothepolice.Simplybecausethepolice
failedtojoinanypublicwitnessduringinvestigationatJ&K,atthe
timeofrecovery,itdoesnotnullifythecogenttestimoniesofthe
discussedatcircumstancenumber45.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 85of408
86
(6)RecoveryofexplosivesattheinstanceofA2:
130 FurthercaseoftheprosecutionisthatA2inpursuanceof
Delhi led the police party at her residence at Srinagar and got
recoveredexplosivesfromthere.A2hasdeniedthisallegationof
theprosecution.
131 Theprosecutionhasagainrelieduponthetestimony
ofPW18Insp.PawanKumarwhoinhisdepositionbeforethecourt
JanglatMandi,AnantNagthesaidteamalongwithA2reachedat
herresidenceatH.No.1DilsouzeColony,Nattipura,Srinagar.A2
tookthepolicepartytoherresidenceandpointedoutaplacein
saidplaceandfromtheearth,shetookoutarexinebagwhich
containedpolythenebags.Fromonepolythenebag,A2tookout
twoslabsofwhitecolourwhichshetoldwereRDXslabs. From
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 86of408
87
theotherpolythenebag,A2tookoutfivetimers.RDXslabswere
weighedanditweightcameto1.325kg.Boththeitemswereputin
therespectivepolythenebagsfromwhichitwerefoundandwere
seizedafterpreparingseizurememoandaftersealingthesame
withthehelpofclothpullanda.OnboththepullandassealofPKB
wasused.CFSLformwasalsofilled.Sealafterusewashanded
overtoLadyInspectorShakuntalaKokkar.SeizurememoEx.PW
explosivesrecoveredonthatdaywashandedovertoSIHarinder
Thereafter,onthenextday,theyreturnedtoDelhi.
containingtheparticularsofthecaseandsealofPKBEx.PW2/7;
plasticrexineEx.PW2/8.RDXslabsEx.P2/9andpolythenebag
Ex.P2/10.Thewitnessstatedthatthesiteplansoftheplacesof
recoveriesEx.PW18/GandHwerepreparedbyhim.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 87of408
88
133 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatA2
placeprovidedinBSFcampitselfduringtheirstay atSrinagar.
HedidnotknowthedistancebetweenthehouseofA1andA2.
The witness further stated that from Srinagar Airport they had
disclosedheraddressinherdisclosurestatement. Someladies
werepresentinthehouseofA2whentheyreachedthere. A2
took about 1520 minutes in digging the earth to take out the
polythenecontainingRDX.Itwas1feetearthwhichwasdugby
herwithsomesharpobject. A2tookthatsharpobjectfromher
house itself. The same was not seized by them. The witness
furtherdeniedthesuggestionthatnoearthwasdugbyA2and
thatnorecoverywaseffectedfromthere. He admittedthatno
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 88of408
89
deniedthesuggestionthatentireproceedingswereconductedat
DelhiandRDXwasplantedontheaccusedpersonsatDelhi.A2
hadledthemtoherhouse,sohewasnotawareaboutthelocality
whereitwaslocated.ThesiteplansEx.PW18/GandHwerein
thehandsofSIArvindVerma.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestion
thehedidnotvisitthelocationofEx.PW18/GandH.
134 Fromtheabovetestimonyofthewitness,itstands
establishedthatA2ledthepoliceteamatherresidenceandgot
recoveredtheexplosivesfromherresidence.TheresidenceofA
2 was not known to the police and it was A2 who led the
recoveriesonA2.Thewitnesscategoricallyassertedthatsome
seizureoftheseexplosives.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitness
inthecrossexaminationastowhoelsewasinoccupationofthe
houseatthetimeofrecoveries.A2wasalreadyinpolicecustody
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 89of408
90
forsomedayspriortovisitofherresidenceon7/6/1996.A2did
not deny that the said house from where the recoveries were
difficultforDelhipolicetojoinanyindependentpublicwitnessfrom
thelocalityofA2.Delhipolicewhoitselfwasstrangertotheplace
wasnotexpectedtobeassistedbytheneighborersofA2against
controvertvisitofDelhipoliceatherhouseandtherecoveriesof
thearticles.A2didnotdenythattherewasnoAnartreeatthe
backportionofherhouse.OnperusalofExPW18/Gitreveals
thattheplacefromwheretherecoverieswereeffectedissituated
inthebacksideoftheportionifseenfrompoint'A'. A2didnot
examineanywitnessfromherlocalitytoprovethatDelhipolice
hadnotvisitedherresidencealongwithherforrecoveryofthe
ammunition.
135 StatementofPW18Insp.PawanKumarhasbeen
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 90of408
91
BhallabDhayanifromBSF,Srinagar.InhisdepositionagainstA
assistancewasprovidedbyBSFfor searchandseizure.PW19
Insp.PremBhallabDhayaniafterprovingrecoveriesatthehouse
ofA1atJanglatMandifurthertestifiedthatintheafternoon,they
allproceededtoNattiipura,DilsouzeColony.A1wasalsowith
Faridawhowasin'burka'. HedidnotseeherfacebutA2was
statingherselfasFarida(A2). Inbackcourtyardofthehouse,
nearthetreeofAnartheearthwasdugandonepolythenebag
wastakenoutwhichfurthercontainedtwopolythenebags.Inone
ofthebags,therewasexplosiveandinanotherbag,therewere
five timers. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW
18/CaftersealingthesamewiththesealofPKB. Thewitness
fairlyadmittedthathecouldnotidentifythatladyFaridaashehad
seenheronlyinburka.Thewitnessidentifiedthecaseproperty
EX18/P2/1to5(fivetimers)andRDXslabsEx.P2/9recoveredat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 91of408
92
theinstanceofA2.
136 Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPP,the
witnessstatedthatA2waspresentincustodyandpointedouther
house and the spot from where the incriminating articles were
recoveredatherinstance.Thewitnessstatedthattheearthwas
notdugbyher.Hefurtherstatedthatdespiterequestnoonefrom
publiccameforwardtojointheinvestigation.Sealafterusewas
handedovertoInsp.ShakuntlaKhokkar.
137 Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.defencecounsel
forA2,thewitnessstatedthattheyleftAnantNagafter2.00pm
andreachedatDilsouzeColonyataround3.00p.m.Thewitness
Nattipura,wasfromthefrontsideRecoverywasmadefromthe
back side of the house from the courtyard. There were some
peopleinherhousebuthedidnotrememberexactlywhothey
were.Thehousewasapuccahouse.Hefurtherstatedthathe
couldnotsay whetherthepersonspresentinthehouseofA2
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 92of408
93
wereoutsidersorherrelations.Headdedthatsomepersonswere
presentinthehouse.ThedistancebetweenthehouseofA1and
A2wasaround50kilometers.Theyusedthehighwaytoreachthe
houseofA2.DilsouzeColonyisaresidentialareaofSrinagar.
nothingwasrecoveredatthehouseofA2orthathedidnotjoin
theinvestigationwithDelhipolice.Thewitnessassertedthathe
hadsignedtheseizurememo.
138 ThetestimonyofPW19InspPremBhallabDhayani
inspiresconfidenceasnoulteriormotivehasbeenassignedtothis
witnessorhisunithadanyenmicaltermsagainstA2priortothe
instance.Thiswitnesshasnoaxetogrindtofalselyprovethe
recoveriesinacaseinwhichhewasnotatallconcerned.Delhi
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 93of408
94
policewasalsonotexpectedtocontactPW19InspPremBhallab
Dhayanitoshowfalserecoveryofheavyprohibitedarticleswhich
werenoteasilyavailableinthemarket.A2didnotexplainastoin
recovery. Shedidnotexamineanywitnessindefencefromher
familytocontrovertthatDelhipolicehadnotvisitedthehouseor
shedidnotgotrecoveranyexplosives.A2didnotdenythatthe
houseinquestiondidnotbelongtoher.
counsel for the accused are not material to discard the entire
independentversionofthiswitnesswhosepresenceatthespot
wasquitenatural.Thewitnesswasnotgoingtobebenefitedfor
graphicdetailinhistestimonybeforethecourtastohowA2got
recoveredtheexplosivesfromaplaceataparticularspotather
house.A2didnotdenythattheAnartreedidnotexistather
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 94of408
95
effected.
statementsofPW18Insp.PawanKumarandPW19 InspPrem
BhallabDhayani.Thoughinhisexaminationinchief,thewitness
didnottestifyaboutrecoveriesattheinstanceofA2.However,
accused,thewitnessstatedthatthesiteplanEx.PW18/Gwasin
hishand.
141 Fromthetestimoniesofthewitnessesreferredabove
andintheabsenceofanymaterialcontradictions,Iamoftheview
explosivesandfivetimersEx.P2/9andEX18/P2/1to5fromher
residence.Theplacefromwheretheaccusedgotrecoveredthese
explosivesetcwaswithinthespecialknowledgeofA2andDelhi
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 95of408
96
insidetheearth.ItwasonlyA2atwhoseinstancetheearthwas
dugupandthesearticlesweretakenout.A2hasfailedtoexplain
thepurposeofhavingpossessionoftheseexplosiveswithoutany
legalauthority.Shealsofailedtoexplainastohow,fromwhere
andwhen,shegotpossessionoftheseexplosivesetc.
142 TestimoniesofPW18Insp.PawanKumarandPW19
InspPremBhallabDhayanican'tberejectedsimplybecauseno
independentpublicwitnesscouldbejoinedintheinvestigation.
(7)
ArticlesrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofAIandA2
143 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton25/6/1996DSPShiv
recoveredinthepersonalsearchofAI.Healsohandedoverthe
personal searchmemosandseizurememostoSIBanwariLal.
Theaccusedpersonshavedeniedthisallegation.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 96of408
97
OperationGroup,Srinagar.Onthatdayhehandedover articles
recoveredinJamaTalashiofAIincaseFIRNo.162/94,PSSher
Garhi toSIBanwariLalofDelhipolice.PersonalsearchofA2
rememberinthesaidcase.Hepreparedpersonalsearchmemo
andthearticlesrecoveredin jamatalashiweredepositedatPS
articleshandedoverbyhimareEx.PW9/18consistingofoneI
card;onepassport;oneconsumercardandcertainotherarticles
detailsofwhichhedidnotremember.HealsosignedEx.PW9/A
regardingseizingofthedocumentswhichwerehandedoverby
himtoSIBanwariLalofDelhipolice.
145 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessadmittedthathe
didnotarrestAIorA2inFIRNo.162/94.Hedidnotremember
astowhohadarrestedAI.HedidnotknowastowhenAIwas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 97of408
98
arrested.HewasnotpresentatthePSattherelevanttime.Hedid
notrememberthenameoftheInspectorofPSSherGarhiwho
waspresentatthetimeofjamatalashi.Hedidnotinvestigatethe
rememberthenameoftheofficerwhohadseizedthedocuments
handedovertoDelhipoliceinhispresence.
146 FromtheabovetestimonyofPW95DSPShivKumar
itisnotallprovedifthearticleshandedoverbyhimtoDelhipolice
AdmittedlythiswitnesswasnotpresentatthetimeofarrestofAI.
Hewasalsonotpresentwhenthearticleswererecoveredinthe
personalsearchofAI.Sothiswitnesshasnodirectinformationto
searchofAI.
147 ProsecutionfurtherexaminedPW42SIBanwariLal
onthisaspect,whotestifiedthaton25/6/1996healongwithInsp.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 98of408
99
RajinderParsadhadgonetoSriNagarfromwhereInsp.Rajinder
Prasadseized8documentsEx.PW9/18fromInsp.ShivKumar
ofSTF,SrinagarvideseizurememoEx.PW9/A.Thiswitnessdid
notpleadthatthedocumentswerehandedovertohimbyInsp.
ShivKumarasdeposedbyhiminhisexaminationinchief.
whoalsostatedthaton25/6/1996Insp.ShivKumarSTF,J&K
hadhandedovertohimpersonalsearchofAIandthearticles
mentionedinthesaidmemo.Thesaidarticleswereseizedvide
seizurememoEx.PW9/A.Inthecrossexaminationheadmitted
thatAIwasnotarrestedinhispresence.Hedidnotknowwhohad
preparedthepersonalsearchmemoandwhotookthepersonal
attestingwitnessesofthesaidpersonalsearchmemo.Hedidnot
personalsearchmemo.MemoEx.PW9/Awaspreparedbyhim
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 99of408
100
ignoranceifAIwasregularlyattendinghisjobatSrinagartillhis
arreston20/5/1996.
149 Fromthedepositionoftheabovereferredwitnesses,
inmyview,theprosecutionhasfailedtoproveifthearticlesEx.
PW9/18wererecoveredinthepersonalsearchofAIatthetime
prosecutionbeforethecourt.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshow
recordfromPSSherGarhihasbeenproducedbeforethecourtto
whatcircumstancesthesearticleslyingdepositedinthemalkhana
KumarofSTFJ&K. Thesearticleswerehandedoverbyhim
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 100of408
101
allegedlyon25/6/1996afteraboutonemonthoftheapprehension
ofAIandA2fromSrinagar.Prosecutionhasfailedtoexplainas
towhyallthesearticlesallegedlyrecoveredinthepersonalsearch
ofAIwerenothandedoverbyInsp.ShivKumaronthedayof
apprehensionofAIandA2andwhentheywerebroughttoDelhi.
Prosecutionhasfurtherfailedtodisclosethepurposeofvisitto
Srinagaron25/6/1996justtocollectthearticlesrecoveredinthe
personalsearchoftheaccused.AsreferredaboveDelhiPolice
hadvisitedPSSherGarhionthedateofapprehensionofAIand
A2inpursuanceofNBW'sissuedagainstthem.Hadtherebeen
policeofPSSherGarhimusthavehandedoverthesametotheIO
atthatverytime.
availablewithittoproveifthesearticles wererecoveredinthe
personalsearchofAI.Adverseinferenceistobedrawnagainst
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 101of408
102
relevantregistercontainingtheentriesregardingmovementofthe
casepropertyseizedincaseFIRNo.162/94.
151 Thearticlesrecoveredinthepersonalsearchmemo
oftheaccusedhavenotbeenconnectedwiththecommissionof
theoffence.ThearticlesEx.PW9/18consistsofdrivinglicence,
variousagenciesetc.Subsequently,theprosecutionattemptedto
connectAIwiththecommissionoftheoffenceallegingthathe
responsibilityofcausingbombblastatDelhiontelephonenumbers
containedintheslip.Theincidenttookplaceon21/5/1996and
variousnewsagenciesonthesamenightatabout10.00pm.AI
andA2areallegedtohavebeenapprehendedbythepoliceofPS
SherGarhiandfax/wirelessmessageweresentbyPW78Insp.
FarooqKhantoDelhipoliceon25/5/1996.AIisnotimaginedto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 102of408
103
carrywithhimpaperslipcontainingtelephonenumbersofvarious
newsagencieswithhimforthesefourdaystoberecoveredbythe
policeofPSSherGarhiinhispersonalsearch.Hadtherebeen
Garhi,theymusthaveinformedDelhipoliceonthedateoftheir
wasrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA2.Theprosecutionhas
Ex.PW9/18wererecoveredinthepersonalsearchofAIinthe
mannerdescribedbythemintheirdepositionbeforethecourt.
SherGarhiandwasnotconcernedwiththeinvestigationofthe
caseFIRNo.162/94isnotexpectedtocarrywithhimthearticles
testifythedatewhenhegotthesearticlesfromPSSherGarhi.He
also did not state as to how and in what manner he got the
custodyofthesearticlesandwhoinformedtheDelhipoliceabout
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 103of408
104
theavailabilityofthesedocumentswithPW95DSPShivKumar.
ThereisnoevidenceifthehandwritingontheslipisthatofAI.
WhyAIwhoisallegedtobechiefspokesmanofJKIFwouldnote
downtelephonenumbersofvariousnewsagenciesonalooseslip.
Thiscircumstanceinspiresnoconfidence.
CallDetails:
(8)
afterthebombblastA1hadmadetelephonecallstovariousnews
agenciesatDelhiandhadownedresponsibilityofhisorganization,
JKIFforthebombblast.ItisfurtherstressedthatA1hadmade
installedatresidenceofA2.Theaccusedpersonshavedenied
thisallegation.
witnesses,Iamofthisviewthattheprosecutionhasfailedtoprove
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 104of408
105
variousnewsagenciesatDelhiandhadclaimedresponsibilityof
hisorganization,JKIFforthebombblast.Theinvestigationcarried
defective.Nosincereefforts weremadeduringinvestigationto
keepsurveillance onthetelephoneconnectionsinstalledatthe
25.5.1996,bypoliceofPSSherGarhi incaseFIRNo.162/94.
NocalldetailsofthetelephoneinstalledatresidencesofA1and
A2werecollectedsoonafterapprehensionofA1andA2though
asperstatementgivenbyPW78FarooqKhanboththeseaccused
personshadconfessedtheirinvolvementintheconspiracyinthe
bombblastatCentralMarket,LajpatNagar.PW78FarooqKhan,
messageEx.PW78/BandanotherwirelessmessageEx.PW78/C
weresenttopoliceon25.5.96.Faxandwirelessmessagedated
residencesofA1andA2.ItwasalsonotrevealedifA1andA2
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 105of408
106
hadmadeanytelephonecallsfromthesaidtelephonenumbersto
mediaagenciesatDelhionanyspecifictelephonenumbers.Itwas
installedathisresidenceto32221installedatresidenceofA2on
21.5.96.InhisdepositionasPW78FarooqKhandidnottestifyif
variouscallsmadebythemfromthesaidtelephonestoeachother
ortomedia/newsagenciesatDelhi.Healsodidnottestifyifatany
timehehad gotanycalldetailofthetelephoneinstalledatthe
residencesofA1andA2fromthetelephoneexchangeandhad
sentanyfaxmessageshowingcalldetailsmarkPW105/P1toP5.
Thisdocumentcontainsvarioustelephonecallsmadeonvarious
miserablyfailedtoproveifthisistheoriginalcorrectcalldetailbill
sentbyfaxbyPW78FarooqKhan.Infact,allthesecalldetailsin
thefaxwerenotprovedearlierbytheprosecution.Whenthecase
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 106of408
107
wasfixedforfinalarguments,anapplicationu/s311CrPCwas
movedtocallsomewitnessestoprovethisdocument.
155 PW101Insp.ParasNathinhisexaminationu/s311
CrPCon26.8.09testifiedthaton4.6.96onefaxmessagedated
23.5.96havingcalldetails/billoftelephoneno.22135washanded
overtohimbyACPPPSingh.Hecheckedthecalldetailsand
foundthattelephoneno.22135wasofAnantNagExchange.On
5.8.96healongwithInsp.PawanKumarandSIArvindwenttoSri
Nagar.On10.8.96,hemetShA.K.Jain,GM,Telecom,SriNagar
andshowedthefaxmessagemarkPW105/P1toP5.On12.8.96
Sharma,JTO,AnantNagandshowedhimthefaxmessageasking
forduplicatetelephonebillsbutheshowed hisinabilityandtold
thatmemoryoftheexchangewasalreadyfull. Herecordedhis
statementu/s161CrPCandhecertifiedthatfaxmessageandtold
thatoriginalcalldetailsweregeneratedbyhimandhandedoverto
somepoliceofficerofJ&K.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 107of408
108
156 PW105ACPPPSinghappearedforthefirsttimein
thewitnessboxinthiscaseon29.5.09inpursuanceofapplication
movedu/s311CrPC.Hedeposedthatinvestigationofthiscase
washandedovertoSpecialCellon26.5.96onthedirectionsof
alongwithcustodyofA1andA2toInsp.ParasNath.Hefurther
statedthatwhilehandingoverthefileandcustodyofA1andA2
hehadkeptmiscellaneouspapersofthecasefilewithhim.Inthe
miscellaneouspapersretainedbyhim,therewasonedocument
beingthefaxcopyofthebillingdetailsofonetelephoneno.22135
ofAnantNag,J&K.ItwaslateronverifiedbytheIOtohavebeen
checkedthebillingdetails, henoticedthat5/6telephoneswere
madefromthesaidtelephonenumberafter8.30PMtodifferent
numbersofDelhiwhichweresubsequentlyfoundtobenumberof
differentmediaoffices. HethenverifiedfrompreviousIOInsp.
AnandPrakashandInsp.JasbirMalkikregardingthesourceofthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 108of408
109
saidbillingdetailsand hewastoldthatthesamewasreceived
Nagar.Hehandedoverthefaxcopy markPW105/P1toP5to
Insp.ParasNathon4.6.96.
handedovercalldetailsoftelephoneno.22135tothelocalpolice.
Delhi Police came to him in August 1996 and asked him for
originalofthecalldetailsandhetoldtheIOthatAnantNagwas
anoldexchangeandtherewasnomemorysavingandprintsout
could not be taken out. IO had shown him fax copy mark
PW105/P1toP5andhehadapprovedthatthecallsshowntohim
weregeneratedfromhisexchangeandwerehandedovertothe
localpolicebyhim.
witnessesreferredabove,Iamoftheviewthatprosecutionhas
failedtoprovethecalldetailsdisclosedinmarkPW105/P1toP5
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 109of408
110
asperlaw.Originalofcalldetailsascontainedinthefaxmark
PW105/P1toP5hasnotbeenproduced. Nothinghascomeon
recordtoshowwhentheoriginalcalldetailswerecollectedandif
so,bywhomandfromwhom.Noapplicationhasbeenshownto
havebeenmadebyanypersonbeforeanycompetentauthorityto
obtainthecalldetailsinrespectoftelephoneno.22135onany
particulardate.Noorderonthesaidapplicationforprovidingcall
detailsofthetelephoneno.22135isshowntohavebeenmade.It
isalsonotdisclosedastowhohadcollectedthecalldetailsfor
whichthefax markPW105/P1toP5wasallegedlysenttoDelhi
Police.
159 PW107SanjeevKumarhasstatedtohavegivencall
detailstolocalpolice. However,nosuchwitnessfromthelocal
policehasbeenexaminedbytheprosecutiontoshowiforiginal
calldetailswerecollectedbyhimfromPW107SanjeevKumar.No
placedandprovedonrecord. Nosuchcalldetailsweremade
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 110of408
111
availabletoDelhiPolicebylocalpolice;bythepoliceofPSSher
GarhiorbyBSFAuthorities.PW107SanjivK.isnotexpectedto
rememberorallycalldetailsmentionedinthefaxafterlapseof14
years.
160 Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowastowhenthis
faxmessagemarkPW105/P1toP5wassenttoDelhiPoliceand
ifsobywhomitwassent. PW78FarooqKhandidnottestify
in his deposition before the court that any such fax message
containingthecalldetailsoftelephoneno.22135wassentbyhim
toDelhiPoliceandifsowhen. Noneoftheprosecutionwitness
examinedbeforethecourthastestifiedastowhohadreceivedthis
faxmessageandifsowhenandfromwhere. PW105ACPPP
Singhforthefirsttimeinhistestimonyon29.5.09testifiedthatthis
faxcopyofthebillingdetailswasreceivedintheofficeofDCP.
However,noofficialfromtheDCPofficeoranyrecordfromthe
DCPofficehasbeenproducedonrecordtoshowifitwasreceived
byanybodyonanyparticulardatefromJ&K. ACPPPSingh
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 111of408
112
hadvisitedJ&Kon25.5.96itselfandevenafterapprehensionofA
1andA2fromJ&K,nosuchcalldetailsweremadeavailableto
himbylocalpolice.
161 Storyhasbeenpresentedaftermorethan10yearsby
PW105ACPPPSinghthathehadretainedthefaxmessagemark
PW105/P1toP5inthemiscellaneouspaperswhilehandingover
thecasefiletoIO/Insp.ParasNathon26.5.96.Onlyon4.6.96,he
handedoverthecalldetailstotheIO/Insp.ParasNath.Thisplea
ofPW105ACPPPSinghdoesnotappealtomind. Hewasnot
containingcalldetailsoftelephoneinstalledattheresidenceofA1
whilehandingoverremainingcasefiletoInsp.ParasNath.This
pleahasbeentakenbyACPPPSingh(PW105)afteraboutmore
botheredtoappearbefore thecourtasawitnessinthiscaseto
depositionalsodidnotdiscloseifhehadevercometoknowabout
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 112of408
113
anysuchfaxcopyofthebillingdetailsoftelephoneno.22135.
162 On4.6.96evenaftercomingtoknowaboutfaxdetails
markPW105/P1toP5,IOdidnotbothertocollecttheoriginalcall
details.
163 Besidesthis,noeffortsweremadebytheinvestigating
mentionedinthecalldetailsbelonged.Nosuchpersontowhom
thetelephonesweremadewereexaminedduringinvestigationto
unearththeconspiracy. IOdidnotevenbothertoverifyifthe
witnessboxwerenotaskediftelephonenumbermentionedinthis
faxpertainedtotheirofficesorthattheyhadreceivedtelephone
callsonthattelephonenumbers.
govt.accommodationandtelephoneinquestionwasnotinstalled
inhisname.Itwasratherinstalledinthenameofhisfather.No
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 113of408
114
evidencewascollectedbytheprosecutionduringinvestigationif
thehouseatJanglatMandi,SriNagarusedtoremaininexclusive
telephoneno.22135asdetailedinthefaxmarkPW105/P1toP5
statement u/s 313 CrPC has admitted that this telephone no.
22135hasbeeninstalledinthenameofhisfather.Atthesame
time, he pleaded that this telephone was not having any STD
facilityandthehousewasnotoccupiedbyhim.Itwasimperative
fortheprosecutiontocollectcogentevidenceonrecordtoshowif
itwasonlyA1whohadaccesstothetelephoneno.22135andit
washewhohadmadetelephonecallstonewsagenciesatDelhi.
thatnumberoftelephonecallstookplacebetweenA1andA2.
However,thatitselfisnotenoughtoinferconspiracybetweenA1
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 114of408
115
andA2withcoaccusedpersonsfortheincident.Itisthecaseof
JKIF. DisclosurestatementofA1Ex.PW39/Bfurtherreveals
situation,possibilityofA1andA2tohaveknowntoeachother
andtoremainintouchontelephonepersecan'tbeconsidered
incriminatingpieceofcircumstance.
166 A1hasadmittedinhisstatementu/s313CrPCthat
telephoneno.22135hasbeeninstalledinthenameofhisfatherat
theresidenceofJanglatMandi,SriNagar,J&K.Heorhisfamily
membersfailedtoplaceonrecordany documentregardingcall
installationoftelephoneNo.32221atherresidence.Shealsodid
notspecificallydisputethetelephonecallsexchangedbetweenher
andA1duringrelevantperiod.A1failedtoexplainastowhoelse
hadmadetelephonecallsfrom22135on21.5.96aftertheblastto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 115of408
116
numbersofvariousnewsagenciesonwhichtelephonecallswere
madeon21.5.96from8.39PMto8.45PM.A1alsodidnotreveal
astowhoelsehadaccesstothetelephoneconnectioninstalledat
residenceofhisfather.NofamilymemberofA1appearedinthe
witnessboxtoclarifyastowhohadmadetelephonecallsduring
thatperiodtovariousnewsagenciesandwhatwasthepurposeof
makingthesaidtelephonecallstomedia.Thissilenceonthepart
ofA1pointsafingerofsuspicionagainsthimabouthisknowledge
aboutbombblastatLajpatNagar.Butthatitselfisnotsufficientto
prosecutionbeenvigilantandobtainedimpeachabledocumentary
telephoneinstalledattheresidenceoffatherofA1orithadkept
surveillanceforthesame,itmusthavebeenabletobringA1in
thenet.Meresuspicionisnotenoughtotakeplaceoflegalproof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 116of408
117
detailsthusrelieduponbytheprosecutionhavenotbeenproved
beyondreasonabledoubt.Prosecutionhasfailedtoprovethatit
wasonlyA1whohadmadeallthesecalls. Moreoverallthese
alreadycometoanend.
167 MoreoverPWInps.PawanKumarandSIArvinddid
notcorroboratethisversionofPW101Insp.ParasNathintheir
depositionbeforethecourt.
168 A1deservesbenefitofdoubtonthisaspectandthe
circumstanceagainstA1orA2.
(9)ArrestofA3andA4:
169 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA3andA4werearrested
onthebasisofsecretinformationon14/6/1996whentheywereto
allegation and has stated that he was lifted from his house on
28/2951996.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 117of408
118
Gautamwhotestifiedthaton14/6/1996healongwithInsp.Paras
Nath,Insp.SureshChander,SISurenderVermaetc.joinedthe
investigationofthiscase.Atabout6.20pmInsp.ParasNathgot
secretinformationthatA3involvedinthecommissionofthiscase
GorakpurviaVaishaliexpress.Insp.ParasNathorganizedateam
andtheyallreachedatNewDelhiRailwaystation.ACPPPSingh
alsojoinedthepolicepartyatNewDelhiRailwayStation.Theyall
reachedatplatformno.4oftheNewDelhiRailwayStationand
helda'nakabandi'.Atabout7.30pmonthepointingoutofthe
wereprepared.
171 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessreassertedthat
theywereinsearchoftheaccusedpersonsintheareaofJama
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 118of408
119
informationwasreceivedatabout6.15pmnearthestairsinfront
ofJamaMasjid.Thewitnessadmittedthatnoneoftheaccused
wasknowntohimpriortohisarrest.ACPwasinformedatabout
6.15pmontelephone.ACPmetthematabout7.00pmatNew
DelhiRailwayStationnearparking. Thereafter,theyallreached
platform no.4 from where the train for Gorakpur was about to
leave.Thedeparturetimeofthetrainwas7.30pm.Theyreached
atplatformno.4atabout7.05pm.Thetrainhadalreadyarrivedat
theplatformwhentheyreachedthere.Heexpressedhisignorance
tosayiftwoaccusedpersonswerealreadypresentattheplatform
whentheyreachedthere.ThewitnessfurtherelaboratedthatA3
wasmovingtogeneralcoachwhenhewasapprehended. They
remainedatthespotforaboutonehourafterapprehendingthe
accused.Theentirewritingworkwasdoneattheplatform. One
railwayticketwasrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA3. The
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 119of408
120
presenceoflocalitypersons.
majordiscrepancieshavebeenelicitedtodiscardthedepositionof
thiswitnessonthisaspect.Inthecrossexaminationnothingwas
suggestedaboutthepresenceofA4withA3atthetimeofhis
apprehension.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationastowhenandfromwhereA4wasapprehendedby
thepolice.A3didnotdenyrecoveryofticketfromhispossession.
manydaysparticularlywhenallegedlyfatherofA3hadalready
senttelegramstovariousauthorities.Suggestionhasbeenputto
thewitnessinthecrossexaminationthatA3wasalreadypresent
attheplatformbeforethereachingofDelhipolicethere.A3did
notdenythatnowritingworkwasdoneatthespotbythepolice.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 120of408
121
presentatthespotatthetimeofhisapprehensionorthatpolice
hadalreadydetainedhimontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.
173 PW39Insp.HariRamMalikhascorroboratedthe
14/6/1996hejoinedtheinvestigationofthiscase.Healongwith
VirenderSingh,SIArvindVerma,Ct.OmkarSinghandIOInsp.
ParasNathhadgonetotheareaofJamaMasjidnearUrduBajar
andwerepresentthere. Atabout6.20pm,asecretinformation
wasreceivedbyInsp.ParasNaththatoneboyA3alongwithone
Nepal.ACPP.P.SinghwasinformedontelephonebyInsp.Paras
Nath. Withoutwastinganyfurthertime,theyallreachedatNew
DelhiRailwayStationalongwiththeinformer.ACPP.P.Singhalso
joined there. Insp. Paras Nath made inquiries from the inquiry
aboutthedeparturetimeofVaishaliexpressanditwasrevealed
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 121of408
122
platformno.4.At7.20pmatrapwaslaidonplatformno.4.At
about7.35pmonthepointingoutofinformer,A3andA4present
involvementinthiscase. Boththeaccusedwerearrested.Their
personalsearchwereconductedvidepersonalsearchmemosEx.
PW16/Aand16/B.
174 Inthecrossexaminationonthisaspecthestatedthat
departureentrywasmadeofhisdeparturefortheinvestigation.
railwaystationandthedetailinvestigationwasconductedinthe
OperationCellatLodiRoad.Headmittedthatnoassistancewas
takenfromRailwayProtectionForceatNewDelhiRailwayStation.
ADDentryaboutthearrestofthesetwoaccusedpersonswas
recordedintheOperationCell.
suggestionshavebeenputtothiswitnessinthecrossexamination
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 122of408
123
regardingapprehensionofbothA3andA4onthedate,timeand
placementionedbythewitness. Nosuggestionwasputtothis
witnessinthecrossexaminationifA3hadalreadybeenliftedby
thepolicefromhishouseontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.
A3alsodidnotdenytherecoveryofticketfromhispossession.
Hedidnotclaimhispresenceatanyotherplaceatthetimeofhis
apprehension.A4isconspicuouslysilentabouthisapprehension
inthiscase.Nothingwassuggestedastohowandunderwhat
circumstances,hewasapprehendedbythepolice.
alsoprovedtheapprehensionofbothA3andA4atNewDelhi
witnessstatedthatsecretinformerpointedouttwopersonsnear
apprehended.A4informedthathewasinvolvedinLajpatNagar
bomb blast case and was going to Nepal with A3. He also
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 123of408
124
informedthemthathehadtogiveasumofRs.1lakhtoA3for
whereA5andA6werestayingatHotelBudhainGorakpur.A5
andA6weretogiveRs.1lakhtoA3andA4. PW101further
deposedthatheconductedformalsearchofA3andA4.From
thesearchofA3,asumofRs.965/,oneopenticketfromDelhi
toGorakpurofsecondclassandfromthesearchofA4asumof
Rs.770/wererecoveredvidepersonalsearchmemos Ex.PW
16/AandEx.PW16/B.TheticketrecoveredfromA3wasfortwo
persons.ThereafterbothA3&A4werebroughtattheirofficeat
around8.45/9.00p.m.
177 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatthe
ExpresstoGorakpurwasreceivedbyhim.NoDDwaswrittenin
thisregard.NohelpwassoughtfromRailwayProtectionForceor
Railwaystaffinapprehendingtheaccusedpersons.Noassistance
orhelpwastakenfromNDLSRailwayStation,RailwayProtection
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 124of408
125
descendedfromfirststairsoftherailwaybridgeonplatformno.4.
HereachedatNDLSat6.50pmandACPP.P.Singhreachedthere
atabout6.55pm.Headmittedthattheticketrecoveredfromthe
possessionoftheaccusedhadbeenpurchasedfromthecounter
suggestionthatA3wasliftedfromhishouseon29/5/1996.
178 Thedepositionofthiswitnessalsocorroboratesthe
versiongivenbytheotherwitnesseswhowerepresentatthetime
ofapprehensionofA3andA4. Againnothingwassuggested
aboutthepresenceofA4atthetimeofhisapprehension.A4did
notchallengehispresencealongwithA3attheplatformforgoing
toGorakpur.Hedidnotsuggestifonthedayofhisapprehension,
hewaspresentatsomeotherplace.Nowitnessindefencewas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 125of408
126
specificplaceonthedayoftheirarrestinthiscase.
versionofeachotherinitsentiretyandnomaterialdiscrepancies
NDLS. BothA3andA4havefailedtoexplainthepurposeof
resideatDelhi.HefailedtoexplainthepurposeofhisvisittoDelhi.
RecoveryofticketfortwopersonsfromthepossessionofA3has
remainedunchallenged.
purposeoftheirvisittoGorakpur.
(10)RecoveryofexplosivesetcattheresidenceofA3:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 126of408
127
apprehension,A3ledthepoliceteamathishouseon15/6/1996
incriminatingarticles.PleaofA3isthatnosuchrecoverywasgot
15/6/1996andwasfalselyimplicatedinthiscasethereafter.
182 PW31Insp.Surinderinhisevidencebeforethecourt
ParasNathandotherpoliceofficials.A3ledthepolicepartytohis
unauthorizedroomonthatDDAFlat.Fromthatroom,A3tookout
polythenebag, itwasfoundcontainingtwoRDXslabsweighing
about1kg150gms.Thoseslabswerekeptinthesamebagand
sealedwiththesealofPP.Sealafterusewashandedovertohim.
ThiswitnessfurthertestifiedthatthereafterA3tookoutfromthe
showcaseaffixedintheroomoneJaycoAlarmTimepiecefrom
whichtwowireswerecomingoutandwashavingablackplastic
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 127of408
128
bodywithfourarms.Thisalarmwasalsosealedwiththesealof
PPandseized. ThereafterA3tookoutonedetonatorwithwire
whichwasalsosealedwiththesealofPP.A3thereaftertookout
anotherpolythenebagfromaboveanothershowcaseanditwas
foundcontainingoneironsolder,onescrewdriver,oneplas,one
cutter,twoarlditetubes,oneelectrictapeandonewire.Allthese
articleswereput inthesamepolytheneandsealedwiththethe
sealofPPandseized.ThereafterA3broughtoutonegascylinder
of5kgfrombeneaththeslabofthekitchenanditwassealedand
disclosurestatementoftheA3Ex.PW31/B.OneAbdulSamad
memo.
fortheaccusedpersonsonthisaspect,thewitnessstatedthatthe
incidenttookplaceon21/5/1996whilerecoverywaseffectedon
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 128of408
129
reachedatthehouseofA3at4.00amandbeforetakinghimto
hishousehisdisclosurestatementwasrecordedatthePS.They
remainedpresentatthespotforabout45hours.Theflatno.P7
issurroundedbyotherflats.HedidnotrememberifIOhadtriedto
findoutastowhoweretheowneroftheflatsinNorth,South,East
investigationexceptonlyoneMohd.Samad.Theaccusedhimself
aswellastheneighborershadconfirmedthatA3waslivinginthat
flat.Whentheyreachedattheflat,nobodywaspresentthere.The
witnessdeniedthesuggestionthathehadnotgonetothespot
andneverjoinedtheinvestigation.Thewitnessclarifiedthatthe
flat had a single door and it comprised of two rooms and one
kitchen.Therecoveryofgascylinderwasfrombeneathofslabin
the kitchen and RDX slabs were recovered from the trunk in
unauthorized room and the trunk was lying on four bricks. The
RDXslabswereingreenpolythenebag.ThecolourofRDXwas
black.TheRDXwasweighedatthespotandweighingbalance
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 129of408
130
wasintheIObag.Hedeniedthesuggestionthatnorecoverywas
goteffectedattheinstanceofA3.
184 Perusalofthestatementofthiswitnessrevealsthat
nomaterialcontradictionsanddiscrepancieshavebeenbroughtin
thecrossexaminationtodisbelievehim.Nosuggestionwasputto
apprehendedbythepoliceandunderwhatcircumstances,hewas
allegedly lifted from his house. There was no occasion for the
statementatoddhoursat4.00amon15/6/1996andtoplantthe
heavy recovery on him. A3 did not deny that the house P7,
TurkmanGatedidnotbelongtohim.Nothingwassuggestedinthe
crossexaminationasto,towhomthesaidhousebelonged. A3
hasfailedtoexplainastohowhisfamilymembersresidinginthe
saidhousehappenedtofleeaway onthedayheledthepolice
teamtohishouse.Itwasfoundthatnofamilymemberwaspresent
there.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifthispoliceofficial
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 130of408
131
depositionagainsthim.
Samadwasjoinedintheinvestigationatthetimeofconductingthe
proceedingsthere.TheprosecutionevenexaminedPW92Abdul
witnessdidnotsupporttheprosecutioninentiretyandcameup
with the plea that A3 along with his brother was lifted by the
policeontheinterveningnightof2829/5/1996atabout3.30am.
He(PW92)wassleepingatthattimeinhishouseandhadgotup
onhearingloudnoise.He,however,admittedthattheA3andhis
brotherweretakenawaybythepolice.Someofthepolicemen
calledatthePSandwasmadetosignondocumentEx.PW31/A.
This witness was got declared hostile by ld. Addl PP and was
crossexamined.Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessdeniedthe
contentsofthestatementmarkA92tohavebeenmadebyhimto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 131of408
132
thepolice.
thewitnessstatedthathehadcomedownfromhisresidenceto
theplaceofincident.Hewasnotallowedtogoinsidethehouseof
A3.
187 Testimonyofthishostilewitnesssupportstheversion
ofPW31regardingtheraidatthehouseofA3at3.30amor4.00
am.,thoughthiswitnesshasgiventhedateofraidas28/295
1996. This witness has exceeded his brief and has suggested
liftingofA3ontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.WhereasA3
did not claim that he was taken away from his house on the
interveningnightof28/2951996.Nocomplaintwhatsoeverwas
filedby thiswitnessagainstanyofthepoliceofficialsforillegal
detentionofA3forsuchalongperiod.Thiswitnesshasadmitted
hissignaturesonthememoEx.PW31/Awhichratherensureshis
presenceatthespotatthetimeofrecovery.Thiswitnessdidnot
allegeanythreatorpressurefromthepolicetosignEx.PW31/A.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 132of408
133
TheneighborerofA3wasnotexpectedtoputhissignatureson
thememoEx.PW31/Aonthemereaskingofthepolice.Healso
didnotlodgeanycomplaintagainstanypoliceofficerforforcing
himtoputhissignaturesonEx.PW31/A.Itshowsthatthewitness
neverthlessadmittedthatthehousewherethepoliceconducted
raidbelongedtoA3.Againthiswitnesshasfailedtoexplainwho
elsewaspresentatthehouseatthetimeofraidandwhynofamily
memberofA3cameforwardtoprotesttheliftingoftheaccused
ontheinterveningnightof28/2951996.A3didnotexamineany
neighborerinhisdefencetoshowthat hewastakenawayfrom
hishouseontheinterveningnightof28/2951996orthatnothing
wasrecoveredfromhishouse.A3andthiswitnessAbdulSamad
havefailedtoexplainastohowtheotherbrotherofthisaccused
allegedlylivingalongwithhimwasnotinvolvedinthiscase.PW92
AbdulSamadalsofailedtoexplainastohowforthefirsttimein
2005hecameupwiththepleathatA3wasliftedfromhishouse
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 133of408
134
intheinterveningnightof28/2951996.
188 PW41Insp.SureshChanderanothermemberofthe
raidingteamhassupportedtheprosecutionandhascorroborated
theversionofPW31Insp.Surinder. Inhisevidencebeforethe
court,PW41Insp.SureshChanderalsotestifiedthaton15.6.1996,
he joined the raiding party along with Insp. Paras Nath and at
about4.00AMA3ledthepoliceteamatP7,DDAFlats,Turkman
Gate,Delhiandgottheabovereferredrecoverieseffectedfrom
there. Allthesearticlesrecoveredatthespotwereseizedvide
seizurememoEx.PW31/A.A3hadmadeadisclosurestatement
Ex.PW31/Bonthebasisofwhichtherecoveriesweregoteffected
byhim.A3gotrecoveredtwoRDXbricksEx.PW18/64&65ina
green polythene bag Ex. P17; the timer watch Ex. P8, the iron
solder Ex. P9, the wire Ex.P10, screw driver Ex.P11, pliers Ex.
P12,wirecutterEx.P13,twoaralditetubesEx.P14,electricwire
Ex.P15andonegascylinderEx.P16.
189 Inthecrossexaminationonbehalfoftheaccused,
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 134of408
135
thewitnessstatedthatbeforedeparturefromtheSpecialCellon
15/6/1996,A3wasinterrogatedandhisdisclosurestatementwas
recorded.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthathedidnotvisit
flatno.P7,DDAflats,TurkmanGateon15/6/1996.Thewitness
clarified that it was disclosed that day that some family was
residinginP7,TurkmanGatebutnonewasfoundpresentiniton
15/6/1996.OnepublicwitnessAbdulSamadwasaresidentofflat
no.P15.Hewasonlypublicpersonwhohadagreedtojointhe
proceedings. ThewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthatPWAbdul
Samadwasastockwitness.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthatinhis
presenceAbdulSamadhadsignedonlyonedocument.
190 Thetestimonyofthiswitnessregardingthepresence
ofPW92AbdulSamadatthetimeofrecoveryatthehouseofA3
wasnotchallengedinthecrossexamination. Rathersuggestion
wasputbytheld.defencecounseltothiswitnessthatPW92Abdul
PW92AbdulSamadresidingintheneighborhoodofthisaccused
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 135of408
136
PW92AbdulSamadhadappearedinanyothercaseasastock
witnessofthepolice.PerusalofthefilerevealsthatPW92Abdul
conductedbythepoliceon15/6/1996inhisdepositionbeforethe
court.HadPW92AbdulSamadbeenthestockwitnesshemust
not have turned hostile in his statement before the court. This
presenceofPW92AbdulSamad.Nothingwassuggestedtothis
witnessalsoastowhomthehouseinquestionbelonged.Nothing
wassuggestedastohowtheotherfamilymembersoftheaccused
earlier residing in the said house had fled away from the spot.
NothingwassuggestedtothiswitnessifA3wasliftedfromhis
houseontheinterveningnightof28/2951996. Noneighboror
recoverieseffectedathisinstancefromhishouse.Onlysuggestion
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 136of408
137
presenceofcogentevidenceonrecord.
191 PW101Insp.ParasNathhasalsotestifiedonsimilar
statement,A3ledthepolicepartytohishouseP7,DDAFlats,
TurkmanGateandfromtherehegotrecoveredRDXweighing1
kg150gmswhichwaslyingunderasteelbox,onebagcontaining
tools,onedetonator,one5kgLPGcylinder.Atthesearticleswere
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW31/A.Inthecrossexamination,
thewitnessfairlyadmittedthatnolocalpolicewasjoinedatthe
timeofrecovery. Thewatchmanoftheareawheretheaccused
was residing at the relevant time was not called. The case
propertywassealedwiththesealofPP.Thesealafterusewas
handedovertoSISurenderKumar.Nohandingovermemoofthe
saidsealwasprepared.
192 Theentirecrossexaminationshowsthattheaccused
did not challenge the raid at the house and recoveries of the
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 137of408
138
suggestedtothiswitnessthatthesaidhousedidnotbelongtothe
houseon29/5/1996.Howevertheaccuseddidnotexamineany
witnessinhisdefencetoprovethathewasliftedfromhishouseon
29/5/1996.Somuchso,A3didnotexaminehisbrotherwhowas
allegedlyliftedbypolicealongwithhim. Itisnotrevealedasto
whenbrotherofA3wasreleased.Ratherthefactthatbrotherof
recoveriesbeeneffected,therewasnooccasiontoimplicateonly
A3andtoletoffhisbrother.
corroboratingtheversionofeachotheronmaterialaspects,Iam
of the view that the prosecution has established that all these
articlesmentionedinEx.PW31/AweregotrecoveredbyA3from
hishouseinpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement.A3failedto
explainthepurposeofretentionofallthesearticlesathishouse.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 138of408
139
residenceofA3alsopointsanaccusingfingeragainsthim.
ArrestofA7andRecoveryoftworupeecurrencynote:
(11)
194 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA7wasgotarrested
byA3andA4fromGorakhpuron16/6/1996.OnsearchofA7
one two rupee Indian note Ex. PX was recovered from his
possession.ThistworupeecurrencynotewastobegiventoA4
toenablehimtocollectRs.1lakhfromMangalChandatShalimar
allegation.ItisstatedthatA7wasnotarrestedfromGorakhpur.
implicatedhiminthiscase.
examinedPW16Insp.RajenderGautam,PW24SIHariSinghand
PW36Insp.RajeshwarKumar.Ihavescrutinizedthetestimonies
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 139of408
140
independentpublicwitnesswasjoinedorrequestedtojoinatthe
timeofconductingpersonalsearchofA7andrecoveryof two
rupeecurrencynoteEx.PXfromhispossession.
196 PW16Insp.RajenderGautaminhisexaminationin
chiefdidnotutterawordthathehadgonetoGorakhpuronany
particulardateandhadarrestedA7attheinstanceofA3andA
4. Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPonthis
suggestionofld.AddlPPthatatthetimeofarrestofA7tworupee
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW16/F.Hefurtheradmittedthe
suggestionofld.AddlPPthatA7haddisclosedthatonthebasis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 140of408
141
ofsaid tworupeecurrencynote,asumofRs.1lakhwastobe
collectedfromMangalChandatShalimarBagh.Healsoadmitted
thatIOrecordeddisclosurestatementofA7videEx.PW16/H.
197 Inthecrossexaminationofld.defencecounselfor
theaccusedthewitnessstatedthathedidnotrememberastowho
wasarrestedfromGorakhpur.HedidnotknowthenameofPSin
Gorakhpurinwhosejurisdictionanypersonwasarrested.Hedid
RailwayStation,Gorkhpur.Hedidnotrememberifthatplacewas
ahotelorrestaurant.Heagainstatedthatitwasperhapsahotel
cumrestaurant.ManagerofhotelwasjoinedbytheIOatthetime
of his arrest but he did not remember his name. He did not
rememberifanyextractoftheregisterwasseizedbytheIOand
statementofManagerwasrecordedbytheIOornot.Healsodid
notrememberifanyarrivalordepartureentrywasmadeintheDD
registerofthelocalPSinGorakhpur.Hedeniedthesuggestion
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 141of408
142
thatA7wasarrestedfromNepal.
expressedhisignorance. Hetestifiedabouttheapprehensionof
suggestedbyld.AddlPPfortheState.Suggestionwasputbyld.
AddlPPfortheStatetothiswitness thathehadnotdeposed
properlyashewaswonoverbytheaccused.
199 Testimonyofthiswitnessiscontrarytothestatement
statedthaton16/6/1996healongwithInsp.Rajeshwarandother
arrestedandhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/Hwasrecorded.
HefurtherstatedthatonetworupeecurrencynoteEx.PXwas
recoveredfromA7whichwasseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 142of408
143
16/F.Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessstatedthathedidnot
knowunderwhichjurisdictionofthePS,BudhaHotelfell.Hedid
notknowthenameoftheroadonwhichBudhaHotelwaslocated.
TheyleftDelhiforGorakhpuron16/6/1996inthemorning. The
distancebetweenDelhiandGorakhpurmightbeabout900kms.
samedayinBudhaHotel.Localpolicewasnotwiththem.After
hours,theycamebacktoDelhi.TheystartedforDelhi atabout
7.30pmandreachedonthenextmorningatabout8.00/9.00am.
Gorakhpur.
200 ThetestimonyofthiswitnessregardingarrestofA7
fromBudhaHotelintheeveninghasnotbeencorroboratedbythe
IOPW36Insp.RajeshwarKumar.Hehasgivenentirelydifferent
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 143of408
144
versionstatingthathealongwithhisteamincludingInsp.Rajender
15/6/1996atabout14.30hours. TheyreachedatGorakhpuron
16/6/1996atabout8.00am.TheinformationwasthatA5andA7
Gorakhpur.NakabandiwasdoneoppositeBudhaHotel.Atabout
10.15am,twopersonscamefromRailwayStationsideandonthe
disclosedtheirnamesasA6andA7. Theywerearrestedafter
otherthings,atworupeenotewasalsoseizedwhichwastobe
usedfortakingmoneyfromoneMangalChandatShalimarBagh.
startedfromthere.ThiswitnessdidnotspecifyifRs.twocurrency
notePXwasrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA7orthathe
haddisclosedthatthesaidnotewastobeusedbyA4togetRs.
1lakhfromMangalChand.Inthecrossexamination,thewitness
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 144of408
145
Gorakhpur.TheyreachedatGorakhpuratabout8.008.15amon
16/6/1996.NotimewasmentionedinthearrestmemoofA7.In
DDNo.28atGorakhpur,PSnotimewasmentionedastowhen
theaccusedpersonswerearrestedandinterrogated.Hedidnot
joinanypublicpersonatthetimeofarrestorrecovery.Nositeplan
waspreparedabouttheplaceofarrestorrecovery.Accusedwas
apprehendedontheroadoppositetoBudhaHotel.Hedidnotjoin
anyemployeeofBudhaHotelatthetimeofinterrogationofthe
accused.InterrogationwasdoneintheroomoftheHotelManager.
ThedistancebetweenDelhiandGorakhpurmightbe678kms.He
didnotcometoknowabouttheplaceofstayofA7atGorakpur
duringhisinterrogationthere.Hedidnottrytofindoutthedetails
andnamesofthepeoplewhereA7hadstayedatGorakhpur.The
Kathmanduon10/6/1996.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 145of408
146
201 Fromthestatementsofthesematerialwitnesses,it
reveals that they have given different versions about the place
fromwhereA7wasapprehended. Somewitnesseshavestated
reach. Some have stated that they were arrested from Budha
Hotel.Thereisvitaldiscrepancyastothetimewhenthepolice
teamreachedatGorakhpurandapprehendedtheaccused.Some
Gorakhpuronthenextmorningandapprehendedtheaccusedin
themorning.Somehavestatedthataccusedwasarrestedinthe
evening. TheaccusedafterarrestwasallegedlytakentoBudha
Hotelandwherehewas interrogatedtherebutnowitnessfrom
BudhaHotelwasjoinedintheinvestigation.Norecordwasseized
evenaftertheirarrest.Noincriminatingarticleisallegedtohave
beenrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA1.Nothinghascome
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 146of408
147
BudhaHotel.Policedidnotmakeanyinquiriesastowherethe
accusedhadstayedinGorakhpurpriortotheirapprehensionto
recoveranyincriminatingobjectfromtheirpossession.Itishighly
specificplaceofarresthasbeenshown.Apprehensionofaccused
inthemorningnarratedbytheseprosecutionwitnessesdoesnot
appealtomind.
202 RecoveryoftworupeecurrencynoteNo.66M571634
inspiresnoconfidence.ThiscurrencynoteEx.PXwashavingno
distinctidentification. A7wasalsohavingothercurrencynotes
recoveredinhispersonalsearch.Therewasnofunfor A7 to
comeatGorakhpuralongwithA6fromKathmandu,Nepaljustto
handoverthecurrencynoteEx.PXtoA3andA4.Thereisno
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 147of408
148
statementoftheaccused.
203 NothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifA7hadremained
inconstanttouchwithcoaccusedpersonsatanytimepriortothe
incidentatDelhioraftertheoccurrence.Nothingincriminatingwas
recoveredfromthisaccusedevenatthetimeofallegedarreston
accusedpersonsthisaccusedisnotexpectedtomeetcoaccused
A3 and A4. Name ofthis accused did not find mention in the
earlierdisclosurestatementofA1andA2.Arrestandrecoveryof
tworupeecurrencynotehasnotbeenprovedbeyondreasonable
facilitatedcoaccusedpersonsinthecommissionoftheincident.
Allegedrecoveryoftworupeecurrencynotewhichwastobeused
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 148of408
149
accusedpersonsinthecommissionofincident.
204 ApprehensionofA7andallegedrecoveryoftwo
pieceofcircumstancetoconnectA7withthecommissionofthe
offence.A7hasalsofailedtoproveanyevidencetoshowifhe
wasapprehendedinNepal.DDNo.28purportedlyrecordedbyIO
apprehensionattheinstanceofA3andA4can'tberuledout.
establishedbeyonddoubt.SinceA7hasnotchallengedhisarrest,
itmakesnomuchdifferenceastoinwhichmannerandtime,A7
wasarrestedinthiscase.
(12)ArrestofA6:
205 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA6alongwithA7
wasarrestedbyDelhipoliceon16/6/1996fromGorakhpuratthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 149of408
150
instanceofA3andA4. A6hasdeniedhisapprehensionfrom
Gorakhpurandhasstatedthathewasarrestedmuchpriortothat
fromNepalon9/6/1996.
206 ArrestofA7on16/1761996inthemannerclaimed
discussedabove.SimilarlyapprehensionofA6alongwithA7in
thesaidcircumstancescan'tbebelieved.Againthestatementsof
witnesswasjoinedatthetimeofapprehensionofA6alongwith
possessionofA6. MeagrecashofRs.498/withsomeletters/
visitingcardsetc.,wererecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA6
whichhavenotbeenconnectedwiththeincident.Statementsof
alltheprosecutionwitnessesapprehendingA6havealreadybeen
discussedindetailatthetimeofdiscussingarrestofA7.Sono
detaildiscussionisbeingmadetoprovethearrestofA6inthis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 150of408
151
para.
17/6/1996byDelhipolicefromNepal. ThefactremainsthatA6
wasalsoarrestedalongwithA7inthiscaseandalsoremainedin
GroakhpurfromwhereA6wasapprehended.DDNo.28Amade
byIOatPSatGorakhpurshowsvisitofDelhipolicetoGorakhpur
andapprehensionofA6alongwithA7fromtherecan'tberuled
apprehensionofA6,hisarreston16/1761996fromGorakhpur
isnotanincriminatingpieceofcircumstanceagainsthim.
(13) StayofA3atGuptaHotel,Gorakhpur
208 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA3hadstayedatthe
hotelatGorakhpuron27/5/1996.Accusedhaddeniedthisaspect.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 151of408
152
18/6/1996policehadtakentwophotocopiesofvistor'sbookathis
hotelandtouristlodgeatGorakhpurandhadseizedthesamevide
memo Ex.PW40/D.Thereafterphotocopyoftheentryinwhich
thenameofvisitor/guestMohd.Naushads/oAbdulRashid,P11,
DDAFlats,TurkmanGate,Delhiatserialnumber1285wasshown
ashehadvisitedthehotelandstayedinroomno.14on27/5/1996
wastaken.Thiswitnesswasnotcrossexaminationatallbytheld.
defencecounselfortheaccusedpersons.StayofA3atthesaid
hotelwasnotchallenged.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessin
thecrossexaminationthatA3hadnotstayedinroomno.14on
27/5/1996andentryats.no.1285inthevistor'sbookwasnotin
thehandwritingofA3.
PW82DayaShankerLalGupta.Inhisstatementbeforethecourt
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 152of408
153
onoaththiswitnessstatedthaton27/5/1996,hewasworkingas
HotelManageratGuptaHotelandTouristlodge,OppositeRailway
stationGorakhpurUP.OnthatdayonevisitorMohd.Naushadson
ofAbdulRashidP11,DDAFlats,TurkmanGate,Delhihadvisited
theirhotelandstayedinroomno.14from9/10amto9.30pmand
hehadhimselfmadeentryinthevisitorsregisterats.no.1285in
hisownhandwriting.Thiswitnessfurtherstatedthaton29/6/1996
Delhipoliceseizedvisitors'bookfromtheirhotelvidememoEx.
registerEx.PW66/1wasthesameregisterwhichwasseizedby
Delhi police. This witness was also not tested in the cross
falselyallegingstayofA3inhishotelon27/5/1996.A3didnot
denyhisstayinthehotel.Healsodidnotdenyhishandwritingin
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 153of408
154
27/5/1996inroomno.14from9/10amto9.30pm.Nothingwas
suggestedtothiswitnessiftheentryintheregisterEx.PW66/1
didnotpertaintoA3orthathehadnevervisitedthesaidhotel.
AgainA3failedtojustifyhisstayatthesaidhotelon27/5/1996.
NopurposewasdisclosedbyA3forhisstayatthesaidhotel.
27/5/1996,therewasleastpossibilityofthepolicetoapprehend
himontheinterveningnightof28/2951996asassertedbyPW92
AbdulSamad.
211 TestimonyofPW66Ct.Surinderisrelevantonthis
aspect.HealongwithPWSIBaljeetSinghvisitedGorakhpuron
Singhcheckedthevisitorsregisterhavingsheetsno.1to191and
18/2/1996toentryno.1779dated29/6/1996.Thelastentrywas
onsheetno.154.Entryatsl.no.1283wasfoundinthenameof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 154of408
155
Gate,Delhiinthesaidregister.Thesaidregisterwasseizedvide
seizurememoEx.PW66/A. Entryatsl.no.1283containedthe
RegisterEx.PW66/1wasseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW66/A.
columnno.2andinlastcolumnofentryno.1283,M.Naushadwas
writteninthesamemannerandthereforehecouldsaywhichof
M.Naushad.AgainnosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessthatA3
hadnotstayedinthesaidhotelonthatdayorthatentryinthe
registerEx.PW66/1wasnotinhishandwriting.A3didnotassert
thattheentrydidnotcontainhissignature.
prosecutiononthisaspect.HealsoprovedhisvisittoGorakhpur
on18/6/1996regardingtheinvestigationofthiscase.Hetestified
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 155of408
156
Expressdated27/5/1996whereinhefoundthattherewasnameof
A3havingreservationfromGorakhpurtoNewDelhiatwaitinglist
whomhehadobtainedthephotocopy.Afterthatheobtainedthe
photocopyofthevisitors'bookofGuptaHotelinGorakhpurwhere
entryofA3wasthereintheregister.Herecordedthestatement
Gorakhpur along with PW66 Ct. Surender and they seized two
originalvisitor'sbook.OnewasseizedfromGuptaHotelandother
fromBudhaHotel.Herecordedthestatementsoftheconcerned
witnesses.
havecometodisbelievehim. Againnothingwassuggestedto
thiswitnessinthecrossexamination,thatA3hadnotstayedat
GuptaHotel.A3didnotdenythatthewritingintheregisterwas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 156of408
157
notinhishand.
witnesses,itstandsestablishedthatA3hadstayedatGuptaHotel
on27/5/1996.Policecametoknowaboutthisfactinpursuanceof
thedisclosurestatementmadebyA3.AgainstayofA3atGupta
reasonsubstantiatestheversionoftheprosecutioncase.
216 A3hasnotdisputedhisnameappearingats.no.7in
ReservationchartEx.PW40/A.NosuggestionwasputtoPW40
SIBaljeetSinghthatA3hadnottravelledbyShaheedExpresson
27/5/1996fromGorakhpurtoDelhi.GenuinessofthechartEx.PW
40/Awasnotchallenged.
(14)ARRESTOFA5atMussorie:
217 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton1761996,A5was
arrestonthedate,timeandplaceasdisclosedbytheprosecution.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 157of408
158
witnessesonthisaspect,Iamoftheviewthattheprosecutionhas
failedtoproveifA5wasarrestedfromMinarvaHotelon17.6.96in
themannerstatedbytheprosecutionwitnesses.Theprosecution
hasexaminedPW23Insp.PuranSinghonthisaspectwhomerely
statedthaton17.6.96healongwithhisstaffhadgonetoMussorie
fromDelhiandarrestedA5fromMinarvaHotelandconductedhis
personalsearchvidememoEx.PW23/A.A5wasbroughttoDelhi
andwasinterrogatedA5andhemadedisclosurestatementEx.
PW23/B.
219 Inthecrossexamination,thiswitnessdisclosedthathe
wasbriefedthatA5washidinghimselfinMinarvaHotelinaroom
at Mussorie withhisbrother'spartner.HereachedMussorieon
thesamedayatmidnightandmadeentriesatMussoriepolice
stationintheinterveningnightof16/1761996atabout1.00AM.
ThewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthatA5wasbroughtviaSonali
BorderfromNepal.ThewitnessadmittedthatownerofMinarva
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 158of408
159
Hoteloritsmanagement/employeeswerenotjoinedaswitnesses
atthetimeofarrestofA5.Theentriesofthehotelregisterwere
alsonotseizedinthiscase.
220 ProsecutionhasalsoexaminedPW43Insp.Virendr
SinghhadgonetoMussorie,HCYaminKhanwaswiththem.On
17.6.96, A5wasarrestedfromMinarvaHotelandhispersonal
examination,hestatedthatA5wasnotarrestedbyhimbutwas
arrestedbyInsp.PuranSinghinhispresence.Hedidnotknowif
IOhadaskedMallRoad,ChowkiInchargetojoininvestigationor
not.NorecordofMinarvaHotelwasseized.TheyhadleftDelhi
Mussorieintheweehoursofmorning.HecouldnotsayifIOhad
recordedanydepartureentryfromDelhioratMussorie.Witness
furtherstatedthatonlyIOInsp.PuranSinghcouldsayifon8.6.96
A5wasarrestedfromNepalandbroughttoDelhiinthelatehours
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 159of408
160
on9.6.96.
221 Nootherwitnesswasexaminedbytheprosecution
witnesses,Iamoftheviewthatprosecutionhasfailedtoprove
beyonddoubtthatA5wasarrestedonthedate,timeandplaceas
assertedbythem.Prosecutionhasfailedtoexplainastowhythe
hotelstaffofMinarvaHotelwasnotjoinedintheinvestigationat
thetimeofapprehensionofA5. Nodocument/visitor'sregister
wasseizedfromMinarvaHoteltoshowifA5hadstayedinthe
saidhotelonanyparticulardateorforanyparticulardurationina
purposeofvisitofA5toMussorieatMinarvaHotel.Nothinghas
comeonrecordtoshow astosincewhenA5wasstaying at
MinarvaHotel.Prosecutionwitnesseshavegivendifferentversion
thetimewhentheyreachedat Mussorie.Theprosecutionfailed
toproveonrecordanyDDentrymadebythepolicewitnessesat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 160of408
161
producedbeforeanycourtatMusoorie. Infactnodocumentary
recoveredinthepersonalsearchofA5atthetimeofhisalleged
apprehension.ProsecutiondidnotexamineHCYaminKhanwho
hadaccompaniedthemtoMussorie.Nothinghascomeonrecord
astowhowasthepartnerofbrotheroftheaccused.Noevidence
wascollectedifA5hadstayedatthesaidhotel.
223 Prosecutionhasthusfailedtoestablishthedate,
Delhi.A5hasclaimedthathewasarrestedfromNepalon8.6.96.
However,noevidenceonthataspecthasalsocometoacceptthe
pleaofA5thathewasarrestedfromNepalon8.6.96andwas
keptinillegaldetentiontill17.6.96.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 161of408
162
(15)RecoveryofStepneyfromthehouseofA8:
altogetherdeniedanysuchrecovery.
225 InhistestimonybeforethecourtPW17SISanjay
policeatJangpura,Bhogalandpointedoutahouseonthesecond
floorofthebuilding.ThehousebelongedtoA8.Theseaccused
disclosedthatthecarstepneycouldberecoveredfromthere.They
thereaftergotrecoveredthecarstepneEx.P1,whichwaslyingon
the'tand'oftheroombelongingtoA8.Thisstepneywasseized
videseizurememoEx.PW8/B.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 162of408
163
provebeyonddoubtthatstepneyEx.P1wasgotrecoveredbyA3,
contradictionsinthetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesseson
thisaspectwhichmaketherecoveryofstepneyfromtheresidence
ofA8highlydoubtful.PW17SISanjayKumarinhisexamination
inchiefitselfstatedthatatthetimeofrecoveryofthestepneyEx.
P1,onepublicwitnessPW8 AtulNathwaswiththem.Stepney
wasidentifiedbyPWAtulNathandIOpreparedtheidentification
Kumar. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,inhisexaminationin
chiefitself,hedidnotdeposeifthesethreeaccusedpersonshad
gotrecoveredthestepneyEx.P1fromthehouseofcoaccusedA
8.Hedidnotasserthispresenceatthetimeofrecoveryofhis
stepneEx.P1.Thiswitnesswasgot declaredhostilebytheld.
examination,thewitnessidentifiedthetyreEx.P1tobebelonging
tohisMaruticar.However,hedeniedthatthestepneEx.P1was
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 163of408
164
recoveredattheinstanceofA3,A5andA6fromthehouseofA
8.Hedeniedthesuggestionoftheld.AddlPPthaton17/6/1996
allthesethreeaccusedpersonshadledthepolicepartyalongwith
himtohouseNo.11,SecondFloor,Jangpura,Bhogalbelongingto
A8andthereA8tookoutthestepneylyingonthe'tand'ofthe
house.Hefurtherdeniedthesuggestionthatheidentifiedthecar
stepneybelongingtohimattheplaceofrecovery.
andA6hadgotrecoveredthestepneyEx.P1belongingtocar
ofPW8AtulNathfromthehouseofSyedMaqboolShahandthis
stepneywasidentifiedbyPW8AtulNathandrecoverymemoof
stepneEx.PW8/Bwasprepared.Inthecrossexamination,the
Nath. He disclosed that PW8 Atul Nath, owner of the car, had
comebychanceatthePSandtheyhadtakenhimtothehouseof
A8. PW8 Atul Nath signed the identification memo and the
recoverymemoofstepneyEx.PW8/CatthehouseofA8.From
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 164of408
165
thehouseofA8,theyallreturnedtoOperationCellanddidnot
gothereafteratanyotherplacefortheinvestigationofthecase.
statedthatintheirseparatedisclosurestatementsmadebythese
threeaccusedpersons,theydisclosedthatthestepneyofthecar
inwhichbombblastwascausedwaskeptatthehouseofA8and
thattheycouldgetthesamerecoveredfromthere.Inpursuance
ofthedisclosurestatementstheseaccusedledthepoliceteamto
premisesno.4/11,Secondfloor,Jangpuraandgotrecoveredthe
stepney.Theownerofthesaidcartowhichthestepneybelonged
wasalsocalledandheidentifiedthesaidstepneanditwasseized
videseizurememoEx.PW8/C.Itbearshissignatureatpoint'A'.
regardingthepresenceofPW8AtulNathattheresidenceofA8
fromwherethestepneyofthecarisstatedtohavebeenrecovered
independentpublicwitnessfromthelocalitywherethehouseofA
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 165of408
166
8wassituatedwasjoinedatthetimeofrecovery.Therewasno
purposeforthesethreeaccusedpersonstoconcealthestepney
Ex.P1attheresidenceofA8afterthecommissionoftheincident.
Thestepneywasnotofsubstantivevaluetoberetainedforsucha
longperiodafterthecommissionoftheincidentattheresidenceof
A8. Noevidencehascomeonrecordtoshowastohowand
underwhatcircumstancesstepneyEx.P1happenedtobekeptat
theresidenceofA8orthatwhohadkeptitorwhenitwaskeptor
bywhichmodeoftransport,itwaskept.Aftertheapprehensionof
theseaccusedpersonswhowereallegedlyknowntoA8,A8was
notimaginedtokeepthestepneyEx.P1athisresidencetobegot
recoveredbytheseaccusedpersons.SeizurememoEx.PW8/B
describesconditionofstepneyEx.P1asoldandusedone.Why
suchauselessobjectofinsignificantvaluewillbekeptbyA8at
hisresidenceandwhatpurposeitwastoserve.
230 TestimoniesofPW17SISanjayKumar,PW31Insp.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 166of408
167
establishthattheseaccusedpersonshadledthepoliceteamto
theresidenceofA8onthatdayi.e.,17/6/1996.PriortothatDelhi
Police was not aware about the address and residence of A8.
Policecametoknowaboutthefactumofhisresidenceathouse
nd
no. 4/11,2 floor,Bhogal, only inpursuanceof the disclosure
statementsmadebytheaccusedpersonsandwhentheyledthe
policeteamtohisresidence.Theprosecutionhas,however,failed
recoveredfromthehouseofA8inthemannerdescribedbythem.
Hencerecoveryofstepney/tyreEx.P1toconnectA8hasnot
beenprovedbeyonddoubt.
RecoveryofarticlesofAIfromtheresidenceofA8:
(16)
231 Nextcircumstancerelieduponbytheprosecutionis
regardingrecoveryofarticlesatthehouseofA8on17/6/1996.
Thereisdenialofthisallegationbytheaccused.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 167of408
168
prosecutionwitnessesonthiscircumstance,Iamoftheviewthat
prosecutionhasfailedtoprovetherecoveryofthearticlesseized
reasonabledoubt. Moreovertheprosecutionhasfailedtoshow
anynexusofthesearticleswiththecommissionoftheincident.
courtrevealedthaton17/6/1996A3,A5&A6tookthepoliceat
ThereaftersearchofthehouseofA8wastakenandonebagof
greycolourwasfoundthere.A8disclosedthatthesaidbagwas
giventohimbyoneA15 about23dayspriortotheincidentof
thiscase. Onsearchofthebag,somedocumentsandclothes
wererecoveredwhichwereseizedvideseizure memoEx.PW
17/A. Hefurthertestifiedthatfromthesamehouse,onekitbag
containingnumberofdocumentswasalsorecovered.Thewitness
houseoftheaccusedandstatedthathecouldtellthesameonly
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 168of408
169
aftergoingthroughtherecord.
gettinghimdeclaredhostile,thewitnessadmittedthesuggestion
thatfromthekitbagatelephonediarywasfoundwhichcontained
telephonenumbersofAI,A2,A11(PO),A12(PO),A7andA
9.Healsoadmittedthesuggestionoftheld.Addl PPthatone
visitingcardofA9bearingJKHandicraftHouse;onecertificate
ofsecondaryschoolexaminationoftheyear1993;areceiptofRs.
30ofJamaitAhliHadisuponwhichJavedAhmedKariwar(A15)
waswritteninUrdu;onedrivinglicenceofA6,onepassportsize
persons were also found therein. One air ticket of Royal Nepal
AirlinesinthenameofA5fromKathmandu toDelhiwasalso
recovered.AnotherticketinthenameofA5ofthesameairlines
wasalsorecovered.A8triedtodestroytheticketbutthesame
wastakenfromhishandandthepiecesoftheticketwereseized
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 169of408
170
twobagsExPY12alongwithitscontentsandtheotherbagEx.
houseofA8.
235 PW31Insp.SurinderKumaralsodeposedthatfrom
thehouseofA8someclothesbelongingtoAIandonevisiting
cardetcwererecovered.Onekitbagwasalsorecoveredwhich
containedatelephonediary,acertificateandanairticketofNepal
witnessdidnottestifyastohowthearticlesrecoveredfromthe
houseoftheaccusedwererelevant withthecommissionofthe
offence. So much so, this witness did not testify if any of the
articlesrecoveredfromthehouseoftheaccusedbelongedtoAI
orA2.Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthatthebag
wasnotsealedbecausetherewasnoincriminatingarticleinthe
licenseoranyotherpaperwasfoundinthesaidbagalthoughit
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 170of408
171
wascarryingsomeclothing. Thiswitnessadmittedpresenceof
PW8AtulNathatthetimeofrecoveryofstepneyatthehouseof
A8.Thiswitnessdidnotstateastowhohadgiventhesearticles
toA8andifsowhen.
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW17/A.Oneblackcolourbagwas
recoveredwhichcontainedclothesofaccusedAI,identitycard,
telephonediaryetc.A8washavingoneairticketfromKathmandu
toDelhiandintheirpresencehetriedtodestroythesamebutit
wassnatchedfromhimandwasseizedafterputtingthesamein
anenvelop.
237 Inthecrossexaminationthewitnessadmittedthatthe
recordedonlyafterhisarrest.Headmittedthattillthearrestand
afterthearrestofAInostatementordisclosurestatementexcept
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 171of408
172
clothesbelongingtoAI.NorelativeorfriendorAIwasjoinedto
identifytheclothes.On17/6/1996A8wasarrestedintwocases.
238 Fromthedepositionoftheabovereferredwitnesses,
nothinghasbeenestablishedastohowA8cameintopossession
ofthesearticlesandwhodeliveredthesametohimandifsowhen
prosecutiontoprove visitofAItoDelhianditspurpose.Inthe
evidencefromtheofficeofAIshowinghismovementspriortothe
dateofincident.Prosecutiondidnotexamineanywitnessfromthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 172of408
173
showastowhenAIvisitedDelhiandforwhatdurationandby
whichmodeoftransport.
SrinagarandwasbroughttoDelhi.HewasagaintakentoJ&K
forrecoveryofarmsandammunitions. Nothingwasthereinthe
disclosurestatementofAIifhehadvisitedDelhiandhadstayed
comingtoknow arrestofAIabout20dayspriortothealleged
house.
240 Noindependentpublicwitnesswasjoinedatthetime
ofallegedrecoveryofthesearticlesfromthehouseofA8.PW8
recoveryofstepneyEx.P1whichwasallegedlyidentifiedbyhim.
However,inhisdepositionasPW8,AtulNathdidnotutteraword
ifsearchofhouseofA8wasconductedinhispresenceorthat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 173of408
174
containingthenamesofcoaccusedpersonswasrecoveredfrom
the possession of A8. PW8 Atul Nath did not support the
prosecutionandwasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPandwas
crossexamined.Eveninthecrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPP,
searchofA8wasconductedorthatbagExPY12wasrecovered
containingclothesanddocumentsfromthehouseofA8.Nosuch
articleswereshowntotheindependentpublicwitnessPW8Atul
Nathinhiscrossexaminationtoidentifythesametohavebeen
recoveredatthehouseofA8.SeizurememoEx.PW17/Adoes
notbearsignatureofPW8AtulNath.Noproofwascollectedifthe
belongedtoAI.Thereisnoevidenceifthedocumentsallegedly
recoveredcontainedhandwritingofAI.
241 Moreovernoneofthesearticleshasbeenconnected
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 174of408
175
NothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifA8usedtoremainintouch
withAIpriortotheincident.EvenafterarrestofAIandA2;A8
wasnotarrestedinpursuanceofanydisclosurestatementofA1
orA2.A8didnottrytoabscondandwasfoundpresentathis
residenceonthevisitofthepolice.
242 Inviewofmyabovediscussion,Iamofthisviewthat
incriminatingpieceofevidenceagainstAIorA8.
(17)RecoveryofRs.1lacbyA4:
partyatBJ24,ShalimarBaghandfromthereobtainedRs.1lac
onthestrengthoftworupeecurrencynotefromMangalChand.
244 Contentionoftheld.counselfortheaccusedpersons
isthatnosuchrecoverywasgoteffectedby A4.MangalChand
wasnotexaminedinthiscase.Noindependentpublicwitnesswas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 175of408
176
examinedbytheprosecutionisastockwitnessandnoreliance
canbeplacedonhistestimony.
prosecutionismaterialonthisaspect.Inhisdepositionbeforethe
courtPW35RajKumarstatedonoaththaton17/6/1996,hewas
passingthroughShalimarBaghatabout2pm. Atthattimethe
policeofficials methimandjoinedhimintheinvestigation. He
reachedatBJ24,ShalimarBagh.ThereheaccompaniedwithA4
having two rupee currency note and SI Sanjay went inside the
room.A4gavethattworupeecurrencynotetoMangalChand.
MangalChandverifiedtworupeecurrencynoteandgaveRs.1
raidingparty.Theotherpolicestaffreachedinsideandrecovered
thattworupeecurrencynotefromthepocketofMangalChandand
thecurrencynotesofRs.1lacwerealsosealedwiththesealof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 176of408
177
RPG.Sealafterusewashandedovertohim.Hesignedhanding
overmemoEx.PW17/B,recoverymemooftworupeecurrency
noteEx.PW17/AandrecoverymemoofRs.1lacEx.PW17/Cat
notesinthedenominationofRs.100/producedbeforethecourt
ExPW17/C1toC10.HealsoidentifiedA4andstatedthathe
wasthesamepersonwhowasalsoknownas'Sabha'.
246 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.defence
counsel.Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthathewas
CompanyatNayaBazar,Delhi.HeusedtoresideatSonipatand
usedtocometoDelhiathisofficedaily. Hiscompanyhadno
officeinShalimarBagh. Hewasonhisscooterwhenthepolice
methimatShalimarBagh.Onthatday,hestartedfromhisoffice
inNayaBazaratabout1.15pm.ThedistancebetweenShalimar
BaghandhisNayaBazarofficewasabout78kms.Thewitness
further stated that the police met him near BJ Block, Shalimar
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 177of408
178
Bagh.Thedistancebetweenthatpointandtheplacewherehe
reachedwiththepolicewasabout100yards.OneMangalChand
hadmettheminthehouse.Thehousewasonthegroundfloor.
ThiswitnessfairlyadmittedthathewasnotissuedanyIcardby
thecompany. Noneighbourwasrequestedbythepolicetojoin
theinvestigation. HereturnedthesealaftersomedaystoInsp.
apprehendedbythepoliceduringtheproceedingsathisflat.His
suggestionthathewasconcealinghisidentityand wasnot'Raj
Kumar'.Witnessvolunteeredtoaddthathewas'RajKumar'and
wasalsocalledbythenameofRaju.Whenthiswitnesswasasked
ifhewasnothavinganyidentityproof,thewitnessproducedhis
drivinglicense,thephotocopyofwhichmarkPW35/Awaskept
onrecordasperrequestoftheld.defencecounsel.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 178of408
179
revealsthatnomaterialdiscrepanciesorcontradictionshavebeen
elicitedinthecrossexaminationaboutthepresenceofthiswitness
atthetimeofobtainingRs.1lacbyA4fromMangalChand.No
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthatA
4hadnotledthepoliceteamatthehouseofMangalChandatBJ
24,ShalimarBagh.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthe
crossexaminationthatA4hadnotproducedcurrencynoteoftwo
rupeetoMangalChandorthathehadnothandedoverRs.1lacto
A4.Rs.1lacwereconsideredsubstantialamount intheyear
1996.Thereisleastpossibilityofthepolicetoplantheavyamount
ofRs.1lacuponA4.Thereisnothinginthecrossexaminationof
thewitnessifhouseno.BJ24,ShalimarBaghwasnotinexistence
cometoknowabouttheexistenceofthehouseBJ24,Shalimar
statementoftheA4.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifpriorto
thatthepolicewasawareabouttheoccupationofthesaidhouse
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 179of408
180
currencynotesrecovered.Thewitnessidentifiedhissignatureson
circumstancesheputhissignaturesonthesecurrencynotes.The
establisheshispresenceatthetimeofitsrecovery.
248 Nomotivewasimputedtothiswitnessinthecross
ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifthiswitnesswasknowntoA
absenceofanyulteriormotive,thisindependentpublicwitnessis
person.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifthiswitnesswasa
stockwitnessofthepolice.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowif
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 180of408
181
thiswitnesshadappearedinanyothercaseofthepolice.Nothing
hasbeenshownastohowthiswitnesswasastockwitnessofthe
prosecution. Thereisnothingtoshowifthiswitnesswashaving
tendencyofdefencetodubapublicwitnessasstockwitness,ifhe
happenstosupporttheprosecution.Incaseheturnshostile,heis
consideredasatruthfulwitness.
preparedinthatregard. Thiswitnessexplainedthathedidnot
arrestMangalChandinthiscase.Hehadwrittenaboutthatto
FERA.HedidnotconductsearchofthehouseofMangalChand
hawala.HealsopursuedthematterwithFERAandFERAofficials
had come twice or thrice. The witness has thus given cogent
explanationfornotarrestingMangalChandinthiscaseasofficials
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 181of408
182
testimonyofindependentpublicwitnessPW35RajKumarcan'tbe
brushedaside.
this aspect and has testified that two rupee currency note was
handedovervidehandingovermemoEx.PW17/B.Hefurther
testifiedthatfromBhogaltheyallreachedatShalimarBaghalong
namelyRajKumarwasassociatedbytheIOintheraidingparty.
HewasinstructedbytheIOandasperhisinstructions,healong
withA4reachedatthe houseno.BJ24,ShalimarBagh. He
alongwithA4enteredthehousewhereMangalChandmetthem.
currencynoteofRs.2,MangalChandwentinsideandbroughtout
countingthenotes,hegavesignaltoothermembersoftheraiding
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 182of408
183
party who entered inside the house. Rs. 1 lac was seized vide
seizurememoEx.PW17/C.Sealafterusewashandedoverto
publicwitnessRajKumar.Hehadputhisinitialsontopandbottom
currencynotewasalsoseizedaftertakingthesamefromA4vide
memoEx.PW17/D.ThewitnessidentifiedthecurrencynoteEx.
PW17/C1toC10tobethesamewhichwereseizedfromthe
accused.
proceedingswereconductedorinitiatedagainsthimbytheIOin
hispresence.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationthatRs.1lacwerenotobtainedbyA4fromMangal
ChandatBJ24,ShalimarBagh.Thefactsassertedbythiswitness
intheexaminationinchiefregardingrecovery ofRs.1lachave
remainedunchallenged.
251 Fromthetestimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnesses
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 183of408
184
referredaboveitstandsestablishedthatA4inpursuanceofhis
currencynoteshowntohim.Thepolicewasnotawareaboutall
thesefactspriorto A4leadingthepoliceteamatthatspecific
circumstances,hewastogetRs.1lacfromMangalChand.He
alsofailedtoexplainastoforwhatpurpose,hehadcollectedthe
heavyamountfromMangalChand.MemoEx.PW17/Ccontains
signatureofMangalChandwhichshowsthatMangalChandwas
residingatthegivenaddress.ObtainingofRs.1lacbyA4from
meanttobereceivedbyA3forhisroleintheincident.
(18)Pointingoutshopfromwhereduplicatenumberplate
prepared:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 184of408
185
252 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3
alongwithA6pointedshopofM/sRajaCarNumberPlates
numberplateofDL4C1895on16.5.96.
253 ProsecutionexaminedPW101Insp.ParasNath
whodeposedthaton18.6.96A3pointedoutshopofM/s
YusufZaiMarket,ConnaughtPlace,NewDelhiownedby
AsgarAliandinformedthaton16.5.96hegotprepareda
numberplatebearingNo.DL4C1895forRs.125/which
wasaffixedontheMaruticarstolenfromNizamuddinand
whoseactualnumberofthecarwasDL2CF5854.Inthis
regardpointingoutcumidentificationmemoEx.PW31/R
wasprepared.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 185of408
186
PW101Insp.ParasNathonthisaspectanddeposedthat
ConnaughtPlacewhereattheirinstance,shopofM/sRaja
CarNumberPlatewasdiscovered.PW39Insp.HariRam
MalikdeposedthatA3,A5andA6pointedoutshopof
M/s Raja Car Number Plate from there they had got
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Rwasprepared.
witnessesreferredabove,Iamoftheconsideredviewthat
beyondreasonabledoubt.Therearecontradictionsinthe
testimoniesoftheseprosecutionwitnessesastowhichof
theaccusedhadledthepoliceteamtothe shopofM/s
RajaCarNumberPlate.Nodocumentaryproofregarding
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 186of408
187
preparationofthenumberplatesforRs.125/on16.5.96
wascollectedfromthesaidshopbythepolice. Noproof
regardingexistenceoftheshopanditsownerwascollected
bythepoliceatthetimeofpreparationofthememoEx.
PW31/R.
ConnaughtPlace,NewDelhiatthetimeofpointingoutof
thesaidplacebytheaccusedpersons.Nameofthesaid
examinationbeforethecourtbytheprosecutionduringtrial.
Adverseinferenceistobedrawnagainsttheprosecution
fornotexaminingthiswitnesstoproveifanyoftheaccused
personshadvisitedhisshopon16.5.96togetprepareany
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 187of408
188
numberplateofcarNo.DL4C1895forasumofRs.125/.
witness.NoTIPofthecasepropertyorthatoftheaccused
personsweregotconductedduringinvestigationfromthis
adjoiningshopwasjoinedatthetimeofpointingoutcum
doubt.
(19)PointingOutShopOfM/s.DeluxStoreFromWhere
AralditeTubePurchased:
prosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3andA5 ledthepolice
teamattheshopofM/sDeluxStore,shopNo.230,Bazar
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 188of408
189
purchasedaralditetubeon13.5.96.
258 ProsecutionexaminedPW101Insp.ParasNath
M/sDeluxeStore,230MatiaMhal,JamaMasjid,Delhiand
toldthaton13.5.96theyhadpurchasedonearalditetube
fromMohd.Alam,whowaspresentattheshopatthetime
prepared.SimilaristhetestimonyofPW31Insp.Surender
DeluxeStore,MeenaBazarfromwhereA3andA5had
purchasedaralditetube.
witnesses,Iamoftheviewthattheprosecutionhasfailed
toprovepurchaseofaralditetubebybothA3andA5from
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 189of408
190
theshopofPWMohd.Alam.PWMohd.Alamappearedin
thewitnessboxasPW52.Inhisexaminationinchief, he
underthenameofDeluxeStore,230MatiaMahal,Jama
Masjid,DelhiHedidnotutterawordifanyoftheaccused
tubefromhisshoponanyparticulardate.Thewitnesses
statedthat8/9yearsbacksomepersonsincivildresscame
athisshopandtheyaskedhimifsomeonehadpurchased
aralditetubefromhimandhetoldthemthat hedidnot
rememberanyspecificinstanceasseveralcustomersused
tocomeathisshoptomakepurchases. Policeprepared
somedocumentsandhesignedthesameattheirasking.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 190of408
191
witnessdenied contentsofstatementmarkedPW52/Ato
havebeenmadebyhimtothepolice.Hedeniedthaton
18.6.96A3andA5cameathisshopwithpoliceandthey
shop.
260 Nootherindependentpublicwitnesswasjoined
collectedregardingpurchaseofanyaralditetubefromshop
ofPW52Mohd.Alam. TIPoftheaccusedpersonswere
notgotconductedfromPW52.Priortotheiridentificationon
18.6.96.AralditetubesrecoveredfromtheresidenceofA3
inpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementwasnotshownto
PW52ifitwasthesamearalditetubewhichwaspurchased
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 191of408
192
fromhisshop.
aspectishighlyscantytoprovethiscircumstance.After8
9yearsofincident,itishighlyimprobableforashopkeeper
torememberbyfaceofhiscustomerwhohadpurchased
articleofordinaryuseofinsignificantvalue.
(20)PURCHASEOFWIREPOINTINGOUTSHOP:
prosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3andA5ledthepolice
yellowcolourwireforRs.4/on13.5.96.
267 ProsecutionexaminedPW101Insp.ParasNath
whodeposedthatA3andA5pointedoutM/sVakilCable
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 192of408
193
Naseemwaspresentatthecounterandboththeaccused
13.5.96theyhadpurchasedtwometeryellowcolourwire
forRs.4/fromhim.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Owas
preparedinthisregard.PW31Insp.SurenderKumaralso
statedthatonecablestoreshopM/sUniStarCableswas
pointedoutbyA3andA5atMeenaBazarMarket.
NaseemwhostatedthathewashavingshopNo.40,Uni
StarCables.Onepolicemanvisitedhisshopandinquired
fromhimbyshowingapersonwhowassittinginavehicle
astowhetherhegotawirepurchasedfromhimtowhich
herefused.ThiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebytheLd.
SpecialPPfortheStateandwascrossexamined.Inthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 193of408
194
crossexaminationthiswitnessdenied thecontentsofthe
somepapersbuthewasnotawareaboutitscontents.
269 Fromthetestimonyoftheseprosecutionwitness
again,theprosecutionhasfailedtoprovepurchaseoftwo
meteryellowwirefromtheshopofPW32Mohd.Naseem.
aboutpurchaseoftwometerwirefromtheshopofPW32
Mohd.Naseemon13.5.96byanyoftheaccusedpersons.
personsittinginthevehicleanditmadeinquiriesfromhimif
the said person had got purchased wire from him. The
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 194of408
195
accusedpersons.Thiscircumstancehasnotbeenproved
beyondreasonabledoubt.
(21)DrillMachinePointingOutFromWhereItWasTaken:
pointed out M/s Uni Star Fans Refrigerators, Shop No. K126,
Meena Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi where in the said shop, one
Mohd.Aslamwasfoundpresent.A3identifiedhimandinformed
thepolicethaton14.5.96,hehadtakenonedrillmachinetomake
holeinthecylinderfromhim(MohdAslam).PointingmemoEx.
PW31/Pwaspreparedinthisregard.Mohd.Aslamproducedone
drillmachineExP6andthesamewasseizedvideseizurememo
Ex.PW31/C.A3hasdeniedthisallegation.
271 PW101Insp.ParasNathprovedthepreparationofthe
pointing out memo Ex. PW31/P and seizure memo of the drill
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 195of408
196
machineasEx.PW31/Cinhisdepositionbeforethecourt.PW31
InspSurenderKumaralsosupportedPW101Insp.ParasNathand
statedthatfromonefanshop,onedrillmachinewasrecovered
fromtheshopownerattheinstanceoftheaccusedpersonswhich
wasseizedbytheIOvidememoEx.PW31/C.
witnesses,itrevealsthattherearematerialdiscrepanciesintheir
statementsbeforethecourt.PW31Insp.SurederKumardidnot
testifyastowhichspecificaccusedhadledthepolicepartyatthe
shopofPW33Mahd.Aslam.PW33Mohd.Aslaminhisdeposition
beforethecourtdidnotsupporttheprosecutiononthisaspectand
categoricallystatedthatA3hadnevermadeanypurchasefrom
him.PolicehadvisitedhimonceandhadinquiredaboutA3who
usedtoworkinhisneighborhood.Thiswitnesswasgotdeclared
hostilebytheLd.Spl.PPfortheState.Inthecrossexamination,
thiswitnessdeniedthatA3wasbroughtathisshopon18.6.96.
Thewitnessfurtherstatedthatheneverhadanydrillmachine.A
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 196of408
197
3hadnottakenanydrillmachinefromhimtoreturnitlateron.He
deniedthatdrillmachineEx.P6wasseizedbythepolicefromhis
shop vidememoEx.PW31/C.Witness,however,admittedthat
thismemocontainedhissignaturesthoughheaddedthathewas
not aware of the contents of the memo and the police had
obtainedhissignaturesonblankpapers.
possessionofPW33Mohd.AslamattheinstanceofA3hasnot
beenprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.SinceA3wasresidingin
theneighborhoodofPW33Mohd.Aslam,his acquaintancewith
himwasquitenatural.Inthecrossexamination,nospecificdate
wasmentionedastowhenA3hadtakenthedrillmachineEx.P6
fromPW33Mohd.Aslam. Moreover,prosecutionfailedtoshow
thatdrillmachineEx.P6waseverusedbyA3formakinganyhole
inthecylinder.Thereisnoevidenceonrecordtothiseffect.Mere
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 197of408
198
commissionofoffence.
signaturesofPW33Mohd.Aslam.Thesememoswereprepared
on18.6.96.ThesememosalsobearthesignaturesofA3.PW33
Mohd. Aslam did not lodge any complaint against the police
officialswerehavingnoknowledgeaboutthepresenceofPW33
Mohd.AslamrunningtheshopinthenameandstyleofM/sUni
StarFansRefrigeratorsatMeenaBazar,JamaMasjid,Delhi.The
policeofficialswerenotexpectedsuddenlytovisithisshopwithout
anyspecificpurposeandtogethissignaturesonblankpapers.
PW33Mohd.Aslamwasalsonotexpectedtoputhissignatures
blindlyontheblankpapersjustattheaskingofthepoliceofficials
Aslam,itseemsthathehasoptednottosupporttheprosecution
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 198of408
199
regardinguseofdrillmachineEx.P6 belongingtohimbyA3.
Thefact,however,remainsthatA3hadledthepolicepartyatthe
shopofPW33Mohd.Aslamon18.6.96andpolicewasnotaware
abouttheexistenceofthisshoppriortothat.
275 PW11Nafizexaminedbytheprosecutionalsodidnot
supportifA3wasseenbyhimmakingholeinagascylinderof5
Kg.,on14.5.96,orthathehadmadeinquiriesfromA3aboutthe
purposeofdrillinginthecylinder.
276 Thiswitness,however,admittedincrossexamination
ofLd.Addl.PPfortheStatethatafter1012days,afterhisarrest,
A3wasbroughtbythepolicenearhisshop.
PointingOutOfThePlaceNearHouseNo.134,GaliNo.
(22)
21JakirNagar,Delhi:
277 Furthercaseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.96A3,
A5andA6hadledthepolicepartyinfrontofhouse No.134,
GaliNo.21,JakirNagar,DelhiwheretheyhadparkedcarNo.DL
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 199of408
200
2C5854bearingfakeNo.DL2C1895formanydaysbeforebomb
blast.PointingoutmemoEx.PW33/ShasbeenprovedbyPW31
Insp.SurenderKumar,PW39Insp.HariRamandPW101Insp.
ParasNath.Thereisdenialbytheaccusedpersons.
personsasthisopenplaceaccessibletopublicwasalsoknown
tothepolicepriorto18.6.96.Moreover,noindependentpublic
witnesswasjoinedatthetimeofpreparationofthepointingout
memoEx.PW33/S.Theplaceisstatedtobeneartheresidence
oftenantMirzaMaqboolHussain.However,hewasnotjoined
cylinderbombwasplantedforcausing bombblastatCentral
Market,LajpatNagar,NewDelhihadremainedparkedinfront
ofhouseNo.134,GaliNo.21,JakirNagar,Delhiandifsofor
howmanydays.ThereisnomentioninthememoEx.PW33/S
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 200of408
201
astowhohadparkedthesaidmaruticaratthatplaceandon
whatparticulardate.Nocomplaintwasreceivedbythepolice
at any time that the said maruti car with fake number was
allegedlyparkedfornumberofdaysatthatplace.
(23)PointingoutDulhanDupattashopbyA3,A5andA6:
279 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18/6/2008A3,A5
andA6ledthepolicepartytotheshopofSumitKumarat2D
35,LajpatNagarwhereon19/5/1996ataround6pmtheyhad
parkedthestolenMaruti800car,thegenuinenumberofwhichis
DL2CF5854 andafakenumberplatefixedonthesaidcarwas
DL4AC1895.Theld.defencecounselhascontrovertedthisplea
oftheprosecution.
280 PW31Insp.SurinderKumarinhisstatementbefore
thecourtdeposedthaton18/6/1996,A3,A5andA6hadtaken
thepolicepartyatLajpatNagarwheretheyidentifiedtheshopof
'DulhanRangrej'wheretheyhadparkedthecarloadedwithRDX
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 201of408
202
i.e.,cylinderbombin1996butitcouldnotexplodeduetoweak
battery.Thesaidcarwasparkedbythematabout6.15pminthe
area.Whentheblastdidnottakeplacetheyagainremovedthe
carandtookittoZakirNagar.Thestatementofshopownerof
DulhanDupattawasrecorded.Inthecrossexamination,nothing
wassuggestedtothiswitnessifalltheseaccusedpersonshadnot
takenthepoliceteamattheshopofPW61SumitKumarorthathe
had not met them at that time. No suggestion was put to this
witnessinthecrossexaminationthattheseaccusedpersonshad
DulhanDupatta.Thetestimonyofthiswitnessonthisaspecthas
entirelyremainedunchallenged.
prosecutiononthisaspectanddeposedthaton18/6/1996these
opposite shop no. DII/35 Central Market Lajpat Nagar and the
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Rwasprepared.Againthiswitness
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 202of408
203
wasnotcrossexaminedonthisaspect.Thewitnessadmittedthat
thelocalpolicewasnotjoinedintheinvestigationandnositeplan
theseaccusedpersonshadnottakenthepoliceteamtotheplace
inquestionandnopointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Rwasprepared.
SumitKumarowneroftheshop'DulhanDupatta'.Inhisdeposition
beforethecourtPW61SumitKumar,statedthathewasrunninga
shopinCentralMarket,LajpatNagarwiththenameandstyleof
'DulhanDupatta'situatedinthepremisesofDII/35LajpatNagar.
Oneday,onSaturdayandatabout2/2.30pmhewaspresentat
hisshop.Atthattime34personsparkedaMaruti800ofwhite
Ultimately,theyremovedthecarfromthereandagaintheyparked
thesaidvehiclefourshopsawayonrightsideinfrontofaDoctor's
shop.Sofarheremembered,theregistrationnumberofthesaid
carwas1895.TwodayslateronTuesday,hecametoknowthata
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 203of408
204
bombblasthadtakenplaceatLajpatNagarinamaruticar.After
aboutamonthlater, policevisitedhisshopwhenhewasaway
and his younger brother Sanjiv was available at his shop. His
brothertoldhimthat34policeofficialshadcomeathisshopalong
with34otherpersons.Hedidnotknowanythingelseaboutthat
case.
283 Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebytheld.Addl
PPandwascrossexamined.Inthecrossexamination,thewitness
admittedthatthepolicehadpreparedthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/Randthesamecontainedhissignaturesatpoint'C'.The
witnessvolunteeredtoaddthatthesamewasnotpreparedinhis
presenceasitwasalreadypreparedbythepoliceandhedidnot
gothroughitminutely. Inhissubsequentcrossexaminationthe
namedthreeaccusedpersonson18/6/1996whentheypointedout
theplaceinfrontofhisshopandhe(PW61Sumit)toldthepolice
that they were the same persons who had parked the above
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 204of408
205
mentionedMaruti800infrontofhisshopon19/5/1996andwhen
heraisedobjection,thesaidpersonshadquarreledwithhim.The
19/5/1996whenheclosedhisshopatabout8.30pmtheabove
mentionedcarwasseenparkednearhisshopandnootherperson
waspresentnearthesaidcar. Thewitnessfurtheradmittedthat
whenon20/5/1996heopenedhisshop,theabovementionedcar
wasnotparkedthere.Thewitnessclarifiedthatinitiallyhecould
testifying before the court but the same had taken place on
accountofconfusion. Thewitnessfurtherclaimedthathecould
identifythesaidthreeaccusedpersonsifshowntohim.Thereafter
thewitnesswaspermittedtolookattheaccusedpersonspresent
witnessfurtheridentifiedA5withsomedegreeofdoubtfulinthe
same.Thewitnesshowevercouldnotidentifythethirdaccusedat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 205of408
206
all.
284 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbythelddefence
counselfortheaccusedpersons.Hedeniedthesuggestionthat
theIOofthecaseInsp.ParasNathhadpointedouttowardsthe
memoEx.PW31/RinthePS.HehadgonetothePSonthesaid
seenbyhimforthefirsttimeatPSLodiColony.Nositeplanwas
drawnattheplacewheretheaccusedhadparkedthecarfirstin
hispresence.
witness,itstandsestablishedthatmaterialfactsassertedbythis
witnessinhisexaminationhaveremaineduncontrovertedinthe
crossexamination. Noenmitywasattributedtothiswitnessfor
falselyidentifyingA3withcertaintyandidentifyingA5withsome
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 206of408
207
crossexaminationthatalltheseaccusedpersonshadnotparked
identifiedA3tobeoneoftheaccusedpersonswhohadparked
Maruti 800 in front of his shop and a quarrel had taken place
betweenthemforparkingthevehiclethere.Simplybecausethis
witnessdidnotsupporttheprosecutioninitiallyinhisexamination
inchiefhisstatementasawholecan'tberejected.Thiswitness
explainedthatduetoconfusionhecouldnotclarifyallthesefacts
wherebymaruti800wasparkedbythreeaccusedpersonsinfront
of the shop and one of them was A3. The very fact that this
witnessevenduringcrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPdidnot
identifythethirdaccusedshowsthathewaspresentingtruefacts
beforethecourt.Hadthiswitnessnurturinganygrievanceagainst
theaccusedpersonshemusthaveidentifiedthethirdaccusedas
well.ThiswitnessadmitshissignaturesonEx.PW31/Rprepared
on18/6/1996whichlendscredencetothestatementmadebyhim
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 207of408
208
beforethecourt.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowastowhen
allthesethreeaccusedpersonswereshowntothiswitnessinthe
PS.Againtheaccusedpersons didnotclaimthemselves to be
presentatsomeotherplaceon18/6/1996.Accusedpersonsfailed
toexplainthepurposeofparkingmaruti800infrontoftheshopof
thewitnesson19/5/1996.Theyalsofailedtoexplainastohow
andunderwhatcircumstancestheyhadgotpossessionofthesaid
corroboratestheversionoftheprosecutionthaton19/5/1996,the
Maruti800usedinthebombblastwasparkedearlierinfrontofthe
shopofthiswitnessanditwasremovedsubsequentlyfromthere
as the blast could not take place due to weak battery. The
testimonyofthiswitnessestablisheswithoutdoubtthepresenceof
A3atthespot infrontoftheshopofthewitnessof19/5/1996.
SincethiswitnesshasidentifiedA5withsomedegreeofdoubt,
thetestimonyofotherprosecutionwitnessismaterialtofillthegap
andtoestablishtheidentityoftheothertwoaccusedpersonswith
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 208of408
209
showingtheirparticipationinthecommissionoftheoffence.The
witnessfurtheradmittedinthecrossexaminationthatallthethree
accusedpersonsalsosignedmemoEx.PW31/Rinhispresence.
31/R.Itfurthershowstheirpresenceatthespot.
InstanceofA3,A5&A6Pointingouttheplace:
placenearthedesertsofLalMehalwheretheyhadchangedthe
number plates. The front number plate Ex. P4 was seized vide
pointingoutcumseizurememoEx.PW31/D.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 209of408
210
courttestifiedthaton18.6.1996,alltheseaccusedpersonspointed
outtheplaceinthenorthdirectionofGalibRoadandpointedout
theplacenearLalMehalKhandarandfromtheirgotrecovered
front originalnumberplatebearingregistrationnumberDL2CF
5854.PointingoutcumrecoverymemoofthesameEx.PW31/D
wasprepared.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthatthereafteraccused
personspointedouttheplaceunderLodhiFlyOverandfromtheir
gotrecoveredrearoriginalnumberplateofmaruticarwhichwas
aspect.Accusedpersonshavedeniedrecoveryofthesenumber
platesattheirinstance.
witnessesonthisaspect,Iamoftheviewthattheprosecutionhas
failedtoprovethisfactbeyondreasonabledoubt. Theincident
wherebytheoriginalnumberplateswerechangedandreplaced
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 210of408
211
withduplicatenumberplatestookplaceontheinterveningnightof
17/1851996.Therecoveriesareallegedtohavebeen effected
PW31/Eastoatwhichtimeandfromwhichparticularplace,these
recoveriesweregoteffectedbytheaccusedpersons.Thereisno
specificmentionastowhichoftheseaccusedhadgotrecovered
allegedlyrecoveredfromanopenspacewhichwasaccessibleto
thepublic.Thereisnothingonthefileifthesenumberplateswere
lyingconcealedataparticularplaceandwerewithinthespecial
knowledgeoftheseaccusedpersons.
289 Besidesthis,prosecutiondidnotestablishonrecord
thatthesenumberplatesEx.P4andP5weretheoriginalnumber
number plates were got conducted from PW8 Atul Nath. Even
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 211of408
212
duringhisexaminationbeforethecourt,boththesenumberplates
Ex.P4andEx.P5werenotshowntohimtoproveifthesewere
thenumberplateswhichwerethereonthevehicleinquestionprior
numberplatesEx.P4andEx.P5allegedlygotrecoveredbythe
accusedpersonswerepartandparcelofthevehicleatthetimeof
itstheft.
front number plate and rear number plate of the car were got
recoveredbytheaccusedpersons.Hedidnotgivedetailsastoin
pursuanceofdisclosurestatementofwhichaccusedthenumber
platesweregotrecovered.Thesenumberplateswererecovered
inintactconditionafteraboutonemonthoftheincidentfroman
openplace.Inmyviewthis,thisallegedrecoveriesarenotan
commissionoftheoffence.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 212of408
213
(26)RecoveryOfKeyAtTheInstanceOfA3,A5&A6:
291 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.1996allthese
NizamuddinITI,ArabKiSaraiandfromtheregotrecoveredone
keywhichtheyhadgotpreparedatJamaMasjid,ChawariBazar
andthesaidkeywasseizedvidememoEx.PW31/F.
personspointedoutbushes,behindbusstandNizamiddin,ArabKi
Sarai and from there they got recovered duplicate key and the
samewasseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW31/Faftersealingthe
samewiththesealofPP.ProsecutionhasalsoexaminedPW31
duplicatekeywasgotrecoveredbythem.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 213of408
214
recoveredbytheaccusedpersonsinpursuanceoftheirdisclosure
statementsorthatitwasthekeywhichwasusedatthetimeof
commissionoftheftofMarutiCarbelongingtoPW8AtulNath.No
recoveryoftheduplicatekeyEx.P7.Again,thiskeyEx.P7was
publicatlarge.RecoveryoftheduplicatekeyEx.P7afterabout
onemonthoftheincidentalsocreatesdoubtabouttheversionof
thepolice.
gotpreparedfromPW64Mohd.RizwanatJamaMasjid. PW64
regardingpreparationoftheduplicatekey. ThekeyEx.P7was
notshowntoPW64Mohd.Rizwantoprovethatitwasthesame
keywhichwasgotpreparedbytheaccusedpersonsfromhim.
295 SomereallegedrecoveryofduplicatekeyEx.P7from
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 214of408
215
anopenpublicplaceafterexpiryofonemonthfromthedateof
incidentintheabsenceofcorroborationbyanyindependentpublic
witness and without its identification from the key maker and
withoutconnectingitwiththevehicleinquestion,inmyviewthis
circumstanceisnotenoughtoconnecttheaccusedpersonswith
thecommissionoftheincident.
(26)PointingOfPlaceOfIncident:
296 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton18.6.96A5andA6
pointedouttheplaceof occurance,i.e.Parkingplaceinfrontof
park,PushpaMarket,LajpatNagar,NewDelhianddisclosedthat
on21.5.96atabout6/6.15PM,theybothhadparkedthestolen
maruticartherewithfakenumberplatebearingno.DL4C1895
afterfittingthecylinderbombthereinandafter15/20minutes,the
blasthadtakenplace.
297 PW31Insp.SurenderKumar,PW39Insp.HariRam
andPW101Insp.ParasNathhaveprovedthepointingoutmemo
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 215of408
216
Ex.PW31/Tonthisaspect.Accusedpersonshavedeniedtohave
ledthepoliceteamtotheplaceofincident.
298 PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Tdoesnotcontainthe
pointingofplaceofincidentbyA5andA6isnotanincriminating
PW33/Tisthusnotapieceofincriminatingcircumstanceagainst
theaccusedpersons.
purchasedA5ANDA6:
thepoliceteamtotheshopofPW60RajeshKumar,ownerof
GaneshElectronicsandidentifiedtheshopfromwheretheyhad
purchased9voltbatteryusedintheblast.Theaccusedpersons
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 216of408
217
havedeniedthisallegation.
300 PW31Insp.SurinderKumarinhisstatementbefore
Jangpura,BhogalwheretheypointedoutM/s.GaneshElectronics
fromwheretheyhadpurchased9voltbatteryusedintheblast.
Owneroftheshopidentifiedtheaccusedpersonsasthepersons
whohadcomealongwithJavedKariwar(A15)(sinceP.O)and
Mulla(A13)(sincedead)tobuythebattery.
the ld. defence counsel for the accused persons. In the cross
Kumar,ownerofGaneshElectronicswasrecordedbytheIO.No
suggestionwasputtothiswitness thaton19/6/1996boththese
accusedhadnotpointedouttheshopofM/sGaneshElectronics
orthattheaccusedpersonshadnotpurchasedanysuch9volt
battery.
302 TestimonyofPW60RajeshKumarisverymaterialon
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 217of408
218
thisaspect.Inhisstatementbeforethecourtonoath,he stated
that he was running electrical shop with the name and style
'GaneshElectronics'situatedatshopno.21,Jangpura,NewDelhi
forthelast10years.
batterymake'Entiser'forRs.95/.Thewitnessfurtherstatedthat
on19/6/1996twoaccusedpersonsalongwithpolicecameathis
shopandoneofthesaidpersonsidentifiedhisshopandtoldthat
hehadpurchasedtheabovementionedbatteryfromhisshop.He
however,onewashavingamarkof'massa'onhisface.
304 Afterhavingalookattheaccusedpersonspresentin
towardsA5 andstatedthathemightbeoneofthetwopersons
whohadbeenbroughttohisshopbypoliceandwhohadtoldthe
police that he had purchased the battery from his shop. This
witnessdidnotidentifytheotheraccusedpersonwhohadcome
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 218of408
219
alongwithA5.
305 Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebytheld.Addl
witnessdeniedthaton19/6/19996A5andA6whosenameshe
cametoknowoninquiryhadledthepoliceteamtohisshopand
hadpointedouthisshopandA5andA6identifiedhimtobe
21/5/1996alongwiththeirassociatesaccusedJavedKariwar(A
15)(PO)andRiaz@Mulla(A13)(sincedeceased).Thewitness
volunteeredtoaddthatthetwoaccusedpersonshadbeenbrought
nearhisshopinamarutivanandtheaccusedpersonskeptsitting
inthevaninmuffledfaces.Fromhisshophewascalledandmade
to sit in the van and thereafter the faces of the two accused
personswereunmuffledandhewasaskedwhetherthesaidtwo
accusedpersonshadpurchasedthesaidbatteryfromhisshop.He
replied that when they were saying that they had purchased
batteryfromhisshop,theymightbecorrectbutitwasnotpossible
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 219of408
220
forhimtorememberbyfaceeachandeverycustomer. Witness
furtherstatedthathe,however,toldthepolicethatoneofthose
mighthadpurchasedthebatteryfromhim.
306 Inthefurthercrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPthe
witnessadmittedthathehadtoldthepolicethatbatterypurchased
fromhisshopwasusedinthebombblastatLajpatNagar,Central
accusedpersonspointedouthisshopandidentifiedhim, police
preparedmemoEx.PW31/Landhesignedthesameatpoint'B'.
persons.Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.defencecounselfor
pickedupfromhisshop,thevanwasdriventoCentralRoadto
MasjidRoadfromwhere,amanfromVijayElectronicswaspicked
upandinthesamevanhewastakentothePSsituatedinLodi
Roadarea.Hewaskeptthereforabout1or1hour.Hehadno
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 220of408
221
witnessstatedthathewastoldbythepoliceonlyinthePSLodi
Roadthatbatterypurchasedfromhimwasusedinbombblastat
Lajpat Nagar after getting the same soldered from the shop of
VijayElectronics.
materialdiscrepancieshavebeenelicitedinthecrossexamination
publicwitnessdidnotrunhisshopunderthenameandstyleof
purchased9voltbatteryfromhimforasumofRs.95/Noenmity
hasbeenimputedtothiswitnessforfalselyclaimingsaleof9volt
batteryfromhimforRs.95/.Againthiswitnessiscategoricalthat
on19/6/1996policehadbroughttwopersonsathisshopandone
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 221of408
222
of them had identified his shop from where 9 volt battery was
purchased.ThiswitnesspointedouttowardsA5tobeoneofthe
saidaccusedpersonsanddidnotidentifytheotheraccusedwho
voluntarilystatedthatthetwopersonswerebroughtinthemaruti
vanathisshopandthesaidpersonswereinmuffledfaces.When
thesaidtwopersonswereunmuffled,hewasaskedwhetherthey
hadpurchasedthebatteryfromhisshopandherepliedthatwhen
thesaidpersonsweresayingthattheyhadpurchasedthebattery
fromhisshop,theymightbecorrect.Hefurtheradmittedthat
outofthosetwopersons,A5mighthadpurchasedthebattery
fromhim.Thiswitnesshadsomedoubtabouttheexactidentity
witnessclearedthedoubtandassertedthathehadtoldthepolice
thattheabovenamedtwoaccusedpersonspointedouthisshop
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 222of408
223
andidentifiedhim. ThepolicepreparedthememoEx.PW31/L
andhehadsignedthesameatpoint'B'andtheabovenamedtwo
accusedpersonshadalsosignedthesaidmemo.Nosuggestion
hasbeenputinthecrossexaminationthatmemoEx.PW31/L
wasnotpreparedathisshoporthattheaccusedpersonsdidnot
signthesame.Accusedpersonshavefailedtostateastohowand
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/L.Thesesignaturesofboththese
accusedpersonsonthepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Linthe
presenceofPW60RajeshKumarcategoricallyestablishesthat
bothofthemhadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW60Rajesh
Kumar and had pointed out the shop from where they had
purchased9voltbattery.Againthisfactwasnotintheknowledge
ofthepolicepriortotheaccusedpersonstakingthepolicepartyto
theshopofPW60RajeshKumarinpursuanceoftheirdisclosure
statements. Noexplanationwasofferedbytheaccusedpersons
asto whyandforwhatpurposetheyhadpurchasedthe9volt
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 223of408
224
Caseoftheprosecutionisthatthisbatterywasusedinthebomb
circumstanceagainstA5andA6.
investigationofthiscasewasassignedtohim. Healongwith
accusedA3,A4,A5andA6joinedtheinvestigation.A5and
CentralRoad,Jangpura,BhogalandthepointingoutmemoEx.
statementofthewitnesswasnotchallengedexceptputtingmere
suggestiondenyingthefact.Nothingwassuggestedtothiswitness
thatonthatdayPW60RajeshKumarhadnotmetandhehadnot
identifiedA5.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 224of408
225
(28)CircumstancesofgettingsolderingofthebatteryA5&
A6:
circumstancetopointanaccusingfingeragainstA5andA6that
theyhadgottwowiresfixedontheterminalsof9voltbatteryfrom
theshopofVijayKumar.Thereiscompletedenialofthisfactby
theaccusedpersons.
310 PW31Insp.SurinderKumarinhisstatementbefore
thecourthasstatedthaton19/6/1996afterpointingtheshopof
M/sGaneshElectronicsbothA5andA6tookthepolicepartyto
VijayElectronicsfromwheretheyhadgotthewiresfixedonthe
batteryusedintheblast.Statementoftheowneroftheshopwas
recorded.
311 Inthecrossexaminationthisstatementofthewitness
recordedthestatementofVijayKapoorownerofVijayElectronics.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 225of408
226
Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessthaton19/6/1996boththe
accuseddidnotleadthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW38Vijay
Kapoororthattheaccusedpersonshadnotpointedouthisshop
fromwheretheyhadgotthewiresfixedonthe9voltbattery.
312 MaterialtestimonyonthisaspectisthatofPW38Vijay
statedthathewasrunninganelectronicshopat39,MasjidRoad,
premises.InMay,1996twopersonscameathisshopwith9volts
solderingwhichhegotdonebyhisemployeeandtookRs.5/on
thejob.Thosetwopersonswerepresentbeforethecourt. The
witnesspointedouttowardsA5asbeingoneofthem.Thewitness
alsopointedouttowardsA6andstatedthathewasthesecond
personbuthewasnotsureaboutit.Thesetwoaccusedpersons
left his shop after getting soldering job complete. PW38 further
testifiedthatafteramonththereafter,boththeseaccusedpersons
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 226of408
227
cameathisshopleadingthepoliceteam.Theypointedoutthe
shopandpointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Nwaspreparedwhich
containedhissignatureatpointB.
313 Thiswitnesswastestedinthecrossexamination. In
statementtothepoliceofthiscaseandhissignatureswerealso
obtained onwrittenpaperatLodiRoadoffice.Hefairlyadmitted
thathewasnotcalledbythepoliceanytimeinthePStoidentify
thetwoboys.Hedeniedthesuggestionthattheaccusednamed
byhimhadnotledthepolicepartytohisshopanyday.
314 Overalltestimonyofthiswitnessrevealsthatmaterial
independentpublicwitnesshavingnoulteriormotiveandenmity
againsttheaccusedpersonswasnotrunninghisshopunderthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 227of408
228
May1996boththeseaccusedpersonsA5andA6hadcomeat
theshopat39,Jangpura,Bhogalandtheywantedhimtofixtwo
categoricallyidentifiedA5asoneofthesaidtwopersons.This
witnessalsoidentifiedA6thoughhestatedthathewasnotsure
boththeseaccusedpersonshadcomeathisshopwiththepolice
in custody and they had pointed out his shop and pointing out
memoEx.PW31/Nwasprepared.Nosuggestionwasputtothis
witnessinthecrossexaminationthatboththeseaccusedpersons
had not got two wires fixed on the terminals of 9 volt battery.
Nothingwassuggestedtothiswitnessinthecrossexamination
thatinMay1996boththeseaccusedpersonswerenotpresentin
impossibleforthemtovisithisshopforgettinganywiresfixedon
theterminalsof9voltbattery.Nothingwasimputedtothiswitness
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 228of408
229
falselyidentifythembeforethecourt.Againnoexplanationwas
offeredbytheaccusedpersonsastoforwhatpurposetheyhad
gotthetwowiresfixedontheterminalsof9voltbattery. PW60
RajeshKumarhasalreadyprovedpurchaseof9voltbatteryand
establishestheidentityofboththeaccusedpersonsbeyonddoubt.
PW60RajeshKumarinhisdepositionbeforethecourthasstated
thatfromhisshoptheaccusedpersonswiththepolicehadgone
totheshopofPWVijayKapoor.Thereisnothingtodisbelievethe
positivetestimonyofthisindependentwitness. Againthepolice
was not aware about this fact of getting the wires fixed on the
statementledthepoliceteamtohisshop.
prosecutiononthisaspectanddeposedthaton19/6/1996 A5
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 229of408
230
prepared.Inthecrossexamination,nothingmaterialwaselicited
todiscardthestatementofthiswitness.Nothingwassuggestedto
thiswitnessthatPW38VijayKapoorhadnotmetatthetimethe
accusedpersonshadledthepoliceteamtohisshoporthatPW38
that they had not got the wires fixed on the terminals of 9 volt
batteryattheshopofPWVijayKapoor.Meresuggestionwasput
statementsweremadebytheaccusedpersonsorthattheydidnot
boththeseaccusedpersonswerewhenPW38VijayKapoorhad
assertedthatboththeaccusedpersonsinMay,1996gotthewires
fixedontheterminalsof9voltbattery. Accusedpersonsdidnot
denytheir signaturesonthepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/N.It
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 230of408
231
wasnotrevealedastowhen,howandinwhatcircumstancesthey
puttheirsignaturesonthepointingoutmemo.
boththeseaccusedpersonsinMay,1996gotthewiresfixedon
theterminals of9voltbatteryandtheypointedouttheshopof
PW38VijayKapooron19/6/1996wheretheywereidentifiedby
PW38VijayKapoor.
(29) Pointing out shop from where Jayco Wall Clock was
purchasedA5andA6:
ChandiniChowkanddisclosedthatfromthesaidshop,theyhad
purchasedoneJaycowallclockon14/5/1996.Accusedpersons
havedeniedthisallegationoftheprosecution.
318 PW31Insp.SurinderKumarinhisstatementbefore
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 231of408
232
ChandiniChowkfromwheretheyhadboughtaJaycoalarmpiece
Salesmanalsoproducedbillbookcontainingtherelevantcopyof
thebillofsellingoftimeclock.TherecoverymemoofbillbookEx.
PW31/Gwasprepared.Thepointingoutandidentificationmemo
Ex.PW31/Hwerealsoprepared.
theseaspects.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationifbothA5andA6hadnotledthepoliceattheshop
ofPW50YogeshKumarGuptaorthattheyhadnotpurchased
anyJaycoWallClockfromthere.Againnosuggestionwasputto
GuptahadnotmetthemthereandhadnotidentifiedbothA5and
A6tobethesamepersonswhohadpurchasedJaycowallclock
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 232of408
233
fromhim.
320 PW39Insp.HariRamMalikhasalsocorroboratedthe
versiongivenbyPW31andtestifiedthatA5andA6pointedout
theshopImperialGramaphoneCo(India)regd.,shopno.1388
nearCentralBankvidepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Handone
YogeshKumarGupta,proprietorofthesaidshopproducedcarbon
copyofbillbookEx.G1whichwasseizedvideseizurememoEx.
PW31/G. Nomaterialcrossexaminationofthiswitnessonthis
aspectwasdonebytheld.defencecounsel.Meresuggestionwas
puttothewitnessthatthe accuseddidnotpointoutanysuch
identifiedbyPW50YogeshKumarGupta.
YogeshKumarGupta,ownerofM/s.ImperialGramaphone,shop
no.1388,ChandiniChowk. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,he
statedthaton14/5/1996twoboyshadtakenJaycowallclockof
roundshapefromhissalesmanPramod.After20/22daysi.e.,on
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 233of408
234
19/6/1996twopolicemenwithtwopersonscameathisshopand
talkedwithPramodwhotoldthepolicethatthesaidtwopersons
hadtakenwallclockfromhim.Thebillbookbelongedtohisshop.
FromthatbillbookinthatcarboncopyofthebillExPW48/Awas
issuedbyhissalesmanPramod.BillbookEx.G1wasseizedvide
signaturesatpoint'B'.Regardingidentificationofthetwopersons
presentalongwiththepolice,thewitnessstatedthathecouldnot
identifythemasitwasamatterofmanyyears.Heonlyknewthat
the said two persons were Kashmiri looking, well built and well
dressedboys.
322 Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPP
andwascrossexamined. Inthecrossexaminationthewitness
admittedthatEx.PW31/Hwassignedbyhimonlyafteritwas
appearedinthesaidmemoandhehadsignedthatmemoafter
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 234of408
235
readingthesame.Thewitnessexpressedhisinabilitytoadmitor
denyifA5andA6werethesameboyswhohadledthepolice
teamtohisshopon19/6/1996.
persons thewitnessstatedthathisstatementwasrecordedby
thepoliceonthedaywhentheycametohisshopon19/6/1996.
witnessfurtheradmittedthatthepolicehadpreparedEx.PW31/H
andgothissignaturesonit.On19/6/1996thepolicehadrecorded
hisstatementandstatementofhissalesman.Thewitnessdenied
14/5/1996byanyoftheaccused.
establishesthefactthatfromhisshop, twoboyshadpurchased
Jaycowallclockon14/5/1996forwhichreceiptEx.PW48/Awas
issued from the bill book Ex. G1. This independent public
witnesshasnoaxetogrindtofalselypleadsellingofJaycowall
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 235of408
236
depositionagainsttheaccusedinthisregard.Thereisnothingto
disbelievethepositivetestimonyofthiswitnessregardingsaleof
welldressed.Hadthiswitnessbeenhavinganygrievanceagainst
identifiedthosetwopersonscategoricallybeforethecourtinhis
deposition.
19/6/1996thepolicehadbroughttwopersonsathisshopandthey
had told about the purchase of wall clock from his shop. This
witnessalsoprovedhissignaturesontherecoverymemoExPW
31/G.HehasadmittedhissignaturesonthepointingoutmemoEx
PW31/H.Thiswitnessfurtheradmittedthatthenamesofthose
twoboyswhohadcomeathisshopon19/6/1996werementioned
inthememoandhehadsignedthatmemoafterreadingthesame.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 236of408
237
ThiswitnessexpressedhisinabilitytoadmitordenywhetherA5
andA6werethesamepersonswholeadthepoliceteamtohis
mentioned therein had led the police team to the said shop in
Thefactumaboutthepurchaseofthewallclockfromtheshopas
evidencewherebyreceiptEx.PW48/A,wasseizedfrombillbook
Ex. G1.Thisfactwasnotintheknowledgeoftheprosecution
priortothereachingattheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.
Boththeseaccusedpersonshavefailedtoexplainthepurposeof
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthat
shop.Identityoftheaccusedpersonshasbeenestablishedfrom
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 237of408
238
othercircumstancesprovedbytheprosecution.
Pramod.Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,PW48PramodKumar
statedthaton14/5/1996whileundertheemploymentatImperial
GramaphoneCompany,ChandiniChowk,hehadsoldoneJayco
alarmclockforRs.182/toacustomeragedabout1920years.
beforethecourt.Areceiptwasissuedforthesamebyhim,the
carboncopyofwhichisEx.PW48/A.Thewitnessfurthertestified
thaton19/6/1996policehadcomeathisshopwhichwasledby
thecustomerwhohadpurchasedthatwallclock.Hisshopwas
purchasedthewallclock.He(PW48)producedthereceiptbook
Ex.G1attheaskingofhisemployertothepolicecontainingthe
carboncopyofthesalereceiptEx.PW48/Awhichwasseizedby
thepolicevideseizurememoEx.PW31/G.
327 Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebytheld.Addl
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 238of408
239
PPandwascrossexamined.Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.
AddlPPthewitnessadmittedthattwopersonshadledthepolice
teamtohisshopon19/6/1996.Hefurtheradmittedthatthenames
ofthesaidtwopersonsweredisclosedtohimbythepoliceasA5
andA6.
accusedpersons,thewitnessadmittedthatatthetimeofissuing
receiptfromthereceiptbookExG1,theouterreceiptwouldbe
issuedfirstandtheinnerreceiptthereafter.Healsoadmittedthat
receiptbookEx.G1didnotindicateanywherethatitpertainedto
theirshop.
329 FromtheabovetestimonyofPW48Pramod,itstands
establishedthatwallclock makeJaycowaspurchasedfromhis
shopon14/5/1996.Itfurtherstandsestablishedthaton19/6/1996
ledthepoliceteamtotheshopofthewitnessandhadpointedout
thatitwasthesameshopfromwheretheyhadpurchasedthewall
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 239of408
240
clock. Thestatementofthewitnesswascorroboratedfromthe
issued out of the receipt book Ex. G1 which was seized vide
substantiatestheversionoftheprosecutionthaton19/6/1996both
A5andA6hadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW48Pramod
KumarfromwheretheyhadpurchasedtheJaycowallclock.The
policewasnotawareaboutthefactumofpurchaseofwallclockby
accusedpersonshadnotledthepoliceteamtotheshopofthe
witnessorthattheyhadnotpurchasedanyJaycowallclockfrom
him. The prosecution had thus established that the Jayco wall
clockwaspurchasedfromtheshopofPW48PramodKumarand
receiptwasissuedforpaymentofRs.182/.Inpursuanceofthe
disclosurestatements,bothA5andA6 ledthepoliceteamon
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 240of408
241
19/6/1996totheshopofPW48PramodKumarandPW50Yogesh
recoveryof'new'factbypointingouttheshopof PW48Pramod
WallClockwaspurchasedwasnotintheknowledgeofthepolice
priortotheaccusedpersonsleadingthepolicetothesaidshop.
Both these public witnesses did not give clean chit in their
depositiontoA5andA6.Onlytheyfailedtoidentifythemtobe
the same persons who had purchased the wall clock from the
shop.However,theyspecificallymentionedthatthenamesofthe
werementionedanddisclosedtothemasA5andA6.Thusthis
circumstancepointsanaccusingfingeragainstA5andA6.
(30)PointingoutshopofM/s.UniqueAgenciesbyA3andA
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 241of408
242
5:
330 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton19/6/1996bothA3
and A5 led the police party at the shop from where they had
personshavedeniedthisallegation.
331 PW31Insp.SurinderKumarinhisstatementbefore
thecourtdeposedthatbothA3andA5tookthem attheshop
memowaspreparedinthatregard.Thisstatementofthewitness
wasnotchallengedinthecrossexamination.Nosuggestionwas
accusedpersonshadnotledthepolicepartyattheshopofM/s.
UniqueAgencies.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 242of408
243
thatA3andA5pointedoutashopM/sUniqueAgencies,Shop
no.2610,Churiwalan,videpointingoutmemoEx.PW31/M, on
19/6/1996.Againnomaterialcontradictionhascomeinthecross
examinationofthiswitnesstodisbelievehisversion.
similarlinesandstatedthaton19/6/1996boththeseaccusedled
Ahmed,wassittingatthecounter.Accusedpersonsdisclosedthat
theyhadpurchasedtwogascylindersfromthesaidshop.Heput
hissignaturesonthememopreparedbyInsp.HariRamMalik.In
thattheproceedingson19/6/1996weremanipulated.Theaccused
didnotdenythattheyhadnotpurchasedthegascylindersfrom
theshopofKamalAhmedorthattheyhadnotpointedoutthesaid
shopon19/6/1996.
Kamalasaprosecutionwitness.Thiswitnesswasalsojoinedin
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 243of408
244
theinvestigationon19/6/1996.Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,
thewitnessadmittedthathewasrunninggasagencyunderthe
usedtosellgascylinders,otherhomeappliancesandburnersetc.,
deposedthatinMay,1996twopersonshadcomeathisshopfor
purchasingagascylinder.Thegascylinderwasnotavailablewith
himonthatday.Heaskedthesaidtwopersons todepositthe
priceofthegascylinderandtocomeonthenextdaytocollectthe
same.ThosetwopersonsdepositedwithhimRs.290/andlefton
thatday.Nextdateagaintheycameathisshopandhedelivered
themoneemptygascylinder.
335 Thiswitnessfurthersubstantiatedthepoliceversion
thaton19/6/1996somepolicepersonnelcameathisofficeand
tookhimattheirofficeatLodhiColony.Thewitnesshoweverfailed
tosupporttheprosecutionregardingidentificationoftwopersons
who had come at his shop and who had purchased the gas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 244of408
245
cylinders.Thewitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPfor
theStateandwascrossexamined.
336 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessadmittedthathis
statementwasrecordedbythepolice.Hefurtheradmittedthathis
signaturesappearedonthe pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Mat
alreadywrittendocument.Thewitnessadmittedthathehadtold
thenamesofthesaidtwopersonstothepoliceasMohd.Naushad
disclosedinhisdepositionthatonthatday(dateofhisexamination
Naushad(A3).
defencecounsel.Sothefactsonwhichthecaseoftheprosecution
presence of this witness running his shop under the name and
styleofM/s.UniqueAgencieswasnotdenied.Nosuggestionwas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 245of408
246
accusedpersonshadnotledthepolicepartytohisshop.Names
ofboththeseaccusedpersonsfindsmentioninthepointingout
signatureofthiswitness.Thiswitnessdidnotallegeifhehadput
hissignatureunderanypressurebythepoliceonthememoEx.
PW31/M.Namesofboththeseaccusedpersonsweredisclosed
Kamal,thepolicemustnothavecometoknowaboutthenamesof
thesetwopersonsasmentionedinthememoEx.PW31/M.The
nameandaddressofthiswitnesswasnotknowntothepoliceprior
tothedisclosurestatementsoftheseaccusedpersons.Thepolice
discoveredthefactumofthiswitnessrunning gasagencyinthe
pursuanceofthedisclosurestatementsmadebytheseaccused
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 246of408
247
cylindersfromhisshopbyA3andA5inMay,1996.It,however,
disclosurestatements ledthepoliceteamattheshopofPW54
MehmoodKamal.
againstA3andA5forpurchasinggascylindersfromhisshopin
theabsenceofanyspecificpurpose.A3&A5didnotofferany
purchasinggascylinder.Theydidnotjustifypurchaseofanysuch
cylinder for any particular purpose. They did not claim their
presenceonanyotherplaceonthedayofvisittoPW54Mehmood
Kamal.
(31)PointingoutofshopbyA3&A5fromwhereduplicate
keywasgotprepared:
339 PW31Insp.Surinderinhisdepositionbeforethecourt
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 247of408
248
maker in Jama Masjid from where they had got duplicate key
prepared with the help of petrol tank cap of the stolen car.
Pointingoutcumidentificationmemowaspreparedinthisregard.
This witness was not put any material question in the cross
examinationtofalsifyhisstatement.
versionofPW31Insp.Surinderanddeposedthaton19/6/1996A
3,A4A5&A6 pointedoutaplaceinfrontofNimiArtsand
Handicrafts,Shopno.813,ChabariBazar,DelhiwhereoneMohd.
Rizwan@Gudduwasfoundsittinganddoingthejobofpreparing
putinthecrossexaminationofthiswitness.
beforethecourt whoadmittedthatabout8or9yearsago,the
exactdatehedidnotremembersomepersonshadcometohim
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 248of408
249
forgettingcarkeymadeandhemadekeyforthem.Thiswitness
preparetheduplicatekeybecauseitwasaveryoldmatter.Inthe
crossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPafterhewasgot declared
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Jatpoint'A'.Thiswitnesswasnot
crossexaminedbytheaccusedpersons.Nothingwassuggested
tothiswitnessastohowandunderwhatcircumstances,hehad
puthissignaturesontheidentificationmemo/pointingoutmemo
Ex.PW31/J.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessifboththese
accusedpersonshadnotledthepoliceteamathisshoporthathis
signatureonEx.PW31/Jwereobtainedunderpressure.
establishthatboththeseaccusedpersonshadledthepoliceteam
totheshopkeeperPW64Mohd.Rizwanwhousedtoprepare
keysandfromtheretheyhaddisclosedtohavegotpreparedthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 249of408
250
duplicatekey.Theaccusedpersonshavefailedtoexplainasto
statementtotheshopofPW64Mohd.Rizwan.Againthefactof
presenceofPWMohd.Rizwan atafootpathwasdiscoveredby
Delhipoliceonlyinpursuanceofdisclosurestatementsofthese
accusedpersons.
(32) Pointingoutshopfromwheresolderwaspurchased
byA3andA5:
343 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton13/5/1996accused
personsinthisregard.
344 PW31Insp.Surindertestifiedthaton19/6/1996onthe
identificationmemoEx.PW31/Kwasprepared.Thisstatementof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 250of408
251
wasprepared.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examination that both these accused persons had not led the
policeteamattheplacetowhichmemoEx.PW31/Kpertains.
345 PW39Insp.HariMalikalsodeposedthaton19/6/1996
A3andA5pointedoutImperialSoundandService,StallNo.8A,
LajpatRaiMarketvidepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/K.Hehad
recordedthestatementofthewitnesses.Againthiswitnesswas
notconfrontedregardingthepreparationofpointingoutmemoEx.
challengedinthecrossexamination.
sparepartshopinOldLajpatRaiMarket,stallno.8AasImperial
SoundandService.On19/6/1996somepolicepeople,alongwith
oneortwopublicpersonscameathisshopandhewastoldthat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 251of408
252
onesolderingironandsolderwerepurchasedfromhisshopbythe
saidoneortwopersons.Hehadseenthosetwopersonsasthose
personshadsaid,thattheyhadpurchasedthesolderingironand
solder.Sohesaidthattheymighthadpurchasedthesolderingiron
andsolderfromhisshop.Thiswitnessfurtherstatedthathehad
sold the soldering iron and solder for Rs. 35/. Regarding
identification,thewitness statedthatsinceitwasmatterof8/9
accusedpersonspresentbeforethecourt.
347Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.AddlPPfor
Stateafterdeclaringhimhostile.Inhiscrossexaminationbythe
ld.AddlPP,thewitnessadmittedthatthepolicehadrecordedhis
statedthatthetwopersonswhosenamesweredisclosedbefore
himbythepoliceasA3andA5hadaccompaniedthepoliceand
had pointed out his shop as the place from where they had
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 252of408
253
witnessfurtheradmittedthatthesaidtwopersonshadcomewith
muffledfacesandtheywereseenbyhimwhentheirfaceswere
unmuffledinhispresencebythepolice.Hefurtheradmittedthat
hehadtoldthepolicethatthesaidtwopersonshadcomeathis
shop and purchased a soldering iron and solder wire from his
shop.ThewitnessfurtherstatedthatA3presentbeforethecourt
todaymightbeoneofthetwopersons.Howeverhecouldnotsay
anythingabouttheotheraccusedA5ashavingcometotheshop
fortheabovesaidpurchase.Thewitnessfurtheradmittedthatthe
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Kwaspreparedonwhichhesigned
atpoint'B'.Thewitnessstatedthathecouldidentifythesoldering
identifiedthesolderingironEx.Z1afteritwasshowntohimbefore
thecourt.
348 Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.defencecounselfor
theaccusedpersons,thewitnessexplainedthathisstatementwas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 253of408
254
recordedbythepoliceon19/6/1996inthepolicestation.Memo
Ex.PW31/KwasalsosignedbyhimintheSpecialCellof at
around12noon.Thetwopersonswereshowntohimbythepolice
whentheyweresittinginthepolicevehicleathisshopandhehad
accompaniedthepolicetotheSpecialCell inthesamevehicle.
HewasnotshownthesolderingironbythepoliceintheSpecial
Cell.
349 Scanningtheoveralltestimonyofthiswitnessreveals
thatsolderingironEx.Z1recoveredbythepoliceinthiscasefrom
theresidenceofA3wasidentifiedbythiswitnesstobethesame
whichwaspurchasedfromhisshopforasumofRs.35/Thereis
nodenialthatthisindependentpublicwitnesswasnotrunninghis
electronicssparepartsshopatstallno.8Ainthenameandstyle
ofImperialSoundandService.Thiswitnesscategoricallyasserted
thaton19/6/1996thepolicehadbroughttwopersonsinmuffled
facesathisshopandtheirnameswereasserted/disclosedtohim
asA3andA5.Boththeseaccusedpersonsadmittedaboutthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 254of408
255
purchaseofsolderingironandsolderfromhisshopon13/5/1996.
accusedpersonswerebroughtbythepoliceinmuffledfacesathis
accusedpersonswereshowntothewitness. Hehadinformed
the police that the said two persons brought at his shop on
19/6/1996hadpurchasedthesolderingironandsolderfromhis
shop.Thenamesofthesetwoaccusedpersonsfindmentionin
thepointingout/identificationmemoEx.PW31/K.Thiswitness
hascategoricallyidentifiedhissignaturesonEx.PW31/Kwhich
hasnotbeenchallengedbytheaccusedpersons.Nosuggestion
wasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthatboththese
accusedpersonshadnotcomeathisshopon13/5/1996andhad
notpurchasedanysolderingironandsolderfromhisshopforRs.
35/Nomotivewasimputedtothiswitnesstofalselypleadthat
boththeseaccusedpersonswhosenamesweredisclosedasA3
andA5hadaccompaniedthepoliceathisshop.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 255of408
256
350 Accused persons did not explain how and for what
purposetheyhappenedtopurchasesolderingironandsolderfrom
personsthatsolderingironEx.Z1wasnotrecoveredfromtheir
possessionorthatitwasneverpurchasedfromPW58Jitender
PalSingh.
351 Policewasnotawareabouttheshopofthewitness
shop.Onlyafterboththeseaccusedpersonsledthepoliceparty
totheshopofthiswitness,thepolicecametoknowthattheyhad
purchased the soldering iron and solder from his shop. The
controvertedbytheaccusedpersons.Againpurchaseofsoldering
ironandsolderwireon13/5/1996fromtheshopofPW58Jitender
PalSinghisanotherincriminatingpieceofcircumstancetopoint
anaccusingfingeragainstA3andA5.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 256of408
257
(33)HouseSearchofA9,A14andA15on3/6/1996.
352 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton3/6/1996PWInsp.
RajinderPrasadalongwithPWSIHarinderSinghhadgonetoJ&
KandwiththeSTFstaffhadsearchedthehouseofA9,A14and
A15.PW34SIHarinderSinghhastestifiedthatfromthehouse
ofA9onepassbookEx.PW34/A1wasseizedvideseizurememo
Ex.PW34/A. FromthehouseofA14,fourdocumentsEx.PW
34/C1toC4wereseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW34/C.From
seizedvideseizurememoEx.PW34/B.
recoveryofanysuchdocumentfromhishouse.Onperusalofthe
testimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessesonthisaspect,Iamofthis
viewthatprosecutionhasfailedtoproveifhousesearchofA9
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 257of408
258
publicwitnesswasjoinedatthetimeofhousesearchofA9on
3/6/1996.NothinghasbeenrevealedifanyfamilymemberofA9
waspresentthereinthehouseandifsowhatwashisrelationwith
A9. SeizurememoEx.PW34/Adoesnotdiscloseastofrom
wherethepassbookEx.PW34/A1wasrecovered.PW34didnot
testifyhowthisdocumentwasrelevantfortheinvestigationofthis
caseandwhatwasitsnexuswithA9.
354 Nootherwitnesswasexaminedonthisaspectbythe
beforethecourtdidnottestifyregardinganysuchrecoveryfrom
thehouseofA9.Sincethedocumentallegedlyrecoveredfromthe
termedtobeanincriminatingcircumstanceagainstA9.
(34)ConfessionalStatementofA9:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 258of408
259
thenld.AddlCJMinCourtNo.4Jaipur.Pleaoftheld.Counselfor
A9isthatthisconfessionalstatementisofnorelevanceasitwas
notmadebyA9inthepresentcaseandconfessionalstatement
allegedlymadeinsomeothercasehasnorelevance.
356 OnperusalofthetestimonyofPW100ShriBhagwan
Dass, itstandsestablishedthattheconfessionalstatementEx.
PW100/AwasmadebyA9beforehim.Inhistestimonybefore
thecourt,PW100ShriBhagwanDasdeposedthaton17/7/1996
and19/7/1996,hewaspostedasAddlCJM,CourtNo.4,Jaipur
City.UndertheinstructionsofthenCJM,Jaipurherecordedthe
confessionalstatementofA9.On17/7/1996, A9wasproduced
beforehimincaseFIRNo.39/96,PSGandhiNagar,Jaipuru/s
Beforerecordinghisconfessionalstatement,hesatisfiedhimself
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 259of408
260
voluntarily. HemadecertainqueriesfromA9andexplainedto
himthathewasnotboundtomakeanyconfessionalstatement
andifhemadeanysuchconfessionalstatement,itmightbeused
againsthim.Heput15questionstoA9tosatisfyhimselfthatA9
threat,fear,inducementorpromiseA9wasinformedthathewas
not bound to make any statement and his reply was recorded.
Afterexamininghim,he(PW100)feltthatsomemoretimeshould
begiventoA9tothinktomakeconfessionalstatement.Hesent
backA9toCentralJailandadjournedrecordingofthestatement
for19/7/1996.
357 Furtherdepositionofthewitnessisthaton19/7/1996,
heagainsatisfiedhimselfthatA9wasmakinghisstatementu/s
164Cr.P.Cvoluntarily.HequestionedA9andexplainedtohim
thathewasnotboundtomakestatementbeforehimandifhe
FromthereplyofA9,hewassatisfiedthatA9wasmakinghis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 260of408
261
freely.Afterrecordingthestatement,hereadoverthestatement
correct.Hemadehisendorsementonthestatementrecordedu/s
164Cr.P.C.Ex.PW100/Awasthecertifiedcopyofthestatement
recordedbyhiminhishandwriting.
358 Thiswitnesswascrossexaminedbytheld.Defence
counselfortheaccusedpersons.Inthecrossexamination, the
witnessstatedthatA9producedbeforehimwasidentifiedbythe
Delhipoliceneverapproachedhimforthecopyofthestatement
Ex.PW100/A.HewasnotawareifA9alongwithotheraccused
weredischargedin caseFIRNo.39/96PSGandhiNagar.The
witnessdeniedthesuggestionthatthestatementmadebyA9was
underduress.
359 OnscanningthestatementofPW100ShriBaghwan
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 261of408
262
accusedattributednomotiveinthecrossexaminationeithertothis
witnessortoanypoliceofficerforforcinghimtomakestatement
u/s164Cr.P.Cunderduress.A9neverretractedtheconfession
JudicialOfficerandhadsatisfiedhimselftwicebeforerecordingthe
statementvoluntarily.Theconfessionalstatementwasrecordedby
PW100ShriBhagwanDasswhenhewaspostedasAddlCJMat
JaipurinRajasthanandwasnotconcernedaboutthependencyof
thepresentFIRagainstA9.Nomaterialdiscrepancieshavecome
statementmadebyA9wasunderduress.DelhiPolicewasnotin
pictureatthetimeofrecordingofthestatementoftheaccusedin
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 262of408
263
statementregardingtheincidenthappenedinthiscase.Thereis
nothingonrecordtoinferifDelhiPolicehadevermetA9priorto
thatorhadremainedintouchwithRajasthanPolice.A9duringhis
presencebefore Ld.AddlCJMnevercomplainedaboutanyfear
without any fear or duress. The ld. Judge had taken all
precautionstorecordthestatementoftheaccusedasrequiredu/s
164Cr.P.C.HebroughthomebyallpossiblemeansthatA9was
afreepersonandmayormaynotmakeanystatementwithoutany
prejudicetohiscase.A9wasgivensufficienttimetoreflect.A9
wassenttojudicialcustodybeforerecordinghisconfession. He
wasgivenfreeatmospheretoallayhisfear,suspicion(ifany).
Kathmandu.He(Javed),hiselderJavedSenior,Latif(A7)usedto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 263of408
264
Kathmandu.InApril,1996,priortoId,hehadseenonebagand
Beg,bossofJavedSeniorusedtoresideinPakistanandhehad
notseenhim.A9furtherstatedthaton29/4/1996onId,Zulfikar
@AyubcameatKathmandufromPakistan.He(A9)andLatif(A
7)hadreachedairporttoreceivehim.Bilal(A11)hadtoldLatif
(A7)thatthesaidboywaswearingpantofblackcolourandshirt
ofyellowcolour.Theybroughthimfromtheairport.Heinquired
fromZulfikarifheusedtoresideatPakistan.Onthat,Zulfikartold
himthathewasresidentofKashmirandhadgonetoPakistanfor
training.He(A9)showedhimthebagandattachiandinquired
fromhimastowhatwascontainedtherein.Zulfikartoldhimthat
theyweredetonator,timepencilandremotecontrol.He(A9)had
alreadyidentifiedthewirelessset.On6/5/1996twomorepersons
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 264of408
265
receivethematairport.ThesaidtwopersonshadaskedLatif(A7)
furtherstatedthaton8/5/1996JavedSenior,MehmoodKilley(A
Kathmandu.HeandLatif(A7)usedtoworkwithJavedSenior.
th
JavedSeniorhadaskedhimon8 Mayitselfintheeveningtogo
toDelhiwiththebagcontaining'ammunition'andtwodetonators.
th
Thereafter,JavedSeniorsentNaza(A5)toDelhion10 Mayas
hewastoexecutesettingforblastatDelhi.Thereafter,he,Javed
th th
KathmandutoDelhiintheeveningof11 May.However,on12
Mayinthemorningonreachingattheborder,hestayedthereand
th
theremainingpersonsleft. On 13 May from border,heleft
th
forDelhiandreachedDelhiinthemorningof14 May.He
hadbeeninstructedbyJavedSeniorandNaza(A5)toleavethe
bagattheresidenceofWazidKasai,friendofNaza(A5).A9
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 265of408
266
furtherconfessedthathereachedattheresidenceofWazidKasai.
There WazidKasaiorNazadidnotmeethim.Someladiesand
childrenwerepresentthere.Hetoldthemtohandoverthesaid
bagtoNaza(A5).Hefurtherstatedthathetoldtheladiesthat
therewereclothes ofNaza(A5)inthesaidbag.Hestayedat
th th
Delhi on 14 May and returned to Kathmandu on 15 May. He
th
reached at kathmandu on 17 May. Prior to his reaching at
Kathmandu,JavedSenior,MehmoodKilley(A6),RiazMaula(A
13)hadreachedatKathmandu.Heinquiredfromthemastowhat
had happened to their work at Delhi. They told him that Riaz
th
sentenceinHindiisnotdecipherable). On19 May,A6&A13
camebacktoDelhi.Whenhe(A9)inquiredfromJavedSenioras
towhytheyhadgonebacktoDelhi,heinformedhimthatthework
couldnotbedoneduetosomedefect.A9furtherstatedthathe
cametoknownamesoftwopersonswhohadcomefromPakistan
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 266of408
267
20/5/1996toPatnaalongwithRashid,Zulfikar&Assadulla(A10)
andelaborated circumstancesinwhichhealongwithassociates
wasarrestedatAhmadabad.Hefurtherstatedthathehadonly
deliveredthebagatDelhi.Hewasinformedregardingtheblastby
JavedSeniorandhehadmadeplanforblastattheinstigationof
BilalBeg.A9wasnothavinganyknowledgeofanyotherblast.
confessionestablishthatA9wasawareaboutthebombblastat
Delhiandhadhelpedthecoaccusedpersonsinexecutingtheir
planbydeliveringbagcontaining'ammunitions'attheresidenceof
WazidKasai,friendofaccusedNaza(A5)atDelhi.
materialpieceofcircumstancetoconnecthimwiththecommission
oftheoffence.
363 Idonotsubscribetothecontentionoftheld.Counsel
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 267of408
268
fortheaccusedthattheconfessionstatementmadebyA9isnot
relevant.
confidenceasitisinconsonancewiththecaseoftheprosecution.
A9unearthedtheconspiracyhatchedatthebehestofA11and
gavevividdescriptionastohowtheconspiracywasexecuted.A9
himselfconfessingthathehaddeliveredtheammunitionsatthe
FromtheconfessionalstatementofA9Delhipolicesucceededin
investigationandhisrelationwasalsojoinedintheinvestigation
andtheirstatementswererecordedinthiscase.Prosecutioneven
daredtoexaminebothofthemasPW13andPW14.Itisaltogether
different that both these witnesses did not opt to support the
prosecutionandbothdeniedtohaveanyacquaintancewithA9.
HadtherebeennomentionofWazidintheconfessionalstatement
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 268of408
269
cometotheknowledgeofDelhipolice.ApparentlyPW13Wazid
hasnotoptedtosupporttheprosecutionforulteriorpurposesas
hewastoldtobefriendofA5. A9whileincustodyatJaipuris
confessionalstatement.
awareastowhowasthepersonswhoweretoexecutetheplan.
NotonlyA9hadtheknowledgeofconspiracyforbombblastat
LajpatNagarheparticipatedinthecommissionoftheincident
PW13Wazid.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 269of408
270
defencecounselfortheaccusedthattheconfessionalstatement
madebyA9inanothercaseFIRNo.39/96isofnorelevance
asitwasnotmadeinthepresentcase.Nolawonthisaspect
statementmadebyA9inanothercasemuchawayfromDelhi
influenceofDelhipolicetomakeconfessionofthefactsstated
therein.
otheraccusedpersonsnamedbyhiminit.
(35)StayofA9atSatyamHotel,Delhi
368 Anothercircumstancerelieduponbytheprosecution
toconnectA9withthecommissionoftheoffenceisthathestayed
atSatyamHotel,Delhion14/5/1996.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 270of408
271
examinedPW46RajanArorawhotestifiedthathewasrunninga
Paharganj.On14/5/1996A9camealongwithoneNepalboyand
stayedinhishotelforonedayandcheckedoutnextdaybefore
noon.TheaccusedandthesaidNepalboyoccupiedeitherRoom
No.104or106onfirstfloor.ThewitnessidentifiedA9correctly,
presentbeforethecourt,tobethepersonwhohadstayedathis
hotelon14/5/1996.
admittedthatentriesusedtobemadeintheregisterasandwhen
some one came to stay at the hotel. The witness denied the
suggestionthatA9nevervisitedorstayedinhishotelorthathe
witnesshavefairlyadmittedthatA9hadnotcheckedinthehotel
inhispresence.However,PW46assertedthathehadseenhim
nextdaywhenA9checkedoutfromthehotelandpaidthebill.
Thewitnessvolunteeredtoaddthatthebillamountwastakenby
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 271of408
272
him.Hefairlyadmittedthathehadnotbroughtthereceiptbookas
thesamewasnotsummonedfromhim.
371 OveralltestimonyofthisindependentwitnessPW46
suggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecrossexaminationthatA
9waspresentatanyotherspecificplaceon14/5/1996.Noulterior
falselyallegepresenceofA9athishotelon14/5/1996.Nothing
hascomeonrecordtoshowifPW46washaving anyenimical
termswithA9tofalselyidentifyhimtohavebeenstayedathis
identifytheaccusedashehimselfhadtakenthebillamountfrom
A9.
372 Merenoncollectionoftherelevantregistershowing
stayofA9inthehotelbytheIOisnotfataltothecaseofthe
prosecution. Theaccuseddidnotdaretosummonanyrelevant
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 272of408
273
recordfromthiswitnesstoputinthecrossexaminationtofalsify
his plea. This public witness had no concern with the case in
question.Heisnotimagined tomakefalsedepositiontofalsely
implicateA9withwhomhehadnoprioracquaintance.Accused
didnotexamineanywitnessindefencetoestablishhispresence
atsomeotherplaceon14/5/1996.
onthisaspectandtestifiedthaton26/7/1996A9andA10were
broughttoDelhibyInsp.PooranSinghandInsp.RajinderGautam
onthebasisofproductionwarrants.BothA99andA10 made
theirdisclosurestatementsEx.PW18/Fand101/A.Thiswitness
5135,MainBazar,PaharGanj,NewDelhi, RoomNo.106and
Nepalihadstayedinthesaidroomandhadkepttheexplosivebag
withthemthereandintheevening,thesaidbagwashandedover
toWazid.PointingoutmemoEx.PW24/Bwaspreparedinthis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 273of408
274
RajanArorahadalsosignedpointingoutmemoEx.PW24/B.
374 AllthesefactsassertedbyPW101Insp.ParasNath
examination.Nosuggestionwasputtothiswitnessinthecross
examinationthaton4/8/1996,A9hadnotledthepolicepartyat
SatyamHotelorthatA9wasnotidentifiedbyPWRajanAroroa
14/5/1996inRoomNo.106athishotel.
375 PW24SIHariSinghalsodeposedthaton4/8/1996,A
9hadtakenthemtoSatyamHotelwheretheentryregisterwas
examinationofthiswitness.(Thephotocopyoftheentryinthe
registerisonrecordbutthesamehasnotbeengotexhibitedby
theprosecution.)
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 274of408
275
376 ThefactumofA9tohavestayedinRoomNo.106
SatyamHotel,PaharGanjon14/5/1996wasnotintheknowledge
ofthepolicepriortothedisclosurestatementmadebyA9.Itwas
A9whohadledthepolicepartytoSatyamHotelandhadpointed
outRoomNo.106wherehehadstayedthereon14/5/1996along
whichwashithertounknowntotheprosecutionisquiterelevantto
proveandcorroboratetheversiongivenbyPW46RajanArora.It
washeavilyforA9toexplainthepurposeofhisvisittoDelhion
14/5/1996.A9howeverfailedtodisclosethepurposeofhisvisit
andstayatSatyamHotelon14/5/1996.A9hasnotexplainedas
towherehehadleftaftercheckingoutfromSatyamHotelonthe
nextdate.ThissilenceonthepartofA9inputtinguphisstayon
14/5/1996showshisunnaturalconductandisamaterialpieceof
incriminatingcircumstanceagainsthim.
377 StayofA9atSatyamHotel,Delhion14/5/1996finds
mentioninhisconfessionalstatementalso.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 275of408
276
378 StayofSatyamHotelatDelhifullyprovesthatthe
contentsofconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/Aaretrue.Stayof
A9atDelhion14/5/1996pointsanaccusingfingerathim.
(36)TravelfromKathmandutoDelhiA5
379 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/Brecordedon
travelledtoDelhiby RoyalNepalAirlinesinthenameofMirza
NissarHussaininconnectionwithprocuringarticlesforbombblast
and had met A3. PW101 Insp. Paras Nath has proved the
recordingofthedisclosurestatementofA5.
Kathmanduon10/5/1996.TestimonyofPW67KesarSinghisvery
AssistantinRoyalNepalAirlines.Hetestifiedthaton9/7/1996,IO
ofthiscasehadmethiminhisofficeandhehadhandedover
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 276of408
277
containedthenameofHussainatpageno.3.Photocopyofthe
saidlistismark67/A.
thiswitnessbyA5thathedidnottravelinthenameofHussainon
10/5/1996fromKathmandutoDelhiorthatthenameappearingat
pageno.3ofthelistmark67/Adidnotpertaintohim.Thisofficial
witnesshasnoulteriormotivetoprepareforgedlistmark67/Ato
10/5/1996.A5failedtoexplainthepurposeofhisvisittoDelhi.
durationhestayedatDelhiandifsowhere. FactumofA5to
havetravelledfromKathmandutoDelhion10/5/1996wasnotin
knowaboutthisfactonlyinpursuanceofthedisclosurestatement
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 277of408
278
Ex.PW23/Bmadebytheaccusedwhichwassubstantiatedbythe
incriminatingcircumstancepointinganaccusingfingeragainstA5.
CFSLReports:
(37)
382 Thearmsandammunitionsrecoveredfromthe
accusedpersonsweresenttoCFSLduringinvestigationof
thecase.
ScientificOfficer,CBI,NewDelhiinhisdepositionbefore
thecourtprovedthereportsadmissibleu/s293CrPCEx.
PW86/A,Ex.PW86/BandEx.PW86/Cregardingpullandas
12.6.96hehadreceivedfoursealedpullandasofthiscase
517/96PSLajpatNagar.Parcelsweresealedwiththeseal
of'PKB'.Thesealsontheparcelswereintactandtallied
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 278of408
279
withthespecimensealsreceivedinthiscase. Hefurther
deposedthatheconducteddetailedlaboratoryexamination
includingtestsfireandmicrochemicaltestsandsubmitted
hisreportEx.PW86/Adated26.6.96.
pullandssealedwiththesealofJS,hehadreceivedfive
examination,hesubmittedhisdetailedreportEx.PW86/B.
385 Anothersealedparcelsealedwiththethethree
Ex.PW86/C.
386 PerusaloftheCFSLreportEx.PW86/Areveals
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 279of408
280
AssaultRifle(MarkedW/1)withoutmagazinebearingserial
(markedM1andM2)of7.62mmAssaultRifle. Parcel
No.3containedFiftynine7.6mmcartridgesofAssaultRifle
andparcelNo.4containedtworectangularshapedblack
(approximately.).AssaultRiflemarkedW/1ofparcelno.1
andwasfoundinworkingorder.Twomagazines(marked
M/1andM/2)ofparcelno.2werefoundinworkingorder
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 280of408
281
W/1).Thecontentsofparcelno.4wereopinedRDXbased
HighExplosiveandweretherefore'ExplosiveSubstance'as
definedunderExplosiveSubstanceAct.
387 IntheCFSLreportEx.PW86/Badmissibleu/s
SubstanceasdefinedunderExplosiveSubstanceAct.
388 AsperCFSLreportEx.PW86/Cadmissibleu/s
293CrPC,twodefusedARGESHandGrenades(Marked
G/1andG/2)wereopinedasExplosiveSubstances. The
definedintheExplosiveSubstanceAct.
thewitnessadmittedthatreportEx.PW86/Cdidnotcontain
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 281of408
282
however,voluntarilyaddedthatthesamemustbeentered
furtherclarifiedthatweatherhaseffectonthefirearmsand
explosivesoveraperiodoftime.However,headdedthat
marginalextent.Hecouldnot tellwithoutlookingintohis
notesheetsiftheassaultriflewasrusted.Afterlookinginto
the note sheets and the file brought by him, the witness
furtherstatedthattheAssaultRiflewasnotrustyandwasa
properlycleanweapon.
390 Thiswitnessdeniedthesuggestionthathehad
givendesiredopinionattheinstanceofpolice.
391 Fromthedepositionofthiswitnesses,itstands
establishedthatthearmsandexplosivesexaminedbyhim
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 282of408
283
wereopined'arms','ammunitions'and'explosive'underthe
respectiveActs.Thisexpertwitnesshadnoulteriormotive
tosubmitfalsereports.
reportEx.PW101/Badmissibleu/s293CrPC.Asperthis
reportEx.PW101/B,twoslabsofpaleyellowcolourputty
likesubstanceweighingabout1.325Kgcontainedinparcel
No.1wereopinedPETbasedHighExplosive.Inparcel
Devicesandwerefoundinworkingorder. Itwasfurther
opinedthatthehighexplosivecontainedinparcelNo.1and
fivetimingdevicescontainedinparcelNo.2couldbethe
componentsofImprovisedExplosiveDevices(IEDs)..The
undertheExplosiveSubstanceAct.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 283of408
284
Ex.PW101/BwererecoveredattheinstanceofA2from
herresidence.
394 AsperCFSLreportEx.PW101/Cdated29.8.96
admissibleu/s293CrPC,RDXbasedHighExplosivewas
detectedinthecontentsof17parcelsmarked3to15and
17to30.Thedamagedmetallicpieces/partscontainedin
16parcelsmarkedNo.3to15and17to19wereopinedto
beofwhitecolourvehiclesdamagedduetoexplosion.
395 Inthesereports,variousarticlesrecoveredfrom
thespotweresentforCFSLexamination.
396 AsperCFSLreportExPW101/Dadmissibleu/s
numberplate(markedexbt.1)andparcelNo.2 contained
unsealedmetallicnumberplate(markedexbt2)wassentto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 284of408
285
number.AsperCFSLreportEx.PW101/DExbt.No.1no
number/alphabetwerereadablebeforeorafterdeciphering.
numberplateDL3CB1791beforeandafterdeciphering.
efforts.AsperCFSLreportEx.PW101/Fdated21.11.1996
HighExplosivesweredetectedinthecontentsofthetwo
parcels,markedIVcontainingonesmallshiningandtwisted
metallicpiecestatedtohavebeenrecoveredfromthebody
ofdeceasedMrsInderMohiniAhujaandmarkedNo.2i.e.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 285of408
286
opinioncouldbegivenregardingoriginofthesetwometallic
piecesinthesaidparcels.
398 AsperCFSLReportEx.PW101/G,RDXbased
HighExplosivewasdetectedintheparcelNo.1,i.e.two
rectangularslabsofblackcolour'puttylikesubstance'.The
SubstanceundertheExplosiveSubstanceAct.Asperthis
report,theclockmechanismi.e.,one QuartztableClock
containedinparcelNo.2wasfoundinworkingorderand
could formacomponentofImprovisedExplosiveDevice
(IED).ArticlesmentionedinEx.PW101/Gwererecovered
pursuanceofdisclosurestatementmadebyhim.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 286of408
287
Bardhan,Sr.ScientificOfficer,CFSL,whoprovedhisreport
Ex.PW44/AThiswitnesswasnotcrossexaminedbythe
accusedpersons.AsperthisreportExhibitNo.1,i.e.one
rectangularmetallicplatewerereceivedanddecomposition
metallicplates,marked1and2respectivelyInthereport
Ex.PW44/A.
400 FromtheCFSLreportsprovedabove,itstands
establishedthatRDXwasusedinthebombblastatCentral
usedincausingbombblastatLajpatNagaron21.5.1996.
Itfurtherprovesthatarticlesrecoveredfromthehousesof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 287of408
288
definedundertherelevantActs.
(38)
SpecimenHandwritingReportA1&A3:
PW101ParasNath.PW91InspRamChanderalsotestifiedthat
PW91/A1to15ofA3wastakenbyPW101Insp.ParasNathin
documentsandthespecimenhandwritingobtainedfromA1and
PW94/Apreparedbyher.
402 IhavegonethroughthisreportEx.PW94/AandIfind
thatasperthisreport,redenclosedhandwritingmarkedQ1on
slipdatedNil;writingsondifferentsheetsofpockettelephonediary
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 288of408
289
markedQ2,Q2/1,Q3,W3/1,Q4,Q5,Q5/1,Q5/2,Q6,Q6/1,Q7,
Q8,Q8/1,Q9,Q9/1,Q10,Q101,Q11,Q12,Q12/1,Q13,toQ17,
Q17/1,Q17/2andQ17/3;writingsandsignaturepurportedtobeof
A3onpageNo.112ofVisitorsBookofGuptaHotelandTourist
markedS1toS11;S1/1toS11/1andS12toS16;andspecimen
writingsandsignaturesofA3,markedS17toS31andS17/1to
DeepaVermawasoftheviewthatredenclosedwritingsstamped
writingsandsignaturessimilarlystampedandmarkedS1toS11,
S1/1toS11/1andS12toS16wereallwrittenbyoneandsame
wasalsooftheviewthatforwantofstandardmaterialaskedfor,it
wasnotpossibletofixauthorshipofredenclosedwritingsstamped
andmarkedQ18andQ18/1incomparisonwiththeblueenclosed
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 289of408
290
writingssimilarlystampedmarkedS17toS31andS17/1toS31/1.
403 Fromthestatementofthisexpertwitness,itreveals
thatnofindingswererecordedbyherregardingtheauthorshipof
thewritingsmarkedQ1onthesliprecoveredfromA1tobein
telephonenumbersofNewsagencies.Sothisexpertwitnesshas
allegedlyrecoveredfromA1wereinthehandwritingofA1.
404 Similarly,theprosecutionfailedtoproveifhandwriting
onthevisitorsbookatSl.No.112ofGuptaHotel&TouristLodge,
writingofA1ontheotherwritingsondifferentsheetsofpocket
telephonediaryhavebeenopinedtobehiswritings. However,
prosecutionhasfailedtoestablishhowthecontentsoftelephone
connectA1withthecommissionoftheincident.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 290of408
291
belonged.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowifthetelephone
collectedbythepoliceifA1hadmadeany telephonetothese
personsonthetelephonenumbersmentionedinthediaryatany
timeandifshowonwhatdateandforwhatpurpose.
406 Nomuchreliancecanbeplacedonthereportofthis
fromtheconcernedLd.MetropolitanMagistratetoseekspecimen
handwritingofA1andA3. Nosuchhandwritingandsignatures
wereobtainedbytheIObeforetheLd.MetropolitanMagistrate.
specimenhandwritingandsignaturesofA1andA3.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 291of408
292
(39)UseofCar:
belongingtoPW8AtulNathwasusedinthebombblastatLajpat
Nagart.
408 PW76ShriBishanKumarinhisdepositionbeforethe
courtstatedthatintheyear1996,hewasworkingassweeper.
ShriAtulNath,ownerofthecompanyinwhichhewasemployed,
usedtoresideatA51,EastNizamuddin.Inthemorninghours,he
usedtowashhiscars.Hefurtherdisclosedthaton17/5/1996at
about6.15amhereachedatthehouseofShriAtulNathtowash
hiscars.PW8AtulNathwashaving4/5carsincludingMaruti800
bearingNo.DL2CF5854.Hesawthatthecoverofthepetroltank
ofthesaidMaruticarwasmissing.Heinformedtheownerofthe
carandwentawayafterwashingthecars.Whenhereachedat
thehouseofPW8AtulNathonthenextdayhefoundthesaid
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 292of408
293
carmissing.Heinformedtheowneraboutthemissingofthesaid
car.Thiswitnesswasnotcrossexaminedbytheaccusedpersons.
Thetestimonyofthiswitnesshasremainedunchallenged.Thereis
regardingmissingofthecarandthecoverof petroltankofthe
Maruticarasdetailedbyhim.
Kumar,whousedtocleanhiscaraboutthemissingofthesaidcar
infrontofhishouse.Hesearchedthecarandthereafterreported
thematteratPSHauzKhasvidehiscomplaintEx.PW8/A.Later
onhewasinformedbythepolicethathiscarwasusedintheblast
atLajpatNagar.Theyconfirmedfromhimabouttheregistration
numberofthecarandotherparticulars.Hefurtherdisclosedthat
hiscarwasstolenontheinterveningnightof17/1851996. He
furtherdisclosedthatpriortothatPWBishanKumarhadtoldhim
thatthecoverofthepetroltankwasmissing.Thewitnessfurther
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 293of408
294
disclosedthatduringinvestigation,hehadidentifiedthestepneyof
thecaron17/6/1996.OnseeingthestepneyofcarEx.P1,the
witnessstatedthatthetyreExP1belongedtohim. Thesefacts
assertedbythewitnesshaveremainedunchallengedinthecross
doubtthatthecarbearingno.DL2CF5854wasbelongingtohim
andthatwasstolenontheinterveningnightof17/1851996and
identifiedbyhim.
410 StatementofPW8AtulNathhasbeencorroboratedby
postedinPCRwhenaninformationwasreceivedontelephoneat
about12.11pmfromAtulNathofA51,NizamuddinEast,New
Delhiabouttheftofhiscar.ThisinformationwasrecordedatPS
HazratNizamuddinvideDDNo.27A.Thiswitnesswasalsonot
crossexamined.
411 PW28SIRajbeerSinghpostedatPSNizamuddinon
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 294of408
295
18/5/1996 statedthatonreceiptofinformationaboutthetheftof
thecar,hevisitedthespot,tookthecomplaintEx.PW8/Aofthe
complainantandgotthecaseregistered.Heprepared siteplan
witnesses.Effortsweremadetotracethecarbutthatcouldnot
betraced.
transportofficeandcollecteddetailparticularsofthecarusedin
theblast.PW101Insp.ParasNathmovedanapplicationinthis
registeredinthenameofM/s.DelhiSafeDepositCompany.Its
enginenumberwas923225andchasisnumberwas632905. It
wasMaruti800car.PW79RandhirSinghprovedsalecertificate
Ex.PW79/AandcomputerizedregistrationformEx.PW79/Cand
pollutioncertificateEx.PW79/D.
1895identifiedbyPW61sumitKumarsubsequentlywasusedat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 295of408
296
the time of explosion. Accused did not prove if there was any
MaruticarwithnumberDL4C1895inexistenceandwhowasits
registeredowner.
interveningnightof17/1851996anditwasthecarwhichwas
usedintheexplosion.
(40)ArrestofA9:
referredaboveon1/6/1996nearRupalicinema,Ahmadabad.A9
hasalsobeenacquittedalongwithA10andothersfacingtrialin
SCNo.220/98and89/08.ProsecutionfailedtoconnectA9along
withothersthereinforthecommissionoftheoffencepunishable
u/s120BIPCetcinthatcase.
416 SofarasarrestofA9on1/6/1996atAhmadabadis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 296of408
297
1/6/1996subsequentlyhadstayedatAnukulHotelon25/5/1996.
ThereaccusedRashidhadmadeanentryatS.no.4310 inthe
registerofthehotelandtheprosecution examinedPW99Insp.
B.M.Rajvanshitoprovethesaidentry.A9didnotdenyhisarrest
bythepoliceofAhmadabadinthesaidcase. A9didnotclaim
periodof24/5/1996and1/6/1996.Hedidnotputanysuggestion
arrestedon1/6/1996orthatonthatdatehewaspresentatsome
offenceofthiscase.However,A9failedtoshowastowhatwas
thepurposeofhisvisittoAhmadabadandwhyhealongwithhis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 297of408
298
Ahmadabad.A9toshowhisinnocencewasexpectedtoexplain
astohowandforwhatpurpose,hehadcometoAhmadabad.A9
didnotexplainallthesefactsinhisstatementrecordedu/s313
circumstanceagainsthim.
WazidKasaitobehandedovertocoaccusedNaza(A5). The
SatyamHotelon14/5/1996atDelhi. Theprosecutionhasthus
againsthim. PresenceofaccusedatAhmadabadthusbecomes
anincriminatingpieceofcircumstanceagainsthim. Delhipolice
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 298of408
299
Delhi.Onlyongettinginformationabouthisconfessionalstatement
himinthiscase.
ArrestofA10:
(41)
418 CaseoftheprosecutionisthatA10wasarrestedon
1/6/1996alongwithRashidAhmed,A9andMaqboolZuber at
RupaliCinema,Ahmadabad.Theyallwereinterrogatedandtheir
disclosurestatementswererecorded. CasevideFIRNo.12/96
u/s120B/121/122IPCetcwasgotregisteredatDetectionofCrime
Branch,AhmadabadCity(DCB)PoliceStation.
statedthatinMay,1996hehadreceivedoneTPmessagefrom
DGPGujrat,State,Ahmadabad.Theinformationwasthatone
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 299of408
300
crossedborderatNepalandhadenteredintoIndiaandwouldgo
toAhmadabad,GujratforexplosioninAhmadabad.OnthatPW99
Insp. Rajvanshi along with his team started searching the said
persons.
420 PW99Insp.B.M.Rajvanshi,thethenInchargeofUnit
2inAntiTerroristSquadAhmadabad(Gujrat) deposedthaton
gettinginformationaboutthepersonsmentionedinTPmessage,
Wagela.Theyfoundoneentryinthesaidregisterofthehotelin
whichfourpersonshadcomeinthathotelon24/6/1996andhad
leftthehotelon25/6/1996.AftergettingdetailfromSIWagela,he
himselfwentandsawtheregister. NameofRashidwasfound
suspiciouspersons.Whentheywereinprocessofsearchinthe
personsnearRupaliCinema.Theywerestoppedandpreliminary
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 300of408
301
inquiriesweremadefromthemwhichwerenotfoundsatisfactory.
TheywerebroughttotheofficeofATS.Theywerehavingsome
suspiciousmaterialslikeadigitaldiaryetcandsomesuspicious
seizedthearticlesfromthepossessionofthesaidfourpersons.
HearrestedthesepersonsnamedA9,A10,RashidandMaqbool
121A/122IPCetc.
courseofinvestigationA10disclosedabouthisassociationwith
KashmirIslamikFront(JKIF)andothers.Theyalsodisclosedthat
theywereassignedtheworktostopelectionsinKashmir.Healso
preparedthedisclosurestatementofA10whichisEx.PW99/A.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 301of408
302
markEx.PW98/A;PhotocopyofthepanchnamamarkPW91/C;
PhotocopyofdecodedlanguageofthedigitaldiaryasgivenbyA
translateddocumentofthesamearemarkPW98/A(T);markPW
91/C(T)andmarkPW91/A(T)respectively.Thephotocopyofa
booktitledas'ATaleofExtortion'ismarkPW98/B.Thephotocopy
markPW98/CandPW98/D.ThephotocopyofbillismarkPW
98/E. Thephotocopiesofallthesearticleswerehandedoverto
DelhiPolice.
423 Boththesewitnesseswerecrossexaminedatlength
bytheld.defencecounselfortheaccusedpersons.Inthecross
containingthedigitaldiary.Hedidnotavailservicesofexpertto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 302of408
303
decodeordecipherthedigitaldiary. ThecontentsofmarkPW
91/Aie.,thedecodedversionofdigitaldiarywasnotwrittenbyhim
inthelanguagespokenbytheaccused.Thewitnessvolunteered
toaddthataccusedhadspokeninHindiwhichhehadtakendown
inGujarti.Hefurtheradmittedthatthedigitaldiarywasdecoded
byInsp.B.M.Rajvanshi.Thewitnessdeniedthesuggestionthat
accusedwerearrestedon24/5/1996.
statedthathehadgonetothecontentsofthedigitaldiarywhenit
wasoperatedbyShriB.R.Patil,DSP.Hewasalsopresentthere.
ItwasoperatedbyhimunderthesupervisionofMr.Patil.A10had
madehisstatementinHindianditwastranslatedintoGujratiby
explainingthesametohim.
establishedthatA10wasarrestedon1/6/1996bythepoliceof
ATSatAhmadabad.JudgmentoftheCourtofShri S.H.Vora,ld.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 303of408
304
ASJAhmadabadinSCNo.220/98isveryrelevant.Thecertified
copyofthejudgmentwasfiledonrecordbytheld.counselforthe
accusedpersons. JudgmentwasagainstaccusedAbdulRashid,
AccusedAbdulGaniwhowasfacingtrialinthiscaseatDelhicould
not be produced before the said court during trial. A10 was
described as'absent'accusedno.1inthesaidjudgment. On
goingthroughthesaidjudgment,itrevealsthattheld.ASJdidnot
personssentfortrialthereincludingA10. Thechargesagainst
reasonabledoubtbythecourtandalltheaccusedpersonsinthe
saidcasewereorderedtobeacquitted.
prosecutionthereinhadcometoknowaboutthepresenceoffour
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 304of408
305
accusedpersonsincludingA10arrestedon1/6/1996nearRupali
arrestedon1/6/1996.Duringtheinterveningperiod,therewasno
investigationastowhethertheaccusedstayedatAhmadabador
duringthesaidperiodandalsoabouttheirhideoutatAhmadabad
oranyotherplace.Thereisnothingonrecordtofindoutasto
whataccusedpersonsweredoingduringthatperiod.Therewas
gatheredatPresidentHotelatBharuchoroccupyingoneroomat
AnukulHotel.Whateverrecoveredduringthepersonalsearchof
theaccusedincludingdigitaldiaryorcurrencynotesorsomeused
papersdidnotleadtoinferastowhatexactlytheaccusedwanted
todoandhowtheyintended todotheoffence.Thereislotof
witnesses hadnotsupportedtheprosecutioncase.Theld.ASJ
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 305of408
306
opinedthattheprosecutionhadmiserablyfailedtoestablishthe
above.Theld.courtfurtherobservedthattheprosecutiontherein
failedtoprovetheTPmessageandalsothemannerinwhichthe
accusedpersonswereapprehended.
427 Fromthecontentsofthejudgmentreferredabove,it
howeverstandsestablishedthattheprosecutionwasabletoprove
stayofallthefouraccusedpersonsincludingA10arrestednear
RupalicinemaatAnukulHotel,Ahmadabad.
428 A10wasoneofthesaidfouraccusedpersonswho
thatmereevidenceofassemblingofaccusedatoneplacewasnot
materialtoconstituteanoffenceu/s121/121A/122/123IPC.The
truecriteriawasthepurposeorintentionforwhichtheaccused
attemptbyforceorviolenceorobjectofageneralpublicnature
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 306of408
307
perusaloftheevidenceadducedbeforethecourtregardingstayof
theaccusedatAnukulHotelandregardingthearticlesrecovered
fromtheirpossession,theld.ASJobservedthattheevidencewas
mereevidenceofassociation.Suchevidenceofassociationwas
notsufficienttodrawaninferenceofconspiracyu/s120BIPC.In
casesofconspiracytheagreementbetweentheconspiratorcan't
bedirectlyprovedbutcanbeinferredfromtheestablishedfactsin
thecase.Theinvestigatingagencyvisitedvariousplacesasper
theinformationdecodedfromthedigitaldiarybuttheinvestigating
accusedeitherwithcrimeorwitheachother.
429 ShriB.R.PatilappearingasPW26thereindeposed
thathecouldnotgetanyassistanceeitherfromtheADInterpole,
CBINewDelhiorfrompolicepersonnelofNepal.So,insumand
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 307of408
308
hatchingofconspiracyamongtheaccusedpersonswassoughtto
beprovedwiththehelpoftelephonenumbersfoundinthediaryof
ordertoprovetheconvictiononthechargetheprosecutionhasto
provetherequiredingredientsofoffenceaslaiddownu/s120B,
121,121A,122&123IPC.
430 AnotherjudgmentinSCNo.89/08dated8/9/2008is
alsorelevant.A10alongwithA9andA7facingtrialbeforethis
Theseaccusedpersonscouldnotearlierbeproducedatthetime
G.R.Udhwani,ld.ASJcourtno.6,acquittedalltheseaccusedfor
thecommissionofoffencesforwhichtheywerechargedtherein.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 308of408
309
registeratserialnumber4310dated25/5/1996.Theprosecution
thereinhoweverfailedtoproveothercircumstancestoconnectA
7,A9andA10withthecommissionoftheoffence.
apprehensionandarrestoftheA10 andalsogoingthroughthe
Ahmadabadon1/6/1996.Theprosecutionhasfurtherprovedthat
recoveredfromA10atthetimeofhisarrest.
432 Allthesefactorsweretakenintoconsiderationbythe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 309of408
310
factsprovedbytheprosecutionthereinregardingstayofA10at
AnukulHotelwithhisassociatesistakenintoconsideration,itfails
toconnecthimwiththecommissionoftheoffenceinthiscase.The
contentsofthedigitaldiaryrecoveredfromthepossessionofA10
werenotconsideredincriminating.Ld.SPPhasfailedtoshowthat
thecontentsofthedigitaldiaryarematerialtoinferinvolvementof
A10inthecommissionoftheoffenceorhisassociationwiththe
coaccusedpersons.Noovertacthasbeenattributedbyanyof
theprosecutionwitnessesagainstA10.AfterhisarrestbyDelhi
Policenothingincriminatingwasrecoveredfromthepossessionof
Ahmadabad,A10wasnotfoundinpossessionofanyexplosive
materialorlikeobjectionableobject.PoliceofAhmadabadfailed
torecoveranyincriminatingmaterialattheinstanceofA10during
hisdetentionperiodthere.Nothinghascomeonrecordtoshowif
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 310of408
311
presentcase.ThereisnoevidenceonrecordtoshowifA10had
anyconversationwiththecoaccusedpersonsfacingtrialbefore
fulfillingtheirobject.TheparticipationofA10inthecommissionof
offencehasnotbeenallegedorproved.Nothingisonrecordto
showthatifA10remainedinconstanttouchwiththecoaccused
orthathewasawareoftheconspiracyofthecoaccusedpersons
tocommitthecrime.MereapprehensionofA10on1/6/1996and
hisstayatAnukulHotelwithoutanyfurtherincriminatingevidence
assign any role to A10 for the incident in Delhi. After the
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 311of408
312
disclosurestatementofA10.
433 PW101Insp.ParasNathalsodidnottestifyifafterhis
arrestA10gotrecoveredanyincriminatingevidencetoestablish
hisinvolvementinthecommissionoftheoffence. Theevidence
highlyscantyandisnotenoughtoprovehisguilt.Thereisgreat
intentionwithcoaccusedpersonstocausebombblastatDelhi.
Mereassociationwithoneoftheconspiratorsorevenknowledge
ofconspiracyisnotenough.StateVs.Nalini(1999)5SCC253.
(42)SANCTION:
Secretary(Home),whohasprovedthesanctionu/s196CrPCin
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 312of408
313
PrincipalSecretary(Home)andtheorderinthatrespectsignedby
theHon'bleLieutenantGovernorisdated18.2.1997.Onthebasis
oftheorder,sanctiondated20.2.97waspreparedandsignedby
him. The witness further testified that the sanction was also
PW102/A.ThefilecollectivelyisEx.PW102/B.
435 Duringthecourseofargumentsld.DefenceCounsel
fortheaccusedpersonsdidnotchallengethesanctiongrantedby
theHon'bleLieutenantGovernor.Noargumentswereaddressed
onbehalfoftheaccusedpersonsthatthesanctiongrantedbythe
Hon'ble L.G. was notin accordance with the law or thatit was
mechanicalinnature.Soinmyview,theprosecutionhasproved
therequiredsanctionEx.PW102/Agrantedu/s196CrPCandu/s
7oftheExplosiveSubstanceAct.
(43)RecoveriesattheinstanceofA5.A6&A7on27.6.96at
SriNagar:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 313of408
314
436 Caseoftheprosecutionisthatinpursuanceoftheir
Srinagarandgotrecoveredarmsandexplosives.Theld.defence
counselhasdeniedanysuchrecoveriesattheinstanceofthese
accusedpersons.
437 PW101Insp.ParasNathdisclosedinhisevidence
thaton26/6/1996Insp.JagmalSinghalongwithhisteamtookA
5,A6andA7toSrinagarforfurtherrecoveriesandtheyreturned
backtoDelhion30/6/1996. Onthatday,hefurtherinterrogated
theseaccusedpersonsandrecordeddisclosurestatementsofA6
andA7whichareEx.PW16/JandEx.PW16/M.Thewitness
didnotelaboratethenamesofotherpoliceofficersintheteamof
personstoSrinagar. Thiswitnessalsodidnotrevealastowhat
wasrecoveredattheinstanceoftheseaccusedpersons.
438 IthascomeonrecordthatInsp.JagmalSinghhas
sinceexpired.Thushecouldnotbeexaminedbytheprosecution
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 314of408
315
toprovetherecoveriesallegedlyeffectedattheinstanceofthese
Insp.JagmalSinghontheseizurememopreparedbyhim.
439 ProsecutionexaminedPW17SISanjayKumaronthis
aspect.HehadaccompaniedInsp.JagmalSinghalongwiththese
accusedpersonstoSrinagar. Inhisdepositionbeforethecourt,
hetestifiedthaton27/6/1996hejoinedtheinvestigationandalong
withInsp.JagmalSinghA5,A6andA7 reachedatSrinagar.
alongwithredwirealongwithsomearticlesdetailsofwhichhedid
notrememberwererecovered.Theexplosivesweresealedbythe
IOwiththesealofJSandseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW17/F.
whose house the recovery was effected was A7. The witness
furtherstatedthatthereafter,theyreachedatthehouseofaccused
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 315of408
316
A5 andfromthesearchofhishouse,inasteelboxtwoIEDs
wererecovered.Thedetailsoftherecoveredarticles,hedidnot
remember.HedidnotrememberifthetwoIEDsweresealedor
notbutthesameweretakenintopossessionvidememoEx.PW
17/G.ThereaftertheyreachedatthehouseofA6 andfromthe
searchofhishouse,fromacupboard/almirahfromawallonehand
grenadewasfound.IOsealedthehandgrenadeinaclothparcel
withthesealofJSandseizedvideseizurememoEx.PW17/H.
Thiswitnessclaimedthathecouldidentifytheaccusedpersons.
However,thewitnesspointedouttowardsaccusedpresentbefore
courtwearingcapandtoldhisnameasA6orA5.Theaccused
pointedoutbythewitnesshoweverdisclosedhisnameasMohd.
Naushad(A3).Thewitnesspointedouttowardsanotheraccused
personwearingspecsstatingthathewasA7.Thesaidperson
pointedbythewitness identifiedhisnameasA10.Thewitness
thentooktheexcusethathehadforgottenfacesoftheaccused
personsduetopassageoftime.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 316of408
317
450Thiswitnesswasgotdeclaredhostilebyld.AddlPPfor
theStateandwascrossexamined.Inthecrossexaminedbythe
ld.AddlPPfortheState,thiswitnessadmittedthatsearchofthe
recovered.
451 Inthecrossexamination,thewitnessstatedthat
they had left Delhi on 26/6/1996 for Srinagar by Air under the
assistancefromthepoliceofJ&K.Accusedwerenotproduced
beforeanycourtinSrinagar.AssistancewastakenfromSTF.He
did not know under which road certificate, the two IEDs were
transportedfromSrinagartoDelhi.Hedidnotrememberwhowas
separatepointingoutmemowaspreparedaboutanyoftheplace
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 317of408
318
teamcametoDelhibyroad.HedidnotknowifIOhadgivenany
examinedbytheprosecutiononthisaspect.
452 FromthewaveringtestimonyofsolewitnessPW17
SISanjayKumarexaminedonthiscircumstance,Iamoftheview
thatprosecutionhasfailedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthat
ammunitions/explosivesfromtheirrespectivehousesasclaimed
bytheprosecutionon27/6/1996.Nopublicwitnesswasjoinedat
residinginthehousesfromwheretherecoverieswereeffected.No
documenthasbeenplacedonrecordtoshowifthehousesfrom
personsortheirfamilymembers.Noneofthesewerejoinedinthe
investigation.Insp.JagmalSinghcouldnotappearinthetrialdue
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 318of408
319
houseofwhichaccusedwhichexplosiveetcwasrecovered.He
ammunitionsweretransportedfromSrinagartoDelhiandinwhose
custodythesameremainedduringthesaidperiod.Hewascross
examined bytheld.AddlPP.Nospecificquestionswereputto
himastofromthehouseofwhichaccused,anyparticulararms
andammunitionswererecovered. Prosecutionhasfurtherfailed
toexplainastohowthesearmsandammunitionswererelevantin
admittedthatassistancewastakenfromSTF,J&Katthetimeof
Ex.PW17/GandEx.PW17/HcontainsignatureofoneSIDavinder
SinghofJ&KPolice.PW17SISanjaydidnotutterawordin
hisdepositionifSIDevenderSinghhadjoinedthe investigation.
RatherhepleadedincrossthatnoassistancewastakenfromJ&
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 319of408
320
DevenderSinghasawitnessduringtrial.Adverseinferenceisto
bedrawnagainsttheprosecutionforwithholdingthiswitness.
Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowiftheseaccusedpersonswere
involvedinanycriminalcaseatJ&Ktohavepossessionofthese
explosives.Thereisnothingastofromwheretheseaccusedhad
explosivesallegedlyrecoveredattheinstanceoftheseaccused
personshavenotbeenconnectedwiththeincidenttoinfertheir
conspiracy.
454 A1andA2hadalreadybeenarrestedlongbackby
accusedpersonstocausebombblast.Aftercomingtoknowabout
thearrestofA1andA2atSrinagar,familymembers ofthese
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 320of408
321
ammunitionsattheirhousesforitsrecoverybythepolice. DD
prosecution.IttalksaboutpresenceofoneASIOmPrakashwith
prosecution.
recoveryofallthesearticlesattheinstanceof A5,A6andA7
fromtheirrespectivehouseson27/6/1996.
(44)TelephoneCallbyA5TOA7:
456 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton30.6.1996A5pointed
shopNo.3/32,Bhogal,Delhiandinformedthaton19.5.96inthe
Nepal.PW101Insp.ParasNathdeposedthatpointingoutmemo
Ex.PW16/Kwaspreparedinthisconnection.(Wronglytypedas
failedtoestablishthiscircumstancebeyonddoubt. Pointingout
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 321of408
322
memoEx.PW16/Kdoesnotcontainthenameofownerofshop
no.3/32Bhogal,DelhifromwhereallegedlyA5madetelephone
calltoA7atKathmandu,Nepal. PointingoutmemoEx.PW1/K
doesnotcontainsignaturesoftheownerofSTDboothwhichwas
allegedlypointedoutbyA5.Italsodoesnotcontaindetailsofthe
telephonenumbersastofromwhichtelephonenumbertowhich
telephonenumberA5madetelephonecalltoA7atKathmandu,
Nepal.Nosuchcalldetailsofthesaidcallmadeon19.5.96was
collectedbytheprosecution.MerepointingoutmemoEx.PW16/K
relevantcallrecordwasnotcollectedandwhywitnessfromthe
statementwasnotrecord.TIPofA5wasnotgotconductedfrom
theSTDboothownertoshowifA5hadvisitedhisSTDboothto
telephonecallmadeatKathmandu,Nepal.Nosuchrecordfrom
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 322of408
323
knowntohim.
457 AnotherwitnesstothepointingoutmemoEx.PW16/K
PW16Insp.RajinderGautaminhis examinationinchiefdidnot
testifyifA5hadpointedoutshopno.3/32Bhogal,Delhi. Only
afterhewasgotdeclaredhostilebytheLd.Addl.PPfortheState
andwascrossexamined,headmittedthesuggestionoftheLd.
Addl. PP for the State that A5 had pointed out shop no. 3/32,
witness failedtotestifyastowhowasowneroftheSTDbooth.
HealsofailedtoexplainastowhynorecordfromtheSTDbooth
Prosecutionhasthus,failedtoestablishthiscircumstanceagainst
A5orA7.
(45)LEGALASPECT:
(a)Policewitnessesvalueoftheirevidence:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 323of408
324
458 IdonotsubscribetothecontentionoftheLd.Defence
RameshKumarVsState,reportedinILR(2009)V,Delhi235
Hon'bleHighCourtobservedthat factumofnonexaminationof
prosecutionineverycase.Itdependsupontheadditionalfactor
whetherthe evidenceledbytheprosecutioninspiresconfidence
ornot.Iftheevidenceofpolicewitnessesinspiresconfidenceand
public/independentwitnessesisofnoconsequence.Hon'beHigh
CourtreliedupontheauthorityreportedinKalpnathRaiVsState
(1997)8SCC732whereitwasobserved:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 324of408
325
unworthyofacceptance.Nonexaminationofindependentwitness
orevenpresenceofsuchwitnessduringpoliceraidwouldcastan
addeddutyonthecourttoadoptgreatercarewhilescrutinizingthe
evidenceofthepoliceofficers.Iftheevidenceofthepoliceofficer
isfoundacceptableitwouldbeanerroneouspropositionthatcourt
mustrejecttheprosecutionversionsolelyonthegroundthatno
Madgaonkar(supra)towhichoneofus(Mukherjee,J)isaparty,
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 325of408
326
theaforesaidpositionhasbeenstatedinunambiguousterms,the
relevantportionofwhichisextractedbelow:
460 Indeed,theevidenceoftheofficial(police)witnesses
cannotbediscardedmerelyonthegroundthattheybelongtothe
policeforceandare,eitherinterestedintheinvestigationorthe
sought.Theirdesiretoseethesuccessofthecasebasedontheir
investigation;requires\greatercaretoappreciatetheirtestimony.
Courthasrepelledasimilarcontentionbasedonnonexamination
reiteratedbythisCourttimeandagainvideParasRamVsState
ofHaryana(1992)4SCC662,SameAlanaAbdullaVsStateof
Gujarat,(1996)1SCC427,Anil@AndyaSadashivNandoskar
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 326of408
327
(Delhi)JT1996(3)SCC338.
462 Inthepresentcaseeffortsweremadebythepolice
tojointheindependentpublicwitnessesatthetimeofeffecting
recoveryatthe residencesofA1andA2andotheraccused
investigation.A1andA2whowereresidentsofJ&Kdidnot
askanyneighbortojoininvestigationatthetimeoftheirvisit
alongwithpolice.DelhiPolicebeingstrangertothevicinityofthe
accusedpersonswasnotexpectedtogetindependentpublic
witnessestojoinintheinvestigation.Itisseenwheneverthe
policejoinsindependentpublicwitnessandiftheysupportthe
caseoftheprosecution,theyaredubbedas''stockwitnesses''
orinterestedwitnesses.Whenwitnessesjoinedbythepolice
turnhostile,thencourtisaskedtoappreciatetheirevidence.No
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 327of408
328
becauseitfailedtojoinindependentpubicwitnessesatthetime
accusedpersons.
:
b.Section27EvidenceAct
463 IdonotsubscribetothepleaoftheLd.Defence
prosecutioncan'tbetakenintoconsiderationastheyarenot
admissibleinevidence.Hon'bleSupremeCourtinthecase,
State(NCTofDelhi)VsNavjotSandhu@AfsanGuru(2005)
11SCC600,hascategoricallyheldinpara(204),
..........Thatinformationfurnished
to the investigating officers leading to
thediscoveryoffactsandtheconductof
the accused in pointing out the places
where the terrorists stayed are
admissibleeitheru/s27orSec.8ofthe
EvidenceActandtheysupplementthe
evidence furnished by the IOs, the
landlordsandtheshopkeepers
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 328of408
329
caseAIR1972SC975,
Courtadmittedtheportioninevidenceu/s27bywhichthe
disclosurestatementsmadebytheaccusedpersonscan'tbe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 329of408
330
EvidenceAct.
JOINTDISCLOSURESTATEMENTSVALUE:
C.
466 Inthepresentcase,somefactshavebeendiscovered
bythepoliceinpursuanceofthejointdisclosurestatementsmade
bymorethanoneaccusedperson. Thelawhasbeenlaiddown
onthisaspectbytheHon'bleHighCourtinthecasereportedas
557.Hon'bleHighCourtobserved:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 330of408
331
JaipalandDharamSinghhasbeenprovedbythetestimonyofSI
ChanderpalPW29,SIRameshSinghPW30andConst.Dayanand
PW23.ThepointingoutmemosEx.PW26/C,Ex.PW26/DandEx.
PW26.ItthusstandestablishedthatthedeadbodyofSunilwas
recoveredfromaplacenotwithintheknowledgeofthepoliceand
afactwasdiscoveredbythepolicenamelythatMadan,Jaipland
DharamSinghhadknowledgeaboutthedeadbodybeinginthe
sugarcanefield,atadistanceofabout15metersfromacanal,
hiddenbysugarcane,invillageSilapur,i.e.Theplacewherefrom
thedeadbodywasactuallyrecovered.
468 Thus,itstandsprovedthatappellantsJaipa,Madan
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 331of408
332
andDharamSinghhadknowledgeaboutSunil(deceased)being
murderedandhisdeadbodybeinghiddeninthesugarcanefieldin
villageSilapurandthattheaforesaidevidencepertainingtotheir
disclosurestatementsandtherecoveryofthedeadbodyattheir
instanceandtheidentificationthereofasthatofdeceasedSunilis
incriminatingevidenceagainstthethreesincetheyhavenotbeen
abletoexplainsaidevidenceagainstthem.
469 Inthepresentcasealso,discoveryoffactsnotearlier
knowntothepoliceinpursuanceofjointstatementsofaccused
personsA3,A5andA6arerelevantandcrucialtoconnectthem
withtheoffence.
d.HostileWitnessesValueoftheirtestimonies:
470 ThereisnoforceintheargumentsoftheLd.Defence
Counselsfortheaccusedpersonsthattestimoniesofindependent
publicwitnessesexaminedbytheprosecutionduringtrialshould
notbebelievedagainstthemastheyhaveturnedhostileandhave
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 332of408
333
notsupportedtheprosecutionintoto.Itisfurtherstatedthatonly
whentheseprosecutionwitnessesweregotdeclaredhostilebythe
Spl. PP for the State and were examined, they came up with
differentversiontosupporttheprosecution.
Counselsfortheaccusedpersons.Theevidenceofawitnessas
wholeistobereadtoascertainthefactsdisclosedbythewitness.
472 Itiswellsettledlawthattestimonyofahostilewitness
can'tberejectedaswhole.
473 InthelatestcaseofBurSingh&AnotherVsState
ofPunjab,reportedinAIR2009SC157,Hon'bleSupremeCourt
hassummedupthelawonthisaspectinparaNo.(13)asunder:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 333of408
334
separatethegrainfromthechaff. Wherethe
chaffcanbeseparatedfromthegrain,itwould
be open to the Court to convict an accused
notwithstandingthefactthatevidencehasbeen
found to be deficient to prove gui9lt of other
accusedpersons.Falsityofparticularmaterial
witnessormaterialparticularwouldnotruinit
fromthebeginningtoend.Themaxim'falsus
inunofalsusinomnibus''hasnoapplicationin
India and the witness cannot be branded as
liars. The maxim ''falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus''hasnotreceivedgeneralacceptance
norhasthismaximcometooccupythestatus
ofaruleoflaw. Itismerelyaruleofcaution.
All that it amounts to, is that in such cases
testimonymaybedisregarded,andnotthatit
must be discarded. The doctrine merely
involved the question of weight of evidence
which a Court may apply in a given set of
circumstances,butitisnotwhatmaybecalled'
amandatoryruleofevidence'.(SeeNisarAliV
TheStateofUttarPradesh,(AIR1957SC366).
Merelybecausesomeoftheaccusedpersons
havebeenacquitted,thoughevidenceagainst
allofhem,sofarasdirecttestimonywent,was
the same does not lead as a necessary
corollary that those who have been convicted
mustalsobeacquitted. Itisalwaysopentoa
Court to differentiate accused who had been
acquittedfromthosewhowereconvicted.(See
GurcharanSinghandAnr.V.StateofPunjab
(AIR 1956 SC 460). The doctrine is a
dangerousonespeciallyinIndiaforifawhole
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 334of408
335
474 AlsointhecaseofKeharSingh(Supra)theHon'ble
SupremeCourtinParaNo.(302)observed:
e.MinorContradictionsEffect:
475 Minorcontradictionsanddiscrepanciespointedoutby
witnessesinmyviewarenot fataltotheprosecutioncase as
thesedonotgototherootofthecase.
476 InthematerofRameshKumar(supra)
Hon'bleHigh
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 335of408
336
Courtobservedasunder:
Beforedealingwiththeaforenoted
submissionofthecounselfortheappellant
itwouldbeappositetoreferthefollowing
observations rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a recent decision in
CriminalAppealNo.456/2002Jayaseelan
Vs State of Tamil Nadu decided on
11.2.2009:
......... Witnesses just cannot help in
givingembroiderytoastory,however,truein
themain.Therefore,ithastobeappraisedin
eachcaseastowhatextenttheevidenceis
worthyofacceptance,andmerelybecausein
somerespectsandCourtconsidersthesame
to be insufficient for placing reliance on the
testimonyofawitness,itdoesnotnecessarily
follow as a matter of law that it must be
disregarded in all respect as well. The
evidence has to be shifted with care. The
aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the
reason that one hardly comes across a
witness whose evidence does not contain a
grainofuntruthorat anyrateexaggeration,
embroideries or embellishment..... As
observedbythisCourtinStateofRajasthan
VsSmt.KalkiandAnr. (1981)2SCC752,
normal discrepancies in evidence are those
which are due to normal errors of
observations,normalerrorsofmemorydueto
lapseoftime,duetomentaldispositionsuch
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 336of408
337
asshockandhorroratthetimeofoccurrence
andthosearealwaystherehowever,honest
and truthful a witness may be. Material
discrepanciesarethosewhicharenotnormal,
andnotexpectedofanormalperson.Courts
have to label the category to which a
discrepancy may be categorized. While
normal discrepancies do not corrode the
credibility of a part's case, material
discrepanciesdoso.......
accusedhimselfandagainstcoaccused:
Nalini(Supra)heldthatconfessionsareconsidered
unlesspromptedbyhisconsciencetotellthetruth.
Ithasfurtherheldthatconfessionofanaccusedis
admissibleassubstantiveevidenceagainsthimself
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 337of408
338
whenusedagainstacoaccused.Hon'bleSupreme
Courtfurtherobservedthatthereisnoprovisionin
accused. InthesettingofthoseprovisionsSection
30oftheEvidenceActisenactedwhichisaclear
corroboratingtheevidenceonrecordagainsttheco
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 338of408
339
observedthatthepositionoftheaccusedwhohas
accusedisthathehasplacedhimselfonthesame
plankandthushesinksorsailsalongwiththeco
accusedonthebasisofhisconfession. Forthese
reasons,insofarasuseofconfessionofanaccused
againstacoaccusedisconcerned,ruleofprudence
evidenceonrecord.
(Supra)Hon'bleSupremeCourtheldthatthetwinteststobe
confessionwasperfectlyvoluntary,and(2)ifso,whetheritis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 339of408
340
broadmethodbywhichaconfessioncanbeevaluatedisthat
surroundingcircumstancesandprobabilitiesofthecase.ifon
suchexaminationandcomparison,theconfessionappearsto
beaprobablecatalogueofeventsandnaturallyfitsinwhich
therestoftheevidenceandthesurroundingcircumstances,it
maybetakentohavesatisfiedthesecondtest.
479 Regardinguseofretractedconfessionagainstco
accusedHon'bleSupremeCourtheldthattheproperwayto
approachacaseofthiskindis,first,tomarshaltheevidence
convictioncouldsafelybebasedonit.Ifitiscapableofbelief
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 340of408
341
necessarytocalltheconfessioninaid.Butcasesmayarise
wherethejudgeisnotpreparedtoactontheotherevidence
asitstandseventhough,ifbelieved,itwouldbesufficientto
sustainaconviction. Insuchaneventthejudgemaycallin
aidtheconfessionanduseittolendassurancetotheother
evidenceandthusfortifyhimselfinbelievingwhatwithoutthe
aidoftheconfessionhewouldnotbepreparedtoaccept.
480 Thecourtcan'tstartwiththeconfessionofaco
accusedperson;itmustbeginwithotherevidenceadducedby
theprosecutionandafterithasformeditsopinionwithregard
assurancetotheconclusionofguiltwhichthejudicialmindis
abouttoreachonthesaidotherevidence.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 341of408
342
EvidenceAct,1872istheCourtmaytakeintoconsideration
suchconfession.Thesewordsimplythattheconfessionofa
accused.
482 SimilaristheviewofHon'bleSupremeCourtin
statementisadmissibleinevidence.Itisarelevantfact.The
courtmayrelythereuponifitisvoluntarilygiven.Itmayalso
formthebasisofconviction.
Magistrateadmissibleinevidence.
g.RemissnessofI.OEffect:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 342of408
343
defective.Atnostagethepoliceoptedtoputanyoftheaccused
personsforTIPfromtheprosecutionwitnesses.Theprosecution
arrestedinthiscase conductedfromtheprosecutionwitnesses.
Thecaseoftheprosecutionisthattheaccusedpersonsledthe
policeteamatvariousplacesduringinvestigationandpointedout
preparationofcylinderbombplantedinthemaruticarinquestion.
However,atnostagepolicebotheredtogetanyoftheaccused
proceedingsfromtheprosecutionwitnesses.
485 Thepolicedidnotdeemitfitduringinvestigationtoget
Perusalofthefilerevealsthatnumberofprosecutionwitnesses
examinedbythepoliceduringinvestigationandwhosestatements
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 343of408
344
wererecordedundersection161CrPC haveturnedhostileand
didnotsupporttheprosecution.
486 Thepoliceduringinvestigationdidnotseizerelevant
recordpertainingtothevisits/stayoftheaccusedpersonsinthe
concernedemployees/Managersofthehotelswerenotrecorded.
487 Thepolicedidnotjointhelocalpoliceatanystage
duringinvestigationanddidnotmakeanyentriesoftheirvisitsout
sideDelhi.NoDDentriesregardinganysuchvisitswasprovedon
evidencetheirvisitstospecificplaces.Theaccusedarrestedfrom
andnotransitremandofanyoftheaccusedwasobtainedcreating
doubt ofthedate,placeandthemannerinwhichtheaccused
personswereapprehendedandarrestedinthiscase.
488 Numberofwitnessescitedinthelistofwitnesseswere
notexaminedbytheprosecutionduringtrial.Insp./ACPPPSingh
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 344of408
345
isstatedtobetheoverallinchargeoftheinvestigation.However,
atthefirstinstance,hedidnotbothertoappearaswitnessbefore
thecourt.Onlywhenapplicationu/s311CrPCwasmovedbythe
PW105ACPPPSingh.
489 Ld.Spl.P.PfortheStateduringtrialandspecifically
duringfinalargumentsalwayscomplainedaboutnoncooperation
efforts were made during the last about more than 14 years to
presentedasProclaimedOffenders.
490 Antecedentofnoneoftheaccusedwascollectedby
thepoliceduringinvestigation.Inthedisclosurestatementofthe
accusedpersons,thepolicehadcometoknowaboutthedetailsof
theantecedentsoftheaccusedpersonsandalsoregardingtheir
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 345of408
346
recordedinthedisclosurestatementsoftheaccusedpersons.No
activitiesoftheseaccusedpersonspriortotheincidentandandto
findoutastoinhowmanysimilarcasestheywereinvolvedorany
ofthemwaseverconvictedatanytime.
variouscallsallegedlymadebytheaccusedpersonspriortothe
incident.
492 A1wasadmittedlyemployedwithGovt.ofJ&Kprior
totheincidentasEngineer.Noinvestigationwascarriedoutbythe
IOtoascertainifA1usedtoattendhisofficeregularlyorheused
incidentswerenotascertained.Hisofficialaccommodationwhere
heusedtoresidepriortotheincidentwasnotsearched.
493 However,itisalsowellsettledthatprosecutioncaseasa
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 346of408
347
officers. Otherwise,cogent,reliableandtrustworthyevidenceof
independentpublicwitnessistobegivenpreference.Hence,this
aspectdoesnotcausedentinthecaseofprosecution.
(46)CONSPIRACY
A.ROLEOFA1
494 OnlymaterialcircumstancetoinferconspiracyofA1
hisresidenceinpursuanceofdisclosurestatementmadebyhim.
conspiracywithcoaccusedpersons.Ld.SpecialPPfortheState
residenceofA1 hasnothingtodowiththecommissionofthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 347of408
348
werenotmeantforexplosionatCentralMarket,LajpatNagar,New
witnessesifanyexplosiveusedinthecommissionoftheincident
wasreceivedbyA1athisresidenceoranysuchexplosivewas
transportedfromJ&KtoDelhiortoanyotherplace.Contraryto
incidentweredeliveredbyA9attheresidenceofPWWazidKasai
whichwastobehandedovertoA5.Itisthesaidexplosivewhich
isallegedtohavebeenusedinthecommissionoftheincident.
residenceofA1isconcerned,itisnotenoughtoconnecthimin
thehatchingofconspiracywiththeaccusedpersons.Nothinghas
comeonrecordtoshowifA1hadgivenanyinstructionstoany
comeonrecordifA1hadvisitedDelhiatanytimeinconnection
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 348of408
349
withincidentinquestion.NovisitsofA1atGorakhpuroratNepal
movementssoonpriortotheoccurrence.
employedasGovt.servantwithJ&K.Norecordwascollectedby
theIOfromtheofficeofA1wherehewasinservicetoshowifA1
usedtoattendhisofficeregularlyorusedtoremainabsentfrom
hisoffice.ThemovementsofA1werenotascertainedsoonprior
totheincident.Nodocumentaryevidencewascollectedfromthe
officeofA1regardinghisabsenceathisplaceofworkontheday
ofincidentinDelhi.IthasrathercomeonrecordthatA1didnot
abscondatany time.HewasapprehendedbythepoliceofPS
SherGarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94on25.5.96.Prosecutionfailed
toshowastohowandunderwhatcircumstanceandfromwhere
apprehended on25.5.96byDelhiPolicejustoutsidePSSher
Garhi.Noincriminatingarticlewasrecoveredfromthepossession
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 349of408
350
personalsearcharticlesrecoveredfromthepersonofA1were
handedovertoDelhiPoliceatthetimeofapprehensionofA1.
DelhiPolicebyPW95Insp.ShivKumar. Thiscircumstancehas
alreadybeendiscussedanddisbelievedbythecourt.
participatedinanymeetingofJKIFonanyparticulardateatany
particularplace. Theprosecutiondidnotcollectanyevidenceto
showifA1wasactivememberofJKIFandusedtoparticipatein
itsactivities..Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifanytimeprior
totheincidentA1waseverapprehendedforhisunlawfulactivities
beingthememberofJKIFandthisfactcametothenoticeofhis
employer.
498 PW85ManoharSingh,SuperintendentofPolice,J&K
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 350of408
351
merely statedthatduringthemonthofJune1996,interrogation
associatesusedtoheldmeetingsatthehouseofA2.Heusedto
receivecopyofIRAinterrogationreportsregardingtheincidentsof
suchtypeoforganizations.Thiswitnessdidnotspecifyatallifhe
hadgotanyinterrogationreportregardingA1tohaveattended
examination,thiswitnessadmittedthathedidnotorderarrestof
meetingheldattheresidenceofA2. Hadthiswitnesscometo
knowaboutanysuchmeetingattheresidenceofA2,hemust
suspects.CoaccusedpersonsexceptA1andA2usedtoreside
outsideJ&K.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifanysuchco
accusedhadevervisitedJ&KtomeetA1andA2tohaveany
meeting.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 351of408
352
SherGarhion25.5.96byDelhiPolice.Asdiscussedabove,police
failedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubttheexactdate,placeand
mannerofarrestofA1andA2justoutsidePSSherGarhi.Delhi
PW78 FarooqKhan,thethenSSP(Operation),SriNagar,J&K.
materialonthebasisofwhichA1wasconsideredassuspectin
press/mediawas takenbyselfstyledterroristorganizationJKIF.
They had some clues from reliable sources about the said
organizationandworkedonthisinformationwiththehelpofsecret
AnantNag.ThiswitnessdidnotrevealifbeforearrestofA1,he
hadcometoknowifA1hadmadeanytelephonecalltodifferent
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 352of408
353
interrogation, A1disclosedthathehadmadedifferentcallsto
agencies,therewasnooccasionforthiswitnessnottoapprehend
A1andtokeephimindetentiontillthearrivalofDelhiPoliceatJ
&K.ThiswitnessdidnotapprehendA1.Healsodidnotoptto
raidtheresidenceofA1tofindoutanyincriminatingarticleathis
residence. Nothinghasbeenrevealedbythiswitnessifhehad
cometoknowastofromwhichtelephonenumber,atwhichplace,
agenciesatDelhi. Evidencehasrathercomeonrecordthatthis
accusedwasallegedlyapprehendedbypoliceofPSSherGarhiin
releasedbythepoliceofPSSherGarhijustbeforearrivalofDelhi
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 353of408
354
PoliceatJ&K.OnlyA1andA2happenedtobepresentoutside
PSSherGarhiwhenDelhiPoliceapprehendedthemandbrought
persons.
PoliceinthiscaseafterhisapprehensionatDelhi.However,even
arrestedinthiscase. Coaccusedsubsequentlyarrestedinthis
casehappenedtobeinvolvedinthiscaseonlyduetoconfessional
question.HadA1beenactivelyinvolvedinanyconspiracywith
conspiracyonapprehensionofA1.
501 Differentversionhasbeengivenbythepoliceinthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 354of408
355
chargesheetregardingtheapprehensionofA1atJ&K.Inthe
blastatLajpatNagar bymakingtelephonecallstopress/media
fromtelephoneno.22135fromAnandNag,SriNagar,J&K.J&K
policewasinformedtodevelopinformation.Ongettinginformation
fromJ&K. On24.5.96,A1andA2werearrestedbyPSSher
GarhiincaseFIRNo.162/94.Thisstatementinthechargesheet
iscontrarytotheevidenceadducedonrecordbytheprosecution.
Thereisnothing inthetestimonyofPW78FFarooqKhanifhe
telephoneno.22135.Beforeallegedfaxmessageandwireless
messageweresentbyPW78F.FarooqKhan,DelhiPolicewas
notawareifA1hadownedanyresponsibilityintheLajpatNagar
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 355of408
356
activitiesofA1aftertheincident.Nocalldetailsofthistelephone
prosecutiontoascertainhisconductregardingtheincidentorto
evenfailedtoprovebeyondreasonabledoubtifitwasA1who
hadmadetelephonecallstoanytelephonenumberfromtelephone
recordifA1wastheChiefSpokesmanofJKIF.Prosecutionhas
conversationontelephonewastracedofthisaccusedwithmaster
mindoftheincident.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifany
kingpinoftheincidentinsideoroutsideIndiaremainedintouch
withthisaccusedoreverpassedoveranyinstructionstocarryout
nefariousplan.NoliteratureoftheJKIFwasrecoveredfromthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 356of408
357
apprehensionofA1on24.5.96,nohousesearchoftheaccused
wasconductedtorecoveranysuchobjectionablematerial.Nocall
detailswerediscoveredtoshowifA1andA2usedtoremainin
constanttouchorthatA1hadcalledA2atherresidenceonany
particulardatetoattendanysuchmeeting.
502 A1wasarrestedinJune,1996bythepoliceincase
beendischargedinthesaidcase.
503 A1alongwith(A6)wasarrestedinDosabombblast
case.PW101Insp.ParasNath,however,admittedthatA1was
dischargedintheSwaiManSinghStadiumJaipurblastcase.
504 PW101Insp.ParasNathfurtheradmittedthathehad
inquiredaboutpostingofA1whenhe hadgonetoSriNagarin
July,1996andhadcometoknowthathewaspostedinBijbhirar.
HehadcometoknowabouttheresidenceofA1whichwasin
GovernmentFlatsinChandpora,DistrictSriNagarbearingNo.K
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 357of408
358
22,LalNagar,Chandpora.Hedidnotinquireaboutdurationofthe
stayofA1atSriNagar. Thiswitnessfailedtoinvestigateasto
where infactA1usedtoresidewithhisfamily,whetherathis
officeaccommodationorattheaddressofhisfather.Policedid
notinvestigateastoforwhatdurationA1hadstartedresidingat
hisresidenceatAnantNag.Noinformationisthereonrecordto
showifA1washavingany telephoneconnectionathisofficial
wasreceived.Itwasnotascertainedastowhoelsewasresiding
recordedu/s161CrPCtoinferifA1usedtohavefrequentaccess
residenceonthedateofincident toowntheresponsibilityofhis
neighborwasexaminedbytheprosecutiontoshowvisitsofA1at
hisresidenceatAnantNag.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 358of408
359
questioningandanswersgivenbythemweresenttoDelhiPolice
withrespecttooffence. Nosuchquestionsandanswershave
alreadybeendiscussedindetailwhichdoesnotgiveanycogent
informationabouttheapprehensionoftheaccusedpersonsand
alsoregardingtheirinterrogation.IntheevidencePW78didnot
deposeastowhatwasthematerialavailablewithhimtosuspect
theinvolvementofA1inthecommissionoftheoffence.
residenceofA8havenotbeenbelievedbythecourtinthesaid
circumstancediscussed.Evenaftertheincidentnothinghascome
armsorexplosivefromhim.
507 A1allegedactivememberofJKIFisnotexpectedto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 359of408
360
responsibilityofbombblastwhenhehadnotdisclosedhisidentity
fromlandlinetelephonenumberinstalledattheresidenceofhis
fatherparticularlywhenhehadnotdisclosedhisidentitytomedia.
508 Onjudicialrecordthereisanewspaper'CITY'dated
27/5/1996 inwhichthereismentionthatJKIFdeniedifA1was
memberoftheoutfitorwasevenremotelyconnectedwithit.
509 NootherovertacthasbeenattributedtoA1toinfer
conspiracy.Criminalresponsibilityforaconspiracyrequiresmore
thanamerelypassiveattitude.
510 A9inhisconfessiondidnotutterawordaboutA1to
haveanyroleintheincident.A1didnotfinanceanyconspirator.
Hedidnotgivesheltertoanyothercoaccusedinvolvedinthe
incident.NomotiveofA1tocausebombblasthasbeenproved.
beenprovedonrecord.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 360of408
361
disclosurestatementinthiscasewasarrestedbythepoliceofPS
ConnaughtPlaceincaseFIRNo.817/95u/s307/323/427/120B
causingbombblaston21/11/1995.Hefacedtrialinthesaidcase.
However,videjudgmentdated7/4/2001,hewasacquittedbythe
courtofShriBabuLal,thethenld.AddlSessionsJudge.Acquittal
ofA1alongwithA2forbombblaston21/11/1995isadditional
factortodiscardtheallegationofprosecutionofhisinvolvementin
thisincident.
photocopyofjudgmentwhichhasnotbeenchallengedofthecourt
atJaipurincaseFIRNo.39/96u/s307/456/120BIPCetcwhere
weregotdischargedforwantofevidenceon18/9/1997.Again,this
dischargealsoisafactortoinferhisinnocenceinthiscase.
513 TheprosecutionhasthusfailedtoprovethatA1was
memberofconspiracytocausebombblastatDelhion21/5/1996.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 361of408
362
Hedeservesbenefitofdoubtinthisregard.
B.RoleofA2:
514 SofarasA2isconcerned,theprosecutionhasfailed
comeonrecordtoshowifA2enteredintoanyagreementwithco
accusedpersonsatanytimetocommittheoffenceorhatchedthe
criminalconspiracyonthataspect.
515 Conspiracyconsistsintheagreementoftwoormore
personstodoanunlawfulact,ortodoalawfulactbyunlawful
reportedin1988(3)SCC atpage731Hon'bleSupremeCourt
observedthat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 362of408
363
bedonehasnotbeendone.Sotoo,itisnot
an ingredient of the offence that all the
parties should agree to do a single illegal
act.Itmaybecomprisethecommissionof
anumberofacts.
516 Inthepresentcase,nothinghascomeonrecordto
showifA2evermetcoaccusedpersonspriortotheincidentto
hatchanysuchconspiracy.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowif
A2everremainedinconstanttouchwithanyofthecoaccused
personsatanytime. Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowifshe
everparticipatedinthecommissionoftheoffenceinanyformor
thatsheevergaveanyinstructionstothecoaccusedpersonsto
carryouttheplan.ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA2ever
facilitatedinwhatsoevermannerinthecommissionoftheoffence
atanyplace.Theprosecutiondidnotcollectanyevidencetoshow
involvementofA2intheconspiracyinquestion.Noevidencewas
collectedbytheprosecutiontoshowifA2wasinvolvedinany
suchactivitiesorthatsheusedtohavemeetingsatherresidence
asalleged.NorecordwasproducedtoshowifA2hadorganized
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 363of408
364
conspiracy. A2wasapprehendedbythepoliceofJ&Kincase
recordtoshowastowhatexactlywastheinvolvementofA2in
thesaidcase.TheproceedingsofthesaidcaseincludingtheFIR
havenotbeenplacedonrecordbytheprosecution.Itisalsonot
revealedastowhathashappenedtotheproceedingsinthesaid
caseorif A2hasbeenchargesheetedbeforeanycourtinthe
saidproceedings.NoothercaseagainstA2hasbeenbroughton
recordtoinferherinvolvementinterroristactivities.Hadthepolice
ofJ&KorBSFwasawareaboutanymeetingsoftheterrorist
statement,wherewasthehitchforJ&Kpolicenot toraidthe
residenceofA2atthattime.Infact,noevidencehascomeon
recordtoshowifanysuchmeetingwasorganizedbyA2ather
residenceandifso, whohadparticipatedinthesaidmeetingor
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 364of408
365
documentaryevidenceonrecordonthisaspect.
517 ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifatanytimeA2
questionorsheeverprovidedanyinputstotheothermembersof
theconspiracy.A2wasnotnamedbycoaccusedpersonsintheir
recordedbyPW100ShBhagwanDass,u/s164CrPCincaseFIR
307/427/120BIPC.Ihavegonethroughthedetailedconfessional
statementmadebyA9.ThereisnotawhisperofA2inthesaid
memberoftheconspiracy.FromtheconfessionalstatementofA
9, ratheritrevealsthatconspiracywashatchedinKathmandu,
nothingtoinferifanyammunitionorexplosivereachedfromSri
NagartoDelhi.A9didnotmentionifheremainedintouchwithA
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 365of408
366
2atanytime.HedidnotstateifhevisitedJ&Ksoonpriortothe
incidentorhadanyconversationmeeting withA2.Hatchingof
conspiracyatSriNagardoesnotappealtomymindasA9used
toresidecontinuouslyforsufficientlongtimeatKathmandu,Nepal
andwascarryingouthisbusinessthere.Thereisnoevidenceon
recordtoshowifhevisitedKashmirsoonpriortotheincident.
518 Similarly,disclosurestatementofA10Ex.PW101/A
claimedtohavejoinedJKIFinDecember,1995only.Healsodoes
notknowaboutanymeetingatJ&KwithA2.Hedidnotascribe
organizedattheresidenceofA2.NorolewasassignedtoA2in
theincident.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 366of408
367
admittedlysisterofA11whoisallegedtobesupremeleaderof
JKIFandthemastermindoftheincident.Thatfact itselfisnot
recordtoshow conductandmovementofA2soonpriortothe
incidentoraftertheincident.Noevidencewascollectedastowhat
weretheactivitiesofA2duringtheperiodwhentheincidenttook
place.Shedidnotabscondfromherplaceofresidenceafterthe
incidentandwasapprehendedbythepoliceofJ&KincaseFIR
No.162/94,PSSherGarhi. Eveninthatcasewithoutarresting
happenedtoapprehendheroutsidePSSherGarhiinpursuance
residenceofA2werenotcollectedtoshowifA2usedtoremain
intouchwithcoaccusedpersons. Noincriminatingmaterialwas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 367of408
368
statementofA2Ex.PW25/Kwasrecordedon26/5/1996.Inthe
disclosurestatementthereisnomentionastowhenanymeeting
hadtakenplaceattheresidenceofA2. Asperherdisclosure
office/placeofJKIFforrecoveryofanyincriminatingmaterialto
inferhertobeactivememberofthatorganization.
520 PW85ManoharSingh,S.P(J&K)alsofailedtothrow
anylightonthesuspiciousactivitiesofA2asdiscussedabove.
521 Nocircumstancehasbeenadducedonrecordbythe
membersoftheconspiracy.ThereisnothingonrecordthatA2
wasawareoftheplanoftheotheraccusedandwasaparttosuch
maintainingpersonalortelephoniccontactswithothercoaccused
connectionwithorinpursuanceoftheconspiracy.Shewasnot
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 368of408
369
connectedwiththeprocurementofhideouts,explosivesandother
incriminatingarticlesusedbyexecutorsofplan.Thereisnothing
inevidencethatA2renderedanyadviceorgaveimportanttips/
informationrelevanttotheproposedbombblast.
somekindofphysicalmanifestationofagreementsuchasbyway
ofmeetingandcommunication.Inmostcasesproofofconspiracy
islargelyinferentialthoughtheinferencemustbefoundedonsolid
facts.Surroundingcircumstancesandantecedentandsubsequent
conduct,amongotherfactors,constituterelevantmaterial.Afew
bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies
cannotbeheldtobeadequateforconnectingtheaccusedinthe
offenceofcriminalconspiracy. Thecircumstancesbefore,during
conspiracybyA2.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 369of408
370
not,perseenough.StateVs.Navjot(supra).
However,ithasbeenfairlyconcededbytheprosecutionthatthe
ammunitionsrecoveredfromtheresidenceofA2hasnothingto
dowiththeincidentinquestion.Thesaidammunitionshasnot
incriminatingcircumstanceormaterialhasbeenprovedtoinfer
involvementofA2inhatchingtheconspiracyinthiscase.
InvolvementofA3:
C.
commissionoftheoffencerelieduponbytheprosecutionareas
under:
a.RecoveryofExplosivesetc.:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 370of408
371
526 AfterhisarrestalongwithA4on14/6/1996fromNew
DelhiRailwayStation, disclosurestatementofA3wasrecorded
whichisEx.PW31/B.Inpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement,A
3 led the police team to his residence at P7, First Floor, DDA
Flats,TurkmanGate,Delhiandfromthere,hegotrecoveredtwo
RDXbricksEx.PW18/64&65inagreenpolythenebagEx.P17;
thetimerwatchEx.P8,theironsolderEx.P9,thewireEx.P10,
screw driver Ex.P11, pliers Ex. P12, wire cutter Ex. P13, two
aralditetubesEx.P14,electricwireEx.P15andonegascylinder
Ex.P16.Thiscircumstancehasbeendiscussedindetailasserial
obtainedtheexplosivesrarelyavailableinthemarket. Healso
RecoveryofRDXbeing1kg150gms alongwithotherarticles
pointsanaccusingfingeragainstA3.
b.Abscondence:
527 A3remainedabscondedfromhisresidenceafterthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 371of408
372
effortstoapprehendA3.However,A3couldnotbetracedoutat
hisresidence.NofamilymemberofA3wasfoundpresentatthe
house when A3 led the police team at his residence and got
recoveredRDXslabsandotherarticles.A3failedtoexplainasto
whereheremainedduringthisperiodandwhyheabscondedfrom
information,A3alongwithA4wasarrestedatNewDelhiRailway
Stationatabout7.30pmhewastoboardVaishaliExpresstogo
toGorakhpur.ProsecutionprovedapprehensionofA3andA4
GorakhpurfortwopersonsfromthepossessionofA3.A3failed
prosecutionisthatthepurposeofA3andA4tovisitGorakhpur
wastocollectcashfromA6andA7whoweretoreachthere.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 372of408
373
c.StayatGorakhpur:
testifiedbeforethecourtthat on18/6/1996policehadtakentwo
Gorakhpurandhadseizedthesamevidememo Ex.PW40/D.
Thereafterphotocopyoftheentryinwhichthenameofvisitor/
TurkmanGate,Delhiatserialnumber1285wasshownashehad
taken.StayofA3atGuptaHotelatGorakhpurhasbeenproved
in circumstanceatserialnumber13. Policecametoknowabut
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 373of408
374
PW83VijayKumarGuptahasprovedstayofA3inroomno.
14from9/10amto9.30pm.Documentaryproofregardingentryin
registerseizedbythepoliceconfirmedhisstay atGuptaHotel,
Gorakhpur.
529 ProsecutionfurtherprovedreservationchartEx.PW
40/AshowingnameofA3appearingat serialnumber7therein.
NosuggestionwasputtothewitnessthatA3hadnottravelledby
ShaheedExpressfromGorakhpuron27/5/1996.Thegenuiness
ofthereservationchartwasnotchallenged.A3failedtodisclose
astowhyhegothisseatreservedon27/5/1996.
d.Pointingoutshopof'DulhanDupatta':
incident. Hedeposedthaton19/5/1996onSundayaspertheir
plan, healongwithA5andA6parkedtheMaruticaratabout
7.00pmatCentralMarket,LajpatNagarinfrontofoneshopof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 374of408
375
'DupattaRangai'onwhichtherewasaboardof'DulhanDupatta'.
Thereweresomeshopsofvegetablesandfruitsthere.Theshop
keeperof'DulhanDupatta'toldthemnottoparkthevehiclethere.
Thereafterheparkedthesameatsomedistance.
withA5andA6ledthepoliceteamatthesaidplacewhereon
19/5/1996 they had parked the vehicle in front of the shop of '
Kumarsupportedtheprosecutionandinhisdepositionbeforethe
court,hecategoricallyclaimedthatthreepersonshadparkedthe
Maruticarhavingregistrationno1895on19/5/1996infrontofhis
shop. Whenheraisedobjection,thesaidpersonshadquarreled
withhim.Thewitnessfurthertestifiedthaton18/6/1996thepolice
broughtthesaidthreepersonsattheshopandpointingoutmemo
Ex.PW31/Rwaspreparedwhichcontainedhissignatureatpoint
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 375of408
376
Witnesspointedattheaccusedpersonspresentbeforethecourt
identifiedA5withsomedegreeofdoubtful.Thistestimonyofthis
witnesswasdiscussedindetailaboveandwasfoundconvincing
and trust worthy. A3 failed to explain his visit along with his
associatesneartheshopofPW61SumitKumarwherehealong
withhisassociateshadparkedtheMaruticaron19/5/1996,used
intheexplosion.A3failedtoexplainhisnexuswithMaruti car
havingregistrationnumber1895. ThetestimonyofPW61Sumit
KumaridentifyingA3withcertaintyinspiresconfidenceashehad
objectedtoA3andhisassociatesforparkingthevehicleinfront
ofhisshopandonhisobjectionaquarrelhadtakenplacewhich
placeandtoparkitatsomeotherplace.PW61SumitKumarhad
sufficientopportunitytoseefacesofA3andhisassociatesatthat
timeasquarrelhadtakenplacewiththem.Thiscircumstancefully
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 376of408
377
valueisunassailable.
532 Againpolicewasnotawareofallthesefactsdisclosed
locatetheplaceinfrontofshopofPW61SumitKumaronlywhen
A3alongwithhisassociatestookthemtohisshop.A3didnot
denythatA5andA6hadnotaccompaniedhimatthattimeor
thatthereweretwootherdifferentpersonswithhim.Signaturesof
A3andhisassociatesA5andA6inthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/RcategoricallyprovethatitwasonlyA3,A5andA6who
hadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW61SumitKumar.
e.Pointingofshopfromwhereironsolderwaspurchased:
533 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW31/B,A3further
solderingironandsolderfromtheshopofoneSardarjiatLajpat
RaiMarket.Inpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement,A3andA5
ledthepolicepartytotheshopofPW58JitenderPalSinghand
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 377of408
378
solderingironandsolderfromhim.ThisfactdisclosedbyA3was
provedbyPW58JitenderPalSinghwhoinhisdepositionstated
thathehadsold,thesolderingironandsolderforRs.35/.He
furtherstatedthaton19/6/1996policehadbrought oneortwo
publicpersonstohisshopandhewastoldthatonesolderingiron
andsolderwaspurchasedfromhisshopbythesaidoneortwo
persons.ThisindependentpublicwitnesspointedouttowardsA3
andstatedthathemightbeoneofthetwopersons,howeverhe
could not say anything about A5. This witness admitted that
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Kwaspreparedonwhichhesigned
atpoint'A'.ThiswitnessevenidentifiedthesolderingironEx.Z1
showntohimbeforethecourtwhichwaspurchasedfromhisshop.
ThissolderingironEx.Z1wasrecoveredfromtheresidenceofA3
whenhehadledthepoliceteamathisresidenceonthemorning
of14/1561996.
534 Thiswitnessfurthertestifiedthaton19/6/1996police
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 378of408
379
personsadmittedaboutthepurchaseofsolderingironandsolder
fromhisshopon13/5/1996. A3andA5didnotestablishtheir
presenceatanyotherplaceon13/5/1996.A5wasnotresidentof
Delhi.HefailedtoproveifhewasoutofDelhion13/5/1996.A3
apparentpurpose.
f.Pointingoutofshopfromwherecylinderswerepurchased:
MaszidnearChuriwalanandfromtherehadboughttwocylinders.
TheshopkeeperhadtoldthatthecostoftwocylinderswasRs.
580/butthecylinderswerenotavailablewithhimatthattime.He
askedthatthecylinderswouldbemadeavailableafter2/3hours.
A5gaveRs.600/totheshopkeeperandtoldthatthecylinders
wouldbetakensubsequently.Onthenextdayon14/5/1996they
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 379of408
380
gotthecylindersfromthesaidshop.
31/B, A3andA5ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996atthesaid
shopfromwheretheyhadpurchasedthegascylindersusedinthe
incident. PW31Insp.SurinderandPW39Insp.HariRamMalik
andPW36Insp.Rajeshwarhaveprovedthepointingoutmemo/
identificationmemoEx.PW31/MwhenA3andA5tookthemto
furtherexaminedPW54MehmoodKamal. He admittedthathe
wasrunninggasagencyunderthenameofM/s.UniqueAgencies
at2610,Churiwalan,Delhiand usedtosellgascylinders,other
homeappliancesandburnersetc.Thiswitnessfurthersupported
theprosecutionanddeposedthatinMay,1996twopersonshad
comeathisshopforpurchasingagascylinder.Thegascylinder
personstodepositthepriceofthegascylinderandtocomeonthe
nextdaytocollectthesame.Thosetwopersonsdepositedwith
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 380of408
381
himRs.290/andleftonthatday.Nextdateagaintheycameathis
shopandhedeliveredthemoneemptygascylinder.
theplacefromwhereA3andA5hadpurchasedgascylinderis
relevantu/s27IndianEvidenceAct.PW54MehmoodKamaldid
However,thisfactwasestablishedby PW31Insp.Surinderand
PW39Insp.HariRamMalikandPW36Insp.Rajeshwar thatit
werebothA3andA5whohadtakenthemtotheshopofPW54
examinationbytheld.AddlPPfortheStatehoweveradmittedthat
policehadrecordedhisstatementandpointingoutmemoEx.PW
31/Mcontainedhissignature.Hefurtheradmittedthathehadtold
thenamesofthesaidtwopersonstothepoliceasA3andA5.
Onthedayofdeposition,hefurthertestifiedthatheremembered
onlythenameofA5.Thisportionofthedisclosurestatementof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 381of408
382
regardingidentificationofhisshopbyA3andA5.Instatement
circumstanceagainstthemastowhyandforwhatpurposethey
hadpurchasedgascylindersfromPW54MehmoodKamal.
(g) PointingOutResidenceOfA8:
538 Caseoftheprosecutionisthaton17.6.96,A3,A5
andA6ledthepoliceteamattheresidenceofA8inpursuanceof
Delhi from where they got recovered stepney Ex. P1. This
circumstancehasalreadybeendiscussedindetailatSl.No.15.
539 Theprosecutionversionregardingrecoveryofstepney
establishedbytheprosecutionthatA3alongwithhisassociates
somearticlesallegedlybelongingtoA1wererecoveredfromhis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 382of408
383
residence. TheresidenceofA8at4/11SecondFloor,Bhogal,
NewDelhiwasnotinthetheknowledgeofDelhiPolicepriorto
17.6.96.TheycametoknowabouttheresidenceofA8onlyin
presentathishouse.Again,circumstancewherebyA3alongwith
prosecutionstorythatA3alongwithhisassociatehasparticipated
intheinvestigationbythepoliceon17.6.96andinpursuanceof
hisdisclosurestatementhadledthepolicepartytovariousother
placesfromwherearticleswerepurchased.
(h) PointingOut
Of ThePlaceFrom WhereDuplicateKey
WasGotPrepared:
detailatSl.No.18.InpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementA3
ledthepolicepartyalongwithA5on19.6.96,totheplacefrom
wheretheduplicatekeywasgotpreparedwiththehelpofpetrol
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 383of408
384
tankcap. ProsecutionexaminedPW64Mohd.Rizwanwhowas
foundsittinginfrontofNimiArtsandHanicrafts,ShopNo.813,
about8or9yearsbacksomepersonshadcometohimforgetting
carkeyandhehadmadekeyforthem.Thiswitness,however,
PW64Mohd.Rizwanidentifiedhissignaturesonthepointingout
memoEx.PW13/JatpointA.Thewitnesswasnotconfrontedas
tohowandunderwhatcircumstancesheputhissignaturesonthe
identificationmemo/pointingoutmemoEx.PW13/J.Thegapwas
filledbythepolicewitnesseswhentheydeposedthatitwereboth
A3andA5whohadledthepoliceteamtotheplacewherePW64
Mohd.Rizwanwasfoundsitting.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 384of408
385
Policecametoknowaboutthisfactforthefirsttimeonlyduetothe
disclosuremadebyA3andA5intheirdisclosurestatements.A
3failedtoexplainastowhatforcedhimtogotoPW64Mohd.
Rizwan to get prepare any duplicate key for the car. This
circumstanceagainfitsintheprosecutioncasewhereownerofthe
carPW8AtulNathcategoricallytestifiedthatpriortotheftofhis
car, its patrol tank cap had been stolen. PW76 Bishnu also
corroboratedtheversionofPW8AtulNathonthisaspect.Thus,
thiscircumstancealsoconnectstheaccusedwiththeincident.
(i)RecoveryofRs.1,00,000/byA4forA3:
542 ProsecutionhasprovedrecoveryofRs.onelakhbyA
4fromMangalDass.ThismoneywasmeantforA3. OnlyA3
wasbeneficiaryasA4hadaccompaniedhimon14/6/1996togo
toGorakhpurwherebothwereapprehended.A3didnotexplain
presenceofA4withhim.Hedidnotassertifmoneycollectedby
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 385of408
386
A4wasnotmeantforhim.Thiscircumstancealsoisatparwith
thecontentsofdisclosurestatementmadebyhim.
(j) OTHERCIRCUMSTANCES:
duplicatecarnumberplatewasgotpreparedfromM/sRajaCar
NumberPlate;totheshopofM/sDeluxeStorefromwherehehad
purchasedaralditetube;shopofM/sVakilCablesfromwherehe
had purchased wire; to the shop from where he has got drill
machineandtotheplaceat134GaliNo.21,ZakirNagarwhere
carwasparkedpriortotheincident.However,prosecutionfailedto
proveallthesecircumstancesassomepublicwitnessesdidnot
collected.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 386of408
387
referredabove,itstandsestablishedthatA3wasnotonlyaware
oftheconspiracybutheactivelyparticipatedinexecutionofthe
objectoftheconspiracyandplayedactiverole.A3beingresident
purchasevariousarticlesfromvariousshopkeepers.Heremained
intouchwiththecoaccusedpersonswhohatchedconspiracyand
traveledtoGorakhpur.ItseemsthatA3didallthistogetfinancial
helpwhichisapparentasA4collectedRs.1,00,000/whichhas
havingsubstantialvalueintheyear1996fromoneMangalDassof
Shalimarbagh,Delhiwhichamountwastobedeliveredtohim.
D.InvolvementofA4:
545 AllegationagainstA4isthathealongwithA3
wasarrestedon14/6/1996atabout7.00pmatNewDelhi
ExpresstogotoGorakhpur.FurtherallegationagainstA4
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 387of408
388
thattworupeecurrencynote,heobtainedRs.1lakhfrom
MangalDassatShalimarBagh.Boththesecircumstances
finddetaildiscussionasserialnumber11and17.Noother
conspiracyhasbeenallegedorprovedbytheprosecution.
546 Priortohisapprehensionon14/6/1996A4was
notatallinthepicture.TherearenoallegationsagainstA
4thatpriorto14/6/1996,heremainedincontactwithanyof
procuredanyarticleusedinexplosionorthatheprovided
anyfinancialassistancetothecoaccusedpersonsorthat
heprovidedanysheltertoanyofthemaftertheincident.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 388of408
389
alongwithA3,noincriminatingsubstancewasfoundinhis
possession.Atthetimeofhispersonalsearchonlyasum
apprehendedattheinstanceofA4.Nonewfactcameto
theknowledgeofthepoliceonthebasisofthedisclosure
statementEx.PW16/C. Sincenothingwasrecoveredor
contentsofthedisclosurestatementEx.PW16/Cdonot
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 389of408
390
intentiontobeamemberofconspiracy.
LajpatNagar,Delhihadcometoanendon21/5/1996.No
roleofA4inwhatsoevermannerwasascertainedbythe
criminalconspiracywithcoaccusedpersonstocommitthe
21/5/1996,apprehensionofA4on14/6/1996andfactumof
Bagharenot enoughtoestablishconspiracywhichwas
nomoreinexistence.
25/5/1996inthiscase.Intheirinitialdisclosurestatements,
norolewasattributedtoA4.A4wasnotarrestedonthe
basisofthedisclosurestatementsmadebyA1andA2.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 390of408
391
Delhipolicehadalsocometoknowabouttheconfessional
EvenintheconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A,nameof
statement.Delhipolicewasnothavinganyclueaboutthe
involvementofA4inthiscaseon14/6/1996astheyhad
gotsecretinformationaboutA3tobegoingwithaKashmiri
boytoGorakhpur.EvenDelhipolicewasnotinsearchofA
4forhisroleintheincidentpriorto14/6/1996.Nothinghas
comeonrecordtoshowastowhereatDelhiA4usedto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 391of408
392
ascertained.
550 MereapprehensionofA4alongwithA3on
14/6/1996isnotanincriminatingpieceofcircumstanceto
inferhisinvolvementintheincident.HiscollectionofRs.1
lakhfromMangalDassalsoisnotsufficienttoestablishhis
havinganynexuswithMangalDass.MangalDasswasnot
knowntohim.A4didnotobtainthetworupeecurrency
noteEx.PXfromcoaccusedpersons.Itisallegedtohave
beenrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA7. EvenA7
hadnothandeditovertoA4. Whentworupeecurrency
noteEx.PXwashandedovertoA4byDelhipoliceandhe
MangalDasshandedoverRs.1lakhtohim.Itisnotthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 392of408
393
caseoftheprosecutionthatA4wasbeneficiaryandwas
toretainanycashcollectedfromMangalDasswithhimfor
anyroleassignedtohim.Ratherithascomeonrecordthat
thiscashofRs.1lakhfromMangalDasswasmeantforA
3fortheroleplayedbyhimintheincident.
551 SinceMangalDasswasnotdirectlyknowntoA4,
collectionofRs.1lakhbyhimonlyonthestrengthoftwo
rupeecurrencynoteisnotafactortoprovehisinvolvement
intheincident.AnybodyhavingacurrencynoteofRe.two
absenceofanymaterial,therewasnobasisforthepolice
withA3towhomheknewearlierisnotenoughtoprovehis
brotherofA5.Onthataccountnofaultcanbefoundwith
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 393of408
394
A4.FortheroleplayedbyA5,A4can'tberopedinthis
remainedintouchwithhisbrotherA5.Nothinghascome
onrecordtoshowifA4washavinganynexus/connection
withJKIForhadparticipatedinanyofitsactivities. Itis
alsonotallegedifA4wasinvolvedinsuchincidentearlier
similarcases.
552 Thelawonthisaspectisveryclear.Inthecaseof
food,shelter,medicineortransportcan'tbeheldguiltyof
conspiracyonthatcountonly.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 394of408
395
amongothercircumstanceintheNalini'scase(supra),it
wasallegedthatA22hadprovidedcameratoHariBabu
(diedalongwithDhanuintheincident)whohehadinquired
Hon'bleSupremeCourt heldthatevenifalltheaforesaid
wouldhardlybesufficienttoprovetheinvolvementofA22
observedinpara(310),
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 395of408
396
554 SimilarlydiscussingtheroleofA23thereinwhere
assassinationof RajeevGandhiandarenotenoughtoprove
ProsecutionthereinfailedtoproveifA23hadpriorknowledge
abouttheconspiracyandtherewasnoevidencetoindicatethat.
incriminatingcircumstanceagainstA4,Iamoftheviewthatthe
prosecutionhasmiserablyfailedtoestablishinvolvementofA4
inthecommissionoftheincident.A4deservesbenefitofdoubt
inthiscase.
E.InvolvementofA5:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 396of408
397
provedonrecordbytheprosecutionisthatprosecutionhasbeen
prosecutionfullyconnectA5notonlyforhatchingconspiracyto
executionoftheplan.
a)ConfessionalstatementofA9:
confessionalstatementEx.PW100/AmadebyA9beforePW100
ShriBhagwanDass,thethenld.ACJM,Jaipuron19/7/1996in
caseFIRNo.39/96PSGandhiNagar,Jaipur. Specificrolewas
confessedinthestatementthaton8/5/1996A5alongwithJaved
Senior,A6,A13hadcomeatKathmandu.JavedSeniorhadsent
A5toDelhion10/5/1996.Hewas toexecutesettingforbomb
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 397of408
398
blastatDelhi.Hefurtherdisclosedintheconfessionalstatement
thathewasinstructedbyJavedSeniorandA5toleavethebag
Accordingly,he(A9)deliveredthesaidbagattheresidenceof
WazidwhereneitherWazidnorA5methim. Someladiesand
childrenwerepresentatthehouseofWazidandhe(A9)delivered
thebagcontaining'ammunition'tothemstatingthatitcontained
clothesofA5.A9furtherdisclosedintheconfessionalstatement
KathmandufromDelhiastowhathadhappenedtotheirworkat
Delhi.JavedSeniorhadagaingiventhenameofA5andhadsent
somedefect.
558 TheroleattributedtoA5byA9inhisconfessional
statementinexecutingtheplanforcausingbombblastatLajpat
motivetofalselyropeinhisassociateA5intheincident.Nothing
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 398of408
399
hascomeonrecordtoshowifA5wasnotknowntoA9priorto
animositybetweenA5andA9forcingA9tofalselynameA5for
thecommissionoftheoffence.ThedetailaccountgivenbyA9in
hisconfessionalstatementabouttheincident,fullyfitsinthecase
fabricatedparticularlywhenDelhipolicewasnotawareaboutthe
roleofA5orA9intheincidentpriortotheconfessionalstatement
madebyA9.EvenafterapprehensionandarrestofA1andA2
inDelhi,thepolicehadnotcometoknowabouttheinvolvementof
whentheycametoknowabouttheconfessionalstatementmade
commissionoftheincident.ConfessionalstatementofA9further
ConfessionalstatementratherrevealsthatA9alsotookblamein
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 399of408
400
residenceofWazid,friendofA5aftertravellingtoDelhionthe
instructionsofhisassociates. A9wasnotgoingtobebenefited
incidentshowsthattherewasnoulteriormotiveforhimtomislead
theprosecutionortofalselyimplicateA5toinvitehiswrath.
559 Inhisstatementrecordedu/s313Cr.P.CA5didnot
ShriBagwanDass.Hedidnotdenythattheroleattributedtohim
byA9inhisconfessionalstatementwasnotplayedbyhiminthe
incident.HedidnotdenyifhehadnevervisitedKathmanduand
hadnotmetJavedSenior.He alsodidnotdenythatPWWazid
wasnotknowntohimorthathewasnothisfriend.AgainA5did
notspecificallydenyinthestatementrecordedu/s313Cr.P.Cifhe
hadnotinstructedA9toleavethebagattheresidenceofPW
Wazid.A5didnotassignanyillwillorenmitytoA9whohimself
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 400of408
401
is facing trial along with the coaccused persons from the very
inceptionofthecasetomakefalsestatement.
hatchedbyhimalongwithhisassociatestocausebombblastat
instrumentalinexecutingtheplantocarryouttheconspiracy.
(b)TraveltoDelhion1051996:
561 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/Brecordedon
17/6/1996,A5informedDelhipolicethathehadalsotravelledto
Delhion1051996byRoyalNepalAirlinesinthenameofMirza
passengerlistdated10/5/1996inrespectofflightfromKathmandu
toIndiaofRoyalNepalAirlinesmark67/A.NameofA5wasfound
mentionedtherein.Thiscircumstancehasalreadybeendiscussed
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 401of408
402
indetailwhereA5didnotchallengehisjourneyfromKathmandu
toIndiaon10/5/1996byRoyalNepalAirlines. Thisfactwasnot
earlier known to the police and they came to know about this
PW23/BmadebyA5. A5failedtoexplainthepurposeofhis
visittoDelhion10/5/1996.PresenceofA5inDelhiaftertravelling
incident.
(c)Pointingoutshopofpurchaseofwallclock:
562 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/Brecordedon
andA15hadpurchasedonemediumsizewallclockforasumof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 402of408
403
statementofA5.InpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW
thatfromthesaidshoptheyhadpurchasedoneJaycowallclock
on14/5/1996.Thiscircumstancehasalreadybeendiscussedin
detail.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Hwaspreparedwhichwas
alsosignedbyPW50YogeshKumarGupta,ownerofM/s.Imperial
SurinderKumarandPW101Insp.ParasNathbothPW50Yogesh
KumarGuptaandPW48Pramodsupportedtheprosecutionand
categoricallytestifiedthaton14/5/1996twoboyshadpurchased
oneJaycowallclockofroundshapeforasumofRs.180/for
whichreceiptEx.PW48/AfrombillbookEx.G1wasissued.Both
19/6/1996 two police men had brought the said two persons at
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 403of408
404
theirshopandtheyhaddisclosedthattheyhadpurchasedthewall
clockfromthesaidshop.
PramodandPW50YogeshKumarGuptacouldnotidentifybothA
KumarGuptaspecificallymentionedthatthenameoftheaccused
mentionedinthepointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Gandtherethey
haddisclosedtheirnamesasA5andA6.Thepolicewitnesses
personswholedthemtotheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta
fromwheretheyhadpurchasedoneJaycowallclock.
hadledthepolicepartytotheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta
whichcontainshisnamefullyestablishestheidentityofA5where
healongwithA6hadtaken thepoliceteamtotheshopwhich
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 404of408
405
Againthepolicediscoveredthisnewfactonlyduetothedisclosure
statementmadebyA5andfurtherhistakingofthepoliceteam
andidentifyingtheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.A5failed
toexplainhispresenceinDelhion14/5/1996whenhealongwith
purposeofpurchaseofJaycowallclockfromthesaidshop.PW50
YogeshKumarGuptaandPW48Pramodbothindependentpublic
Jayco wall clock from their shop for a sum of Rs. 180/ on
14/5/1996.ThesewitnessesdidnotgivecleanchittoA5andA6
regardingtheiridentificationtheyonlypleadedthatduetolapseof
timetheywereunabletoidentifybothA5andA6tobethesame
persons who had purchased Jayco wall clock from them. This
policeteamtotheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.Againthis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 405of408
406
showinginvolvementofA5intheincident.
(d)PointingofshopinfrontofwhichMaruticarwasparked
on19/5/1996:
565 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/B,A5further
revealedthataspertheirplanon19/5/1996onSundayatabout
5.30/6.00pmhealongwithA3andA6parkedthecarfittedwith
cylinderbombinfrontofDulhanDupatta,adyeshop,atLajpat
However,duetosomedefecttheexplosioncouldnottakeplace
andonthenextdaytheyremovedthesaidcarfromthereand
parkedthesameatZakiirNagar.Againdetaildiscussionhasbeen
madeonthisaspectinthecircumstancenumber23.
566 InpursuanceofthisdisclosurestatementA5andA6
Kumar.Delhipolicewasnotawareaboutexistenceofshopwith
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 406of408
407
aware that the said shop was owned by PW61 Sumit Kumar.
WhenA5andA6ledthepoliceteamattheshopofPW61Sumit
Kumarthepolicecametoknowthattherewasoneshopunderthe
nameandstyleof'DulhanDupatta'beingownedbyPW61Sumit
disclosurestatement. PW61SumitKumartestifiedthathewas
havingashopinCentralMarket,LajpatNagarinthenameand
styleof'DulhanDupatta'situatedinthepremisesofIID35,Lajpat
Maruticarofwhitecolourinfrontofhisshopdespitehisobjection.
Ultimately the said persons removed the car from there and
takenplaceatLajpatNagarinaMaruticar.Thiswitnessfurther
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 407of408
408
supportedtheprosecutionthatafteramonthlaterpolicevisitedhis
18/6/1996whentheyhadpointedouttheplaceinfrontofhisshop.
PW61 Sumit Kumar told the police that they were the same
personswhohadparkedtheabovementionedMaruti800infront
ofhisshopon19/5/1996andwhenheraisedobjection,thesaid
personshadquarreledwithhim.Thewitnessfurtheradmittedthat
abovementionedcarwasseenparkednearhisshopandnoother
personwaspresentthere.Thewitnessexplainedthatinitiallyhe
couldnotclarifysomeofthethingsandhedisclosedlateronin
testifying before the court but the same had taken place on
accountofconfusion.Thewitnessclaimedthathecouldidentify
thesaidthreepersonsifshowntohim.Seeingthethreeaccused
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 408of408
409
rightlyidentifiedA3withcertainty. HefurtheridentifiedA5with
somedegreeofdoubt.However,hecouldnotidentifyA6.This
witnessfurtherprovedhissignaturesonthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/R.ThecontentsofEx.PW31/Rprovedonrecordbythe
policewitnessesaswellcontainednameofA3,A5andA6who
hadledthepoliceteamtotheshopofPW61SumitKumar.Since
thiswitnesswasabletoidentifyA3withcertaintyandA5 with
establishbeyonddoubtthatA5andA6werethepersonswho
statementofPW61SumitKumarisentirelyinconformitywiththe
factsdisclosedbyA5inhisdisclosurestatement.Againu/s27of
alongwithhistwoassociateshaveparkedthevehicleusedinthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 409of408
410
commissionoftheoffenceandevengaveitsregistrationnumber
1895.ThiswitnesshadobjectedtoA3andhisassociatestohad
parkedthevehicleinquestioninfrontofhisshopandaquarrel
opportunitytoseethefacesofthepersonswhohadparkedthe
vehicleinfrontofhisshopduringdaytime. IdentificationofA3
doubted.
567A5hasfailedtoexplainastohowandforwhatpurpose
hehappenedtobetherealongwithA3atthetimeofparkingof
MerelybecausethiswitnesscouldnotidentifyA5withcertainty
witnessescategoricallystatedthatitwasonlyA5andA6who
weretherealongwithA3whentheyhadtakenthepolicepartyto
theshopofPW61SumitKumar.
568 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/B,A5revealed
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 410of408
411
that due to some defect the blast could not take place on
19/5/1996.HemadetelephonecallatKathmanduandinformedA
7aboutthesituation.HewasinformedbyA7onphonethatA13
and A15 were in Delhi and would meet him in the evening to
removethedefect.ThisdisclosureofA5againisinconsonance
withthecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementmadebyA9inEx.
KathmanduastowhathadhappenedtotheirworkatDelhiandhis
associates had informed him that due to some defect the work
couldnotbedone.
e.Pointingoutshopfromwhere9voltbatterywaspurchased:
usedintheblast.HewasinformedbyA13thatonepowerfulcell
of9voltwasrequiredtobeusedandon21/5/1996atabout10.30
am,healongwithA6,A13andA15purchased9voltbatteryfor
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 411of408
412
pursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementalongwithhisassociatesA
6 took the police team to the said shop from where he had
purchasedthe9voltbattery.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Lwas
preparedon19/6/1996.BothA5andA6ledthepoliceteamat
Electronicsfromwheretheyhadpurchased9voltbattery.Again
number27.
signaturesofbothA5andA6.PW60RajeshKumartestifiedthat
hewasrunningelectricalshopwiththenameandstyleof 'M/s
GaneshElectronics'situatedatshopno.21,Jangpura,NewDelh.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 412of408
413
'Entiser'forasumofRs.95/Thewitnessagainstatedthaton
19/6/1996twoaccusedpersonsalongwithpoliceteamcameathis
shopandoneofthosepersonsidentifiedtheshopandtoldthat
theyhadpurchasedtheabovementionedbatteryfromhisshop.
Thiswitnesswasunabletoidentifythesaidtwopersons.However,
afterhavingalookattheaccusedpersonspresentbeforethecourt
incustodyPW60RajeshKumarpointedtowardsA5andstated
police to his shop and who had told the police that he had
purchasedthebatteryfromhisshop.
personswerebroughtinaMarutivanbythepolicenearhisshop
andtheywerekeptinmuffledfaces.Onhisreachingtothevan,
facesofthetwoaccusedpersonswereunmuffled. Thewitness
furtherstatedthathehadtoldthepoliceatthattimethatoneof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 413of408
414
purchasedthebatteryfromhim.
572 Inhisfurthercrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPPfor
theState thewitnessstatedthattheabovenamedtwoaccused
personshadpointedouthisshopandidentifiedhim.Thepolice
point B. The said memo was also signed by the above named
accusedpersons.A5andA6didnotdenytheirsignaturesonthe
memoEx.PW31/LwhichcategoricallyestablishedthatonlyA5
andA6werethepersonswhohadledthepoliceteamattheshop
subsequentcrossexaminationwhenheclaimedthathehadtold
thepolicethattheabovenamedtwoaccusedpersonshadpointed
outhisshopandidentifiedhim.
573 NameofPW60RajeshKumarandhisshopaddress
personsleadingthemtohisshop.Policediscoveredtheshopof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 414of408
415
accusedpersons.Healsocametoknowthatitwasthesameshop
fromwhereon21/5/1996one9voltbatteryforasumofRs.95/
waspurchasedwhichwasusedinthecommissionoftheincident.
ThisdiscoveryofshopofPW60fromwheretheitemforexplosion
involvementofA5intheincident.
574 InsimilarcircumstancesinthecaseofNalini(supra),
battery)andhandedovertoSivrasanforusingtoblastthebomb.
ProsecutionexaminedPW91(Moideen),asalesmaninHindustan
TrainingCompany,RoyaPettahHighRoad,Madras.Hesaidinhis
evidencethatduringthesecondweekofMay,1991,A18(Arivu)
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 415of408
416
batteries.Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedinpara(270):
.......whateverbethereason,the
factremainsthatitwasonthestrength
oftheinformationthattheInvestigating
Officer(PW266Venkteswaram)cameto
knowofPW91'sshop.Theinfereanceis
therefore irresistible that A18 would
have pointed out the shop and PW91,
thesalesmanasthepersonfromwhom
A18hadpurchasedtwo9voltGolden
Powerbatteries.
575 AgainPW266IO,oninterrogationofA18cameto
Exidebatterieswerepurchased.Thecopyofacashbilissuedin
Mahabalipuram,MadraswasprovedthroughPW88asEx.P447.
Hon'bleSupremeCourtalsofoundthiscircumstanceasmaterialto
corroborateconfessionofA18.
purchased:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 416of408
417
576 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/B,A5revealed
thataftercomingtoDelhifromKathmanduon10/5/1996,after3or
4dayshehadpurchasedonesolderingironandsolderfromthe
shopofoneSardarjiatLajpatNagarmarket.A5alongwithA3
ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996andpointedtheshopofPW58
JitenderPalSinghfromwherethesolderingironwaspurchased.
Pointingout/identificationmemoEx.PW31/Kwaspreparedinthis
regard.PW58JitenderPalSinghinhisdepositionbeforethecourt
statedthaton19/6/1996somepolicepeoplealongwithoneortwo
public persons came at his shop and he was told that one
saidoneortwopersons.Hehadseenthosetwopersonsasthose
personshadsaidthattheyhadpurchasedthesolderingironand
solder. Thewitnessfurtherstatedthathehadsoldthesoldering
ironandsolderforRs.35/.Regardingidentification,thewitness
statedthatsinceitwasmatterof8/9yearsback,hewasunableto
identifythesaidtwopersonsbroughtathisshoptobeamongst
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 417of408
418
theaccusedpersons.Inthecrossexaminationbytheld.AddlPP
fortheState,thewitnessadmittedthathehadgiventhenamesof
thesaidtwopersonsinhisstatementrecordedbythepoliceasA
3andA5whohadaccompaniedthepoliceandhadpointedout
hisshopasaplacefromwheretheyhadpurchasedthesoldering
ironandsolderon13/5/1996.Hefurtheradmittedthatthesaidtwo
personshadcomeinmuffledfacesandtheywereseenbyhim
whentheirfaceswereunmuffledinhispresencebythepolice.He
furtheradmittedthathetoldthepolicethatthesaidtwopersons
who had come to his shop had purchased soldering iron and
solderfromhisshop.HefurtheraddedthatA3presentbeforethe
courtmightbeoneofthetwopersons. Thewitnessprovedthe
pointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Kbearinghissignatureatpoint'B'.
ThewitnessidentifiedsolderingironEx.Z1whichwaspurchased
fromhisshop.AgainidentificationoftheshopofPW58Jitender
PalSinghbyA3anA5wholedthepoliceteaminpursuanceof
thedisclosurestatementshowsthatitwasA3andA5whohad
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 418of408
419
ledtotheshopofPW58JitenderPalSinghfromwhomsoldering
JitenderPalSinghisinconsonancewiththefactsdisclosedbyA5
discussedindetailascircumstancenumber32.
terminals:
577 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW23/B,A5further
narratedthathewasinstructedtogetthesolderingofthebattery
doneandhegotthesamedonefromanothershop.A5alongwith
A6ledthepolicepartyon19/6/1996attheshopofPW38Vijay
Kapoor,ownerofVijayElectronicsfromwhere accusedpersons
hadgotthesolderingofthebatterydone.
578 PW38VijayKapoorinhistestimonybeforethecourt
Road,Jangpura,Bhogal.InMay,1996twopersonshadcomeat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 419of408
420
hisshopwith9voltbatteryand theywantedhimtofixthetwo
wiresonterminalsbysolderingandtookRs.5/onthejob.The
witness identifiedthesaidtwopersonspresentbeforethecourt.
HepointedouttowardsA5as beingoneofthem.Thewitness
alsopointedouttowardsA6andstatedthathewasthesecond
person but he was not very sure about that. Accused persons
thereafter left his shop after getting the soldering job complete.
accusedpersonscameathisshopleadingthepoliceteamand
preparedwhichcontainedhissignatureatpoint'B'.
identifiedA5beforethecourttobethepersonwhoalongwithhis
associatehadvisitedhisshoponemonthpriorto19/6/1996from
where they had got the two wires on terminals soldered. The
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 420of408
421
containedsignatureofthiswitnesswhichshowedthatboththese
accused persons had led the police team at his shop and only
thereafterpolicecametoknowaboutthepresenceofPW38Vijay
Kapoor running his shop under the name and style of 'Vijay
Electronics'.
580 A5againdidnotexplaininhisstatementrecordedu/s
theshopofPW38VijayKapoor. A5alsofailedtotestifyasto
terminalwiressolderedattheshopofPW38VijayKapoor.The
disclosurestatementofA5coupledwithdisclosurestatementon
PW38VijayKapoorandhisdepositionfullyprovestheactiverole
playedbyA5intheentireincident.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 421of408
422
(h)Othercircumstances:
circumstancestoconnectA5withthecommissionoftheoffence
whichhavebeendiscussedincircumstancesatserialnumber30,
31and32.Thoughthecircumstancediscussedaboveatnumber
prosecutionturnedhostileforulteriorpurposesanddidnotprove
reasonabledoubtorarenottenableinlawareignored/excluded,
itdoesnotestablishinnocenceofA5.Circumstancesprovedon
blastatLajpatNagar,Delhi.A5didnotadduceanyevidencein
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 422of408
423
defencetofalsifytheincriminatingcircumstanceappearingagainst
him. Hedidnotproduceanyevidencetoshowthatduringthe
relevantdatesfrom10/5/1996to21/5/1996,hewasnotpresentin
Delhiorthathewaspresentatanyotherspecificplace.Nofamily
establishedarrivalofA5toDelhion10/5/1996byRoyalNepal
circumstances,hehappenedtodepartfromDelhi.Healsofailedto
explainastohowandforwhatpurposes,hehadvisitedDelhiand
duringhisvisitatDelhi,A5failedtoexplainhisplaceofstay.A5
alsofailedtoexplainastohowA9,hisassociatewithwhomhe
policeinpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementtestifiedagainstA
falselyropehiminthiscase.A5wasnotresidentofDelhitohave
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 423of408
424
anyillwillagainstthepolicepersonnelstofalselyimplicatehimin
thiscase,afterbringinghimfromNepalasalleged.A5alsofailed
toexplainastohowDelhipolicehappenedtoidentifyhimtobethe
personinvolvedintheincident.Healsofailedtoprovetheexact
challengedthathewaseverforcedbytheinvestigatingagencyto
putthesignaturesonblankpapers.Heneverchallengedbefore
anyauthoritythathenevermadeanydisclosurestatementorthat
hedidnotleadthepolicetovariousshops/placesfromwherehe
alongwithhisassociateshadprocuredthearticlestocarryoutthe
plan.
582 InthecaseofStateVs.Nalini(supra)PW179,aretail
textileshopkeeperidentifiedA1(Nalini)whensheledthepolice
athisshopandfromwhereshehadpurchased'chooridaar'worn
byDhanno(humanbomb).Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedon
thisaspect:
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 424of408
425
F.InvolvementofA6:
583 TheroleofA6isakinonmostofthecircumstancesto
thatofA5.CircumstancespertainingtoA6provedonrecordby
conspiracyandhisactiveparticipationinthe commissionofthe
incident.
a)ConfessionstatementofA9:
584 NameofA6specificallyfindsmentionintheconfessional
BhagwanDass.InhisconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A,A9
revealedthaton8/5/1996JavedSenior,A5,A6andA13came
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 425of408
426
atKathmandu.On10/5/1996JavedSeniorsentA5toDelhiashe
wastoexecutesettingforblastatDelhi.Hefurthertestifiedthat
thereafterhe,JavedSenior,A6andA13startedfromKathmandu
toDelhiintheeveningof11/5/1996.Howeveron12/5/1996inthe
morningonreachingattheborder,hestayedthereandremaining
personsleft.AfterdeliveringammunitionattheresidenceofPW
Kathmandu. Heinquiredfromthemastowhathadhappenedto
theirworkatDelhi. On19/5/1996,A6andA13camebackto
Delhi.WhenheinquiredfromJavedSeniorastowhyA6andA
13hadgonebacktoDelhi,heinformedhimthattheworkcouldnot
bedoneduetosomedefect.
statementEx.PW16/Grecordedon16/6/1996.Thisconfessional
statementmadebycoaccusedA9regardingtheincidentshows
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 426of408
427
A6tobeawareaboutthecriminalconspiracyandhisassociation
withthecoaccusedpersons.A6didnotcontrovertthecontentsof
theconfessionalstatementmadebyA9attributingspecificroleto
12/5/1996andthereafterhewasagainsentbackon19/5/1996as
theworkatDelhicouldnotbedoneduetosomedefect.Itisthe
caseoftheprosecutionthatduetoweakbatterytheblastcouldnot
takeplaceon19/5/1996.A6didnotdenyhisvisitstoDelhias
dates.A9hadnoulteriormotivetofalselyattributespecificroleto
A6whowashiscloseassociateandwithwhomhehadnoprior
enmity.A9,byexposingcoaccusedpersonsmusthaveannoyed
them.
b)Pointingoutshopofpurchaseofwallclock:
circumstancescorroboratingtheconfessionalstatementmadeby
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 427of408
428
A9.InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/G.A6disclosedthat
procuredvariousarticlesformanufacturingbombfortheblast.He
disclosedthathealongwithA5andA15hadgoneatashopat
ChandiniChowkandtheretheyhadpurchasedamediumsizewall
statementA5 andA6ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996toM/s.
pointedouthisshopfromwheretheyhadpurchasedoneJayco
andPW50YogeshKumarGuptasupportedtheprosecutiononthis
aspectandcarboncopyofthebillEx.PW48/AissuedbyPW48
PramodwasseizedwithbillbookEx.G1videseizurememoEx.
PW31/G.PointingoutmemoEx.PW31/Hcontainingsignatures
ofPW50YogeshKumarGuptaandPW48Pramodandalsothe
signaturesoftheaccusedpersonswasprovedonrecord.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 428of408
429
YogeshKumarGuptaprovedthattwoboyshadpurchasedJayco
wallclockon14/5/1996. Theyfurthertestifiedthaton19/6/1996
thepolicehadbroughttwopersonsathisshopandtheyhadtold
about the purchase of wall clock from his shop. PW50 Yogesh
31/Hcontainedhissignatureanditalsocontainedthesignatures
ofthetwoboyswhohadcomeathisshopon19/6/1996.Hehad
signedthatmemoafterreadingthecontents.BothPW48Pramod
andPW50YogeshKumarGupta couldnotidentifythesaidtwo
persons being the same persons who had purchased the wall
establishedfromthetestimoniesofPW31Insp.SurinderKumar
disclosurestatementsA5andA6hadledthemtotheshopof
PW50 Yogesh Kumar Gupta. Police was not aware about the
existenceoftheshopofPW50YogeshKumarGuptaandcameto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 429of408
430
knowaboutthatonlywhenbothA5andA6ledthepoliceteamat
hisshop.ThispartofthedisclosurestatementofA6isadmissible
u/s27oftheIndianEvidenceActaspriortothatthepolicewasnot
awareaboutthenewfactsregardingpurchaseofwallclockfrom
theshopofPW50YogeshKumarGupta.A6didnotexplainthe
purposeofpurchaseofJaycowallclockfromtheshopofthese
14/5/1996.HedidnotexplainastoaftercomingtoDelhiwherehe
stayedandwhenhedepartedfromDelhi.
c.Pointingoutshopfromwhere9voltbatterywaspurchased:
588 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/GA6further
disclosedthaton19/5/1996duetosomedefectbombcouldnot
explode. A5informedA7onphoneatKathmanduthatdueto
KathmanduA13andA15cameanddisclosedthatduetoweak
batterythebombcouldnotexplode.On21/5/1996atabout10.30
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 430of408
431
am,healongwithA5,A13andA15purchasedone9voltcell
fromoneshopatsubzimandi,BhogalforasumofRs.95/. In
withA5ledthepoliceteamon19/6/1996totheshopofPW60
RajeshKumar,ownerof'GaneshElectronics',situatedatshopno.
21,Jangpura,NewDelhifromwheretheyhadpurchased9volt
battery. PW60RajeshKumarmetattheshopandhesupported
theprosecutionandtestifiedthaton21/5/1996 twopersonshad
purchased9voltbatterymake'entiser'forasumofRs.95/The
alongwithpolicehadcomeathisshopandoneofthesaidtwo
above mentioned battery from his shop. The witness could not
identify the person who had purchased the battery from him.
beforethecourt,PW60RajeshKumarpointedouttowardsA5and
statedthathemightbeoneoftheaccusedpersonswhohadbeen
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 431of408
432
broughttohisshopbythepoliceandwhohadtoldthepolicethat
number27whereinvolvementofA5andA6regardingpurchase
of9voltbatteryfromtheshopofPW60RajeshKumarwasfound
believed. Nameoftwoaccusedpersonswhohadledthepolice
teamattheshopofPW60RajeshKumarwasfoundmentionedin
establishedthatitwasonlythesetwoaccusedA5andA6who
hadledthepoliceteamattheshopofPW60RajeshKumar.Again
priortotheaccusedpersonsleadingtotheshopofPW60there
wasnothinginthemindoftheprosecutionthatany9voltbattery
waspurchasedfromhisshopon21/5/1996. A6furtherfailedto
explainastohowandunderwhatcircumstanceshealongwithA5
happenedtopurchasethe9voltbatteryfromPW60RajeshKumar
on21/5/1996andwhatwasthepurposeofpurchaseofthesaid
battery.A6furtherfailedtojustifyastohowon19.6.96,hehad
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 432of408
433
alongwithA5hadpurchasedthebatteryon21.5.96.
d)Pointingoutofshopfromwherewiresweregotconnected:
589 Anotherimportantcircumstanceestablishedonrecord
incidentisthathealongwithA5gottwowiresontheterminalsof9
voltbatterysolderedfromtheshopofPW38VijayKapor.
590 InhisdisclosurestatementEx.PW16/G,A6disclosed
thatafterpurchasing9voltbattery,theygottwowiresconnected
fromanothershop.A6didnotgivespecificparticularsoftheshop
Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi under the name and style of M/s
GaneshElectronics.Inhisdepositionbeforethecourthetestified
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 433of408
434
thatinMay1996,twopersonshadcomeathisshopwith9volt
solderingwhichhegotdonefromhisemployeeandtookRs.5/on
them.ThewitnessalsopointedouttowardsA6andstatedthathe
wasthesecondpersonbuthewasnotsureaboutit.Thesetwo
accused persons left the shop after getting the soldering job
complete.PW38VijayKapoorfurthertestifiedthatafteronemonth
both those two accused persons came to his shop leading the
policeteamandpointedouthisshopandpointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/Nwaspreparedwhichcontainedhissignaturesatpoint'A'.
A6didnotdenyhissignaturesonpointingoutmemoEx.PW31/N.
ItshowsthathealongwithA5hadledthepoliceteamtotheshop
KapoorregardingidentificationofA6wasclearedbythetestimony
ofotherpolicewitnessestowhomtheaccusedhadledtotheshop
ofPW38VijayKapoorinpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatement.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 434of408
435
PW38VijayKapoor.ThedisclosurestatementEx.PW16/Gonthis
aspectbyA6isclearlyinconformitywithdisclosurestatementof
A5Ex.PW23/BwhowascategoricallyidentifiedbyPW38Vijay
Kapoor.
19/5/1996:
informedthepolicethaton19/5/1996atabout6pm,healongwith
A3andA5hadreachedalongwithcarfittedwithbombatCentral
Market,LajpatNagarandaftertakingoneortworounds,parked
the said car in front of the shop where there was a board of
'Dulhan'.Thereweresomeshopsofvegetablesandfruitsthere.
alongwithA3andA5ledthepolicepartytotheshopofPW61
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 435of408
436
Kumarmetthepolicepartyandstatedthathewastheownerof
shopofDulhanDupatta.HedeposedthatononeSundayatabout
atabout2.00/2.30pm,hewaspresentattheshop.Atthattime
3/4personsparkedaMaruticarofwhitecolourinfrontofhisshop
despitehisobjection.Ultimatelythesaidpersonsremovedthecar
fromthereandparkedthesamefourshopsawayonrightsidein
frontofaDoctor'sshop.Registrationnumberofthevehicleparked
visitedhisshopalongwith3or4persons.Inthecrossexamination
bytheld.AddlPPthiswitnessprovedthepointingoutmemoEx.
PW31/Rwhichcontainedhissignature.Hefurtherstatedthathe
pointedouttheplaceinfrontofhisshopandhehadtoldthepolice
that they were the same persons who had parked the above
mentionedMaruti800infrontofhisshopon19/5/1996andwhen
heraisedobjectionthesaidpersonshadquarreledwithhim.Itis
furtheradmittedinthecrossexaminationthaton19/5/1996when
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 436of408
437
heclosedhisshopatabout8.30pm,theabovementionedcarwas
seenparkednearhisshopandnootherpersonwaspresentnear
the car. This witness claimed that he could identify the three
persons who had led the police team to his shop. The witness
rightlyidentifiedA3 withcertainty.HefurtheridentifiedA5with
somedegreeofdoubtful.However,thiswitnesscouldnotidentify
A6.DisclosurestatementsofA5andA3arealsoonsimilarlines
onthisaspect.A6didnotchallengehisassociationwithA3and
A5anddidnotdenythathehadnotaccompaniedthepoliceon
containedtheirsignaturesincludingthatofA6whichestablishes
his presence at the shop of PW61 Sumit Kumar along with his
associatesA3andA5.NoexplanationhasbeengivenbyA6as
tohowhehappenedtopointouttheshopofPW61SumitKumar
andwhatwashisnexuswiththecarwhichexplodedultimatelyon
21/5/1996duetobombblast.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 437of408
438
PW215(Saamundeswari)inherevidenceidentifiedA1(Nalini)as
oneoftheladieswhoalongwithSivarasanandSubhahadtaken
waterfromheron21/5/1991at10.45pm.Hon'bleSupremeCourt
observedthatthesignificanceoftheevidenceofPW215wasthat
theinvestigatingofficersucceededindiscovering herhouseon
theinformationsuppliedbyA1(Nalini).
f.POINTINGOUTOFRESIDENCEOFA8:
disclosurestatementfromwheresomedocumentspertainingto
A1wererecovered.A6didnotdenythathedidnotleadthe
SecondFloor,Bhogal,NewDelhiwasnotintheknowledgeof
Delhipolicepriorto17/6/1996. Theycametoknowaboutthe
residenceofA8inpursuanceofdisclosurestatementofA6.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 438of408
439
A8wasfoundpresentathishouse.Again,thiscircumstance
wherebyA6alongwithhisassociatespointedoutthehouseof
associateshadparticipatedintheinvestigationbythepoliceon
17/6/1996andinpursuanceofthedisclosurestatementhadled
thepolicepartytovariousotherplacesfromwherethearticles
werepurchased.
g.OTHERCIRCUMSTANCES:
thepoliceteamattheplacesfromwhereduplicatenumberplate
wasgotpreparedfromM/s.RajaCarNumberPlate;theplaceat
134GaliNo.21,ZakirNagarwherecarwasparkedpriortothe
incident; the place from where front and rear number plates
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 439of408
440
evidenceonthesecircumstancestoprovethem.
G.RoleofA7:
596 AllegationstoproveinvolvementofA7intheincident
isthatonhisarrestalongwithA6atGorakhpuron16/6/1996one
possessionwhichwastobehandedovertoA4toobtainRs.1
lakhfromMangalDass.Othercircumstancesrelieduponbythe
prosecutionagainstA7arethaton27/6/1996atSrinagar,some
ammunitions/explosiveswererecoveredfromhisresidenceand
on19/5/1996,A5hadmadetelephonecalltohimatKathmandu.
Allthesecircumstanceshavebeendiscussedindetailats.no.11.
reasonabledoubt.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 440of408
441
prosecution.ItisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionifA7evervisited
DelhiorJ&Kpriortotheincidenttomakeanyplaninconspiracy
evidencewascollectedbytheprosecutionifpriorto21/5/1996A7
hadremainedinconstanttouchwiththecoaccusedpersonsor
providedanyfinancialassistancetoanyofthecoaccusedpersons
involvementofA7intheincidentpriortoapprehensionofA3and
A4 on14/6/1996. A1andA2hadalreadybeenarrestedby
statementsA1andA2didnotattributeanyrolewhatsoevertoA
statementofA9,DelhipolicewasnotinsearchofA7forhisrole
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 441of408
442
intheincident.A6andA7werearrestedfromGorakhpurwhen
currencynoteEx.PXtoA4toenablehimtoobtainRs.1lakh
fromMangalDasstobegiventoA3.Thisoccurrencetookplace
on16/6/1996whenconspiracytocausebombblasthadalready
cametoanend.Priorto21/5/1996noactiveparticipationofA7in
theincidenthasbeenbroughtonrecord.Therewasnooccasion
forbothA6andA7totraveltoGorakhpurfromNepalonlyfor
handingoveratworupeecurrencynotetoA4.Itcouldhavebeen
givenevenbyoneperson.Thisversionoftheprosecutionhasnot
beenbelievedinthecircumstancesreferredabove.Evenifitis
assumedthatA7haddeliveredtworupeecurrencynotetoA4on
16/6/1996,itdoesnotestablishhimtobeamemberofconspiracy
tocausebombblaston21/5/1996atDelhiwhichwasnomorein
beneficiaryinwhatsoevermannerincollectionofRs.1lakhbyA4
fromMangalDassatShalimarBagh.Itisalsonotthecaseofthe
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 442of408
443
prosecutionthatMangalDasswasknowntoA7orthathehad
remainedintouchwithMangalDassatanytimetogiveRs.1lakh
toA4onthestrengthoftworupeecurrencynote.Therewasno
reasonforA6andA7tocallA3andA4toGorakhpurjustto
handovertworupeecurrencynote.A7wasnotasuspectatthat
timeandhecouldhavedeliveredthetworupeecurrencynoteto
aspectdoesnotappealtomind.
598 Thereisnothinginthestatementsoftheprosecution
personstoexecutetheplan.Hedidnotfacilitateanycoaccused
personsincarryingouttheobjectofconspiracy.Noantecedents
memberofJKIForganization.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshowif
A7hadindulgedinanyillegalactivitiesinIndiatocarryoutthe
objectsofJKIF.NoinvolvementofA7inanyothercasehasbeen
allegedbytheprosecution.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 443of408
444
ACMM,ittranspiresthatnameofA7findsmentiontherein.A9
disclosedinhisconfessionalstatementaboutthepresenceofA7
SeniorandA5todelivertheammunitionattheresidenceofWazid
Kasai.A9furtherdisclosedintheconfessionalstatementthathe
alongwithA7hadgonetoreceiveZulfikar@Ayubattheairport.
However,A9inhisconfessionalstatementdidnotattributeany
roletoA7fortheconspiracytocausebombblastatDelhi.The
confessionalstatementmerelyshowsthatA7wasawareofthe
conspiracyatDelhibutthereisnothingonrecordtoshowifhein
intentionwithcoaccusedpersonstocausebombblastatDelhi.
A9thoughconfessedabouthimJavedSenior,A6andA13to
havecomeon11/5/1996fromKathmandutoDelhibuthedidnot
mentionifA7hasalsoaccompaniedthemtotheborder. A7
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 444of408
445
evendidnotaccompanyA9andotherstoAhmadabadandGujrat
wheretheywereapprehendednearRupaliCinemaon2/6/1996.
ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA7hadprovidedanyshelter
toanyofthecoaccusedpersonsaftertheincident.Atthetimeof
hisapprehensionallegedlyatGorakhpuron16/6/1996,A7was
notfoundinpossessionofanyincriminatingarticle.Hewasnot
foundinpossessionofanyexplosivesorarms.Eveninpursuance
ofhisdisclosurestatement,noincriminatingarticlewasrecovered
athisinstance. Allegedrecoveryofarmsandammunitionatthe
prosecution.
600 Itiswellsettledthattheirassociationwithoneofthe
(StateVs.Nalini). WhilediscussingtheroleofA4inthesaid
casetheHon'bleSupremeCourtcategoricallyobservedthat,
........Somerelybecauseapersonis
showntobeanactiveworkerofLTTEthat
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 445of408
446
byitselfwouldnotcatapulthimintotheorbit
of the conspiracy mesh to murder Rajiv
Gandhi. It cannot be forgotten that a
conspiracyforthatpurposewouldbestrictly
confined to a limited member of persons,
lestanytinyleakageisenoughtoexplode
theentirebubbleofthecabal.
601 TheHon'bleSupremeCourtfurtherobservedthat,
statementofA9itrevealsthatA7washavingsomenexuswith
someorganizationandwasawareaboutitsactivities.Beyond
thatnoevidencehascomeonrecordtoinferparticipationofA7
intheincidentinanymannertoprovehimtobeamemberof
conspiracyinquestion. A7deservesbenefitofdoubtinthis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 446of408
447
regard.
H.INVOLVEMENTOFA8:
theconspiracytocausebombblastinLajpatNagar,Iamof
manner.A8wasnotinpicturepriortohisapprehensionon
17.6.96.InpursuancetodisclosurestatementofA3andA
recoveredattheresidenceofA8inpursuanceofdisclosure
statementsofA3,A5andA6.SomearticlesbelongingtoA
1arefurtherallegedtohavebeenrecoveredattheresidence
ofA8. Allthesecircumstanceshavebeendiscussedabove
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 447of408
448
regardingrecoveryofstepneyfromthehouseofA8wasnot
believed.Prosecutionfailedtoconnectthearticlesrecovered
fromtheresidenceofA8tobelongingtoA1ortohaveany
allegedorprovedbytheprosecutionagainstA8toconnect
recordedafterhisapprehensionon17.6.96.Inpursuanceof
disclosurestatementofA8Ex.PW17/Inothingincriminating
wasrecoveredathisinstance.NopoliceremandofA8was
takenforanyrecoveryordiscovery.Disclosurestatementof
A8isthusnotadmissibleinevidence.
residenceofA8showinghisconnectionwithJKIF. Nothing
hascomeonrecordtoshowifA8washavinganylinkwith
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 448of408
449
JKIForusedtohaveanymeetingswithanyothermembersof
thesaidorganizationorelsehadeverremainedinconstant
thereisspecificmentionthatthisaccusedrefusedtojoinany
conspiracyattheinstanceofcoaccusedpersons.A8didnot
abscondfromhisplaceofresidenceevenafterapprehension
ofA1andA2on25.5.96andthereafterapprehensionofA
pursuanceofdisclosurestatementofA1andA2andthey
didnotleadthepoliceteamathisresidencetogetrecoveryof
anyincriminatingarticle.A1andA2intheirinitialdisclosure
statementsdidnotassignanyroletoA8intheincident.
also did not at all name A8 to have any concern with the
incident.NopublicwitnesstestifiedagainstA8tohaveever
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 449of408
450
accompaniedcoaccusedpersonsatthetimeofpurchaseof
bomb. A8neverparticipatedintheroleplayedbytheco
accusedpersonsatanytime.Thereisnothingonrecordto
inferifA8hadremainedintouchwithcoaccusedpersonsor
hadprovidedanyfinancialassistance. NoneighbourofA8
wasexaminedbytheprosecutiontoinferifthereusedtobe
residence.Nocomplaintwhatsoeverwaseverlodgedbythe
neighboursofA8showinghisillegalactivities.A8wasnot
thebeneficiarywhatsoeverandhadnoapparentmotivetojoin
showifA8hadprovidedsheltertoanycoaccusedpersons
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 450of408
451
commissionoftheoffencefortheallegedrecoveryofstepney
Ex.P1whichitmiserablyfailedtoprove. Thereisnoother
evidencewhatsoeveronrecordtoprovetheguiltofA8inthe
incident.ArticlesofA1allegedlyrecoveredfromthehouse
searchofA8werenotprovedtobelongingtoA1andwere
alreadybeendiscussedascircumstancesnumber15&16.
police. NothingwasshownifA8hadevervisitedJ&Kor
GorakhpurorNepalinconnectionwiththeincident.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 451of408
452
guilt.
608 Inthepresentcase,thecircumstancesreliedupon
bytheprosecutionagainstA8donotleadtoanyinference
beyondreasonabledoubtofhisinvolvementintheconspiracy.
benefitofdoubtinthiscase.
(I)InvolvementofA9:
609 FromtheconfessionalstatementExPW100/Amade
byA9voluntarilybeforetheLd.ACJMincaseFIRNo.39/96,PS
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 452of408
453
ConfessionalstatementofA9ledtotheunfoldingofthedastardly
actcommittedbyaccusedpersonsinvolvedintheconspiracy.In
confessedthathehaddeliveredthe'ammunition'attheresidence
ofWazidKasai.Thesaid'ammunition'wasmeanttobedelivered
to A5. Intheconfessionalstatement,A9narratedthathewas
askedbycoaccusedJavedSeniortodelivertheammunitionat
theresidenceofWazidKasai.Hegavegraphicdetailsastohow
on13.5.96,helefttheborderforDelhiandreachedinthemorning
th
of14 MayandcameattheresidenceofWazidKasai,friendof
Naza(A5).ThereWazidKasaiandNazadidnotmeethim.Some
childrenandladiesmethimthere.Hecouldnothandoverthesaid
bagtoA5andhandedoverthesaidbagtoladiesandtoldthe
confessedthathedeliveredthebagon14.5.96andreturnedto
th
Kathmanduon15.5.96andreachedatKathmanduon17 May.A
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 453of408
454
9furtherconfessedthatcoaccusedJavedSenior,A6andA13
hadalreadyreachedatKathmandupriortohisreachingthere.He
inquiredfromthemasto whathappenedtotheirworkatDelhi.
backtoDelhiandheinquiredfromJavedSeniorastowhythey
hadgonebacktoDelhi.JavedSeniorconfirmedthatworkcould
notbedoneduetosomedefect.
wereinconspiracywithA9andtheammunitionusedintheblast
wasdeliveredattheresidenceofPWWazidKasai.WazidKasai
hostile.Hedenieddeliveryofanyarmsandammunitionsathis
residencebyA9.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 454of408
455
caseoftheprosecution.ThisconfessionalstatementmadebyA9
regardinghisparticipationintheincidentinDelhiwasrecordedby
ShBhagwanDass,Ld.ACJM,JaipurevenpriortothearrestofA
9 inthiscasebyDelhiPolice.ItshowsthatA9was underno
pressuretomaketheconfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A.In
caseFIRNo.39/1996,PSGandhiNagar,Jaipur.A9namedA6,
JavedSeniorandA13whohadmethiminthiscase.
actualstayatSatyamHotelon14.5.96.HispresenceatSatyam
prosecutionwitnessesincludingPW46RajanArora. Thevisitto
DelhiandstayatSatyamHotel,Delhion14.5.96fullyprovesthe
otherwiseA9hadnobusiness/purposetovisitDelhiandtostay
atSatyamHotelatDelhion14/5/1996.HissuddenvisittoSatyam
Hotel,Delhi andearlydeparturefromtheretoKathmandufully
establisheshisinvolvementintheconspiracyhatchedalongwith
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 455of408
456
coconspirators.
relevantfact.Thecourtmayrelythereuponifitisvoluntarilygiven.
Itmayalsoformthebasisoftheconviction,whereforthecourtmay
thereof.Aconfessionwhichisnotretractedevenatalaterstageof
thetrialandevenacceptedbytheaccusedinhisexaminationu/s
313CrPCcanbefullyreliedupon.(AIR2007SUPREMECOURT
848).
unlesspromptedbyhisconscioustotellthetruth.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 456of408
457
observedinparano.32,
616 InthepresentcasetheconfessionalstatementofA9
wasrecordedbyLd.ACJM,Jaipuru/s164CrPC.Theprocedure
prescribedu/s164oftheCodewasdulyadheredtobytheLd.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 457of408
458
itselfthattheconfessionbeingmadebyA9wastrulyvoluntarily.
A9wasnotunderpressuretomaketheconfessionalstatement
DelhiPoliceatanytimeandwasnotevenasuspectatthattime.
personsalsomakehisconfessiontruthful.Investigatingagencies
confessionalstatementofA9.Priortothat,Delhipolicewasnot
credencetotheconfessionmadebyA9.Itfurthersubstantiates
theprosecutionstorythatduetoweakbatteryexplosioncouldnot
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 458of408
459
removethedefect.ThevividdetailswhichEx.PW100/Acontains
becausehealoneknewwhatallhedid;whereallhewentand
whomallhemet.
Courtquoted ShankariVs.StateofRajasthan1978SCC(Crl)
437 whichindicatedonebroadmethodbywhichaconfessionan
beevolved.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 459of408
460
618 IdonotsubscribetothecontentionoftheLd.Counsel
fortheaccusedthatthisconfessionoftheaccusedcan'tbetaken
intoconsiderationasitwasnotrecordedinthecaseinhand.No
Counseltoshowthatconfessionalstatementaboutanyincidentis
notadmissibleifithasbeenrecordedinsomeothercase.Court
isconcernedaboutthesubstanceoftheconfessionalstatement
someothercase.Ratherrecordingofconfessional statementof
thiscaseinsomeothercaselendscredencetothetruthfulnessof
thestatementasitwaswithoutanypressurefromtheinvestigating
authoritiesofthiscase.
confessionalstatementwasnotmadebyhim.
620A9didnotleadanyevidenceindefencetocontrovert
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 460of408
461
theincriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainsthim.Hedidnot
adduceanyevidenceonrecordifhewaspresentatsomeother
SatyamHotelon14.5.96.ApprehensionofA9atAnukulHotelat
AhmedabadhasbeenprovedintheproceedingsinthecaseFIR
AnukulHotel,Ahmedabad. Alltheseincriminatingcircumstances
conspiratorshatchedcriminalconspiracy,intheincidentatDelhi.
Notonlythatinpursuancetothecriminalconspiracyhetookactive
partanddeliveredtheammunitionfromKathmandu,Nepalatthe
residenceofPWWazidKasaiatDelhi whichwassubsequently
usedinthecommissionoftheincident.
conspiratorsshouldparticipatefromtheinceptiontotheendofthe
conspiracy;somemayjointheconspiracyafterthetimewhensuch
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 461of408
462
intentionwasfirstentertainedbyanyoneofthemandsomeothers
agreementconspiratorscommittedoffences,individuallyoradopt
illegalmeanstodoalegalactwhichhasanexustotheobjectof
conspiracy,allofthemwillbeliableforsuchoffencesevenifsome
ofthemhavenotactivelyparticipatedinthecommissionofthose
offences.
affair.Usuallyboththeexistenceoftheconspiracyanditsobjects
havetobeinferredfromthecircumstancesandtheconductofthe
accused.Inmostofthecasesitisdifficulttogetdirectevidenceof
theagreement.
inferenceofagreementbetweentheaccusedandothermembers
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 462of408
463
proveovertactwhereA9notonlymadeconfessionalstatement
Ex.PW100/AbutalsotravelledfromNepaltoDelhisolelyforthe
purposeofdeliveringammunitionattheresidenceofPWWazid
Kasaiwellknowingthepurpose/userofammunitionsbyA5and
hisassociates. HisstayatSatyamHotel,Delhiforthatpurpose
fromJavedSenioraboutcoaccusedA6&A13returningtoDelhi.
ItprovesthatthroughoutA9wasawareoftheincidentofbomb
participatedintheexecutionoftheplantocausebombblastby
playingaveryactiverole.Theactiveandpositiveinvolvementof
A9intheconspiracyloomslargeinthesaidconfession.
J.InvolvementofA10:
prosecutionagainstA10toproveconspiracyishisarrestincase
FIRNo.12/96u/s120B/121/122IPCalongwithA9,Rashidand
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 463of408
464
Zulfikaron1/6/1996. Whenspecificallyaskedfromtheld.SPP
provetheconspiracy,theld.SPPpointedoutthatthisaccusedhas
beenchargesheetedalongwithcoaccusedpersonsashisname
findsmentionintheconfessionalstatementmadebyA9recorded
circumstancehasbeenattributedtoA10.
primafaciepointouthatchingofconspiracybythisaccusedwith
coconspirators.Asdiscussedabove,prosecutionversionincase
FIRNo.12/96inwhichA10alongwithotherswasapprehended
220/98dated9/1/2002 andSCNo.89/08dated8/9/2008,A10
presenceofA10alongwithcoaccusedA9andothersatAnukul
HotelatAhmadabadpriorto1/6/1996andtheirstayinthesaid
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 464of408
465
Delhi.Noincriminatingarticlewasrecoveredfromthepossession
ofA10atthetimeofhisapprehensionandevensubsequentto
conspiratorsatanytimeorhadparticipateddirectlyorindirectlyin
thecommissionoftheoffence.Thereisnothingonrecordtoshow
conversationregardingtheincidentwithcoaccusedpersonsthere.
ThereisnothingonrecordtoshowifA10wasevenawareabout
theincidentatDelhi priortohisarrestincaseFIRNo.12/96at
Ahmadabad.ThearticlesrecoveredinthepersonalsearchofA
commissionoftheincident.
626 Itistruethatnameofthiswitnessfindsmentioninthe
confessionalstatementofA9.Butthataspectitselfisnotenough
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 465of408
466
confessionalstatementA9didnotattributeanyrolewhatsoeverto
carryouttheincident.
accusedagainstcoaccusedisveryclearaslaiddowninthecase
ofState(NCTofDelhi)Vs.NavjotSandhu,AIR2005Supreme
Court3820Hon'bleSupremeCourtreferringthecaseofHari
CharanKurmiVs.StateofBihar(1964)6SCR623 observed
that,
628 Itfurtherobservedinpara39
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 466of408
467
maytakeintoconsiderationsuchconfession.Thesewordsimply
convictionofthecoaccused.Theimportofthisexpressionwas
succintlyexplainedbythePrivyCouncilinBhuboniSahuVs.R
AIR1949PC257inthefollowingwords:
629 Inthepresentcase,eveniftheconfessionalstatement
ofcoaccusedA9isconsideredandactedupon,intheabsenceof
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 467of408
468
can'tbesaidthatmerementionofthenameofA10isenoughto
provehisinvolvementinthecommissionoftheincidentortobea
memberoftheconspiracy.ConfessionalstatementEx.PW100/A
containsnamesofotherpersonslikeRashidandZulfikaralsowho
arrestedbyDelhipoliceinthiscase.
630 Mereassociationwithoneoftheconspiratorsoreven
agreementofconspiracy.InthecaseofStateVs.Nalini(supra)
whiledealingwithA4(Shankar)observed:
631 Noovertactregardingtheincidentwasassignedto
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 468of408
469
provedagainstA10toinfermeetingofmindwithconspirators.
632 Thereisnoworthwhileevidenceonrecordexceptthe
benefitofdoubtonthisscore.
Conclusion
involvementoftheaccusedpersonssentfortrialbeforethecourt,
theprosecutionhasbeenabletoproveitscaseagainstsomeof
theaccusedpersonsandhasfailedtoestablishtheguiltofothers.
under:
(
A1FarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat)
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 469of408
470
634 Onperusalofthecircumstancesatsl.no.4,8&46
causebombblastatLajpatNagarmarketon21.5.1996.
arms/ammunitionsandexplosivesfromhisresidenceasdiscussed
atsl.no.5.
636 Inthestatementrecordedu/s313CrPCA1didnot
appearingagainsthim.Healsofailedtoproduceanywitnessinhis
defencetoshowhisinnocenceintheincidentorthatarmsand
ammunitions/explosiveswerenotrecoveredfromhispossession.
Sincearmsandammunitionsetcwererecoveredinpursuanceof
disclosurestatementofA1fromahiddenplaceathisresidence,it
wasonlyA1hewashavingspecialknowledgeastowherearms
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 470of408
471
possessionofthepremisesinquestion.A1alsofailedtoexplain
thepurposeofretaininglethalweaponsinhispossessionwhich
arenotordinarilyavailableinthemarket.A1failedtojustifythe
possessionofthesearmsandammunitions/explosiveswithoutany
legalauthority.
convictedu/s25oftheArmsActforwantofsanctionu/s39ofthe
Act.However,recentauthorityStateofWestBengalVsMohd.
JamilluddinNasir&Ors,deliveredon5.2.10inDeathreference
2of2005inSessionsCaseNo.79/2002,CRANo.425/2005came
toremovethedoubt.Inthisauthoritythereisspecificmentionthat
weaponsandtheirpossessionisincontraventionofSec.7ofthe
ArmsAct. Sanctionu/s39oftheArmsActisrequiredifthereis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 471of408
472
violationofSec.3oftheArmsAct.SinceAK57recoveredfrom
thepossessionofA1is'prohibitedarms'u/s2(i)oftheArmsAct
anditspossessionisprohibitedu/s7oftheAct,hencenosanction
isrequiredu/s39oftheArmsActfrom Ld.DistrictMagistrate.
Hon'bleHighCourtinparaNo.149hasobservedasunder:
638 Sanctionu/s7oftheExplosivesSubstancesActhas
alreadybeenprovedonrecordbytheprosecutionwhichhasnot
prosecutiononthisaspect.
offencepunishableu/s25oftheArmsActandunderSection5of
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 472of408
473
ExplosiveSubstancesActagainstA1beyondreasonabledoubt.
Heisheldguiltyandconvictedforthesaidoffencesaccordingly.
A2(
FaridaDar@Bahanji)
discussedatSl.No.4,8,7&46(B),itrevealsthattheprosecutionhas
miserablyfailedtoprovethatA2hatchedcriminalconspiracyu/s
120BIPCtocauseanybombblastatLajpatNagar,Delhi.
641 Prosecutionhashoweverprovedbeyondreasonable
recoveredRDXslabsandfivetimersfromherresidence.Sincethe
explosiveswererecoveredbyDelhiPolicewhenA2wasintheir
custodyinpursuanceofherdisclosurestatement,inmyview, it
havingconsciouspossessionoftheexplosives atherresidence
whichwerewithinherspecialknowledge.ItwasonlyA2whowas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 473of408
474
nothinginthestatementu/s313CrPCofA2ifanyotherperson
washaving constructivepossessionofthesaidexplosives.A2
specificcaseoftheprosecutionregardingrecoveryofexplosives
atherinstance.Sanctionu/s7oftheExplosivesActhasalready
beenprovedonrecordbytheprosecution.CFSLexperthasgiven
'explosives'withinthemeaningofExplosivesSubstancesAct.
offenceu/s5oftheExplosivesSubstancesActagainstA2beyond
reasonable doubt. She is held guilty and convicted for the said
offenceaccordingly.
A3(
Mohd.Naushad)
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 474of408
475
numbers9,10,23,26,30,31,32&46(C)andintheabsenceof
hatchedcriminalconspiracytocausebombblastatLajpatNagar
conspiratorsandtraveledtoGorakhpur.A3wasanativeofDelhi
andheprovidedallthesupportandlogisticstotheassociatesto
succeededinaccomplishingtheobjectcausingheavylossoflife
andproperty.
644 Inthestatementu/s313CrPC,A3failedtojustifythe
incriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainsthim. Healsodid
notexamineanyevidenceinhisdefenceforhisfalseimplication.
OnlyoneMukeshfromNationalHumanRightsCommissionhas
beensummonedonbehalfofA3toprovethatfatherofA3had
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 475of408
476
receivedfromAbdulRashid. Afterinquiryoneletterwassentto
Computerizedauthenticcopyoftheproceedingsofthecomplaint
isEx.DW1/A.
645 PW2ArunKumarSharmafromtheGOPtestifiedthat
thereisletterNo.010268indicatingdepositofcashofRs.20/for
sameisEx.DW2/A. Ithasbeencorelatedinthephotocopyof
registeratitemno.4,HybridMail.No.10317withcashdepositof
Rs.20/ismentionedon6.6.96.PhotocopyofwhichisEx.DW2/2
andphotocopyofreceiptismarkedDW2/B.Thedateandnumber
ofHMMail10317isatpoint'A'inmarkDW2/B.
646 ByexaminingthesetwowitnessesA3attemptedto
provethathewasnotarrestedbythepoliceon14.6.96asalleged
orthathisfatherhadalreadysenttelegramtovariousauthorities
on3.6.96disclosingthatA3hadbeenpickedupbythepoliceon
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 476of408
477
theinterveningnightof28/29.5.96.
beyondreasonabledoubtthathewasliftedfromhishouseonthe
interveningnightof28/29.5.96andwasfalselyimplicatedinthis
caseon14.6.96.InthistelegramthereismentionthatoneMohd.
Irshad,brotherofA3wasalsoliftedbyDelhiPolicealongwithA3
onthe interveningnightof28/29.5.96.However,Mohd.Irshad,
brotherofA3wasneverimplicatedinthiscase.A3didnotbother
toexaminehisbrotherMohd.Irshadinhisdefencetojustifythe
contentsof markDW2/Athathealongwithhisbrotherwaslifted
ontheinterveningnightof28/29.5.96.A3evendidnotexamine
hisfatheratanystagetoprovethecontentsofthetelegrammade
nightof28/29.5.96,therewasnooccasionforhisfathertosend
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 477of408
478
telegramafterdelayofabout4or5daysonlyon3.6.96. Even
matterwiththecompetentauthorities.Hedidnotfileanycomplaint
beforetheLd.MetropolitanMagistratewherecoaccusedpersons
werebeingproducedinthiscase.
statementmadebyA9,possibilityoffabricatingtheevidencein
advancebysendingtelegramcan'tberuledout.Defenceversion
inspiresnoconfidence.
offencebyA3u/s120BIPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.302IPC,u/s
120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436IPC
beyondreasonabledoubt. ConductofA3beforeandafterthe
Circumstancesratherprovethathewasinthethickofconspiracy.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 478of408
479
offencepunishableu/s5oftheExplosivesSubstancesActagainst
A3beyondreasonabledoubt.A3isaccordinglyheldguiltyand
convictedforthesaidoffences.
A4(
MirzaIftqarHussain@Saba)
651 Inviewofthecircumstancesatsl.no.4,9,17&46(D),Iam
oftheviewthatprosecutionhasfailedtoproveitscaseagainstA4
beyondreasonabledoubt.BenefitofdoubtisgiventoA4andhe
isacquittedoftheoffences.
A5(
MirzaNissarHussain@Naza)
intentionwithcoconspiratorstohatchcriminalconspiracybutwas
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 479of408
480
traveledfromNepaltoassisthisassociatestocarryouttheobject
ofconspiracyatDelhi.
incriminatingevidenceprovedonrecordagainsthim.Hedidnot
examineanydefencewitnesstofalsitythepositivetestimoniesof
underwhatcircumstanceshehappenedtovisitDelhiandhowhe
purchasedthearticlesforcausingbombblast.HealongwithA3
andA6madenecessarypreparationsequippedthemselvesand
successfullyachievedtheobjectoftheconspiracy.
offencespunishable u/s120BIPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.302
IPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.
436IPCagainstA5beyondreasonabledoubt.
A6
(
Mohd.AliBhatt@Killey)
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 480of408
481
655 OnperusalofthecircumstanceatSl.No.46(F),Iam
oftheviewthattheprosecutionhasestablishedbeyonddoubtthat
A6wasactivememberofthecriminalconspiracy. Hetraveled
fromNepaltoDelhifortheexecutionoftheplan.Hisnamefinds
mentionintheconfessionalstatementofA9. Healsoprocured
madeelobaratearrangementstoprocurethearticles.Healongwith
A3andA5tookvariousstepsforexecutionoftheplan.Thereis
notevenaspeckofdoubtthatA6wasnotanactivememberof
criminalconspiracy.
appearingagainsthiminthestatementrecordedu/s313CrPC.
Healsodidnotproduceanyevidenceinhisdefencetoestablish
hisinnocenceortofalsifythecaseoftheprosecution. healso
confessionalstatementfortheroleintheincident.A6didnotlead
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 481of408
482
relevantdaysatsomeotherplace.Hedidnotexaminehisfamily
memberstoprovehispresenceathisresidenceorplanofwork
duringrelevantdatewhenhispresenceatDelhiwasclaimedby
theprosecution.
IPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436
IPCagainstA6beyondreasonabledoubt.A6isaccordinglyheld
guiltyandconvictedforthesaidoffences.
A7(
LatifAhmedWaza)
658 Ondiscussingthecircumstancesatserialnumber46
(G),pertainingtoA7,Iamoftheviewthatprosecutionhasfailed
toproveitscaseagainsthimbeyondreasonabledoubt.Benefitof
doubtisgiventoA7andheisacquittedinthiscase.
SyedMaqboolShah)
A8(
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 482of408
483
659 Asperthecircumstancediscussedatserialnumber
46(H),againtheprosecutionhasfailedtoconnectA8withthe
reasonabledegreeofcertaintythatA8washavinganyroleinthe
alsogivenbenefitofdoubtinthiscaseandisacquitted.
(
A9JavedAhmedKhan@JavedJunior@
ChhotaJaved)
660 Ondiscussingthecircumstancesatserialnumber46
participatedintheexecutionoftheplanbydelivering'ammunitions'
usedintheincidentwhiletravellingfromNepaltoDelhi.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 483of408
484
661 Inthestatementu/s313Cr.P.CA9failedtogiveany
explanationtotheincriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainst
him.A9didnotleadanyevidenceindefencetocontrovertthe
testimoniesoftheprosecutionwitnessesadducedonrecordbythe
prosecution. A9failedtoprovethatconfessionalstatementEx.
PW100/Awasnotmadebyhimorthatitwasretractedatany
Delhi.
662 Inthelightoftheabovediscussion,Iamoftheview
conspiracyalongwithcoaccusedheldguilty.
663 Prosecutionhasthusprovedcommissionofoffence
punishable u/s120BIPC,u/s120BIPCr/wSec.302IPC,u/s
120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436IPC
againstA9beyondreasonabledoubt.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 484of408
485
A10
(
AbdulGani@Assadullah@Nikka)
664 Asperthecircumstancereferredats.no.46(J)there
isnoevidencewhatsoeveragainstA10toprovehiscomplicityin
thecommissionoftheincidentinthiscase.Theevidencecollected
bytheprosecutionagainstA10ishighlyscantyanddeficientand
isnotenoughtoprovetheseriousallegationslevelledagainsthim
forhatchingconspiracytocausebombblastatLajpatNagaron
21/5/1996.A10isgivenbenefitofdoubtandisacquitted.
FIRNo.286/96,PSNizamuddin,
S.C.No
.41/09
pertainingtoA3,A5andA6theprosecutionhasbeenableto
establishthatMaruticarbelongingtoPW8AtulNathwasstolenon
theinterveningnightof18/1951006.Thisverycarwasusedin
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 485of408
486
parkedinfrontoftheshopofPW61SumitKumarrunninghisshop
underthenameandstyleof'DulhanDupatta'.Accusedpersons
failedtoleadanyevidencetocontrovertpossessionofthecarwith
411IPCagainstA3,A5andA6.
666 ThereisnolegalevidenceagainstA8toprovetheft
Maruticarinquestionknowingorhavingreasonstobelievethe
sametobestolenproperty.A8deservesbenefitofdoubtinthis
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 486of408
487
regardandisacquittedincaseFIRNo.286/96
RESULT:
667 InviewoftheabovediscussionaccusedMirzaIftqar
Hussain@Saba(A4),LatifAhmedWaza(A7),SyedMaqbool
Shah(A8)and AbdulGani@Assadullah@Nikka(A10)are
acquittedofallchargesincaseFIRNo.517/96.
acquittedofchargeu/s411IPCincaseFIRNo.286/96.
andJavedAhmedKhan@JavedJunior@ChhotaJaved(A9)
120BIPCr/wSec.307IPCandu/s120BIPCr/wSec.436IPC.
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 487of408
488
andconvictedforthecommissionofoffencepunishableu/s5of
ExplosivesSubstancesAct.
671 AccusedFarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat(A1)
andFaridaDar@Bahanji(A2)areheldguiltyandconvictedfor
SubstancesAct.
672AccusedFarooqAhmedKhan@AnwarSadat(A1)
isfurtherconvictedforthecommissionofoffenceu/s25ofthe
ArmsAct.
furtherheldguiltyandconvicted forthecommissionofoffence
punishableu/s411IPCinFIRNo.286/96.
AshrafBhatta(A14),accusedJavedKariwar@JavedAhmed
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 488of408
489
Goojri(A15),accused IbrahimAbdulRazakMenan@Muslaq
Cr.P.C.
Announcedinopencourt
ondated8/4/2010 (S.P.GARG)
DISTRICTJUDGEIV,
PHC,NEWDELHI
StateVsFarooqAhmedKhan 489of408