Author -Vaishali Tomar, a 4th year law student at Faculty of Law, AMU, Aligarh
Abstract:
The case of Mohd Naushad v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023) revolves around the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented sufficiently established his role in the conspiracy, with particular focus on the principles of criminal intent, common purpose, and agreement among co-conspirators.
This case review discusses the legal interpretations of criminal conspiracy, the evidentiary standards required, and the implications of the judgment for future cases involving group criminal activities.
Name of the Court, Judgement delievered by: Supreme Court of India, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
Date of order: 6th July 2023
Name of the parties: Mohd. Naushad …Appellant(s)
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) …Respondent(s)
Sections involved: Section 302, Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Facts of the Case:
On May 21, 1996, an explosion occurred at the Central Market in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, causing the loss of 13 lives and injuring 38 individuals. PW-21 reported this incident to the local police station, leading to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR). The Jammu Kashmir Islamic Front claimed responsibility for the attack. Subsequent investigations uncovered two phone numbers in the Kashmir Valley, registered under the name of Farooq Ahmed Khan’s father and located in Farida Dar’s residence. The accused individuals were apprehended and formally arrested by PW-49 Jasbir Malik on May 25, 1996.
The prosecution asserted that a significant breakthrough was achieved when A9 Javed was arrested on June 1, 1996, in Ahmedabad. Javed provided a disclosure statement that revealed details about the importation of explosives into India and disclosed the identities of those responsible for orchestrating the bomb blast. The police then verified this information by consulting PW-13 Wazid Kasai and his sister Pappi, who partially corroborated A9’s statement regarding the transfer of explosive materials to other co-conspirators.
Issues of the case:
The incident in question pertained to a series of bomb explosions that occurred at the lively Lajpat Nagar market in South Delhi on the evening of May 21, 1996. These explosions tragically resulted in the loss of 13 lives, injuries to 38 individuals, and significant damage to both private and public properties. On the same evening, media reports indicated that the Jammu Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF), which had been designated as a ‘terrorist organization’ under Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, claimed responsibility for this dreadful incident. As per the charge sheet, this conspiracy, led by JKIF chief Bilal Ahmed Beg and involving the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was orchestrated in Pakistan.
The police inquiry uncovered that the bombings were a component of a more extensive plot, implicating numerous individuals as suspects. Among the 17 accused, one had passed away, nine were undergoing trial on various charges, including murder and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as violations of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Meanwhile, the remaining seven accused could not be apprehended and were declared proclaimed offenders, evading any legal proceedings.
The primary individuals accused in this case were Mohd. Naushad (A3), Mirza Nissar Ahmed (A5), Mohd. Ali Bhatt (A6), and Javed Ahmed Khan (A9). The Supreme Court’s current judgment modified their convictions and sentences. The prosecution’s case against these accused individuals commenced with A9, who was apprehended on June 1, 1996, in Ahmedabad. A9 provided a confessional statement implicating both himself and others in the conspiracy. This confessional statement was substantiated by independent evidence and surrounding circumstances.
The evidence and circumstances showed that A9 delivered explosives to the residence of PW13 – Wajid Kasai. A3’s role was also established through his disclosure statement which led to the recovery of explosives from his residence.
Rationale/ Judgement:
The Court, in a decision that differed from the High Court’s ruling, overturned it. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat incidentally authored this judgment. The Court found all the accused individuals guilty and sentenced them all to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution successfully demonstrated the “discovery of facts” under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, primarily through the confessions made by the accused. The Court also established the existence of a “conspiracy.”
In 1996, a bomb blast occurred in Delhi’s Lajpat Nagar Central Market, resulting in the loss of 13 lives, injuring 38 people, and causing extensive property damage. The Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF), designated as a terrorist organization, claimed responsibility for the attack. The Delhi Police had arrested six suspected Kashmiri militants and two others, including a woman, for their alleged involvement. Additionally, certain mafia members were also identified as accused in the blast.
A9, A5 (Naza), and A6 (Killey) arrived in Delhi on May 10, 1996, carrying RDX explosives. They proceeded to assemble a bomb, acquire necessary items, steal a car, and successfully carried out two bombings. This information was uncovered through pointing out proceedings. The materials found at A3’s residence match the explosive material used in the Lajpat Nagar bomb blast, as confirmed by CFSL Reports. As a result, the accused individuals have been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, given the innocent lives lost. Bail bonds have been revoked, and pending applications have been resolved. The accused individuals are instructed to surrender immediately.
The Supreme Court thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented by the Delhi police under the guidance of the then Additional Solicitor General, Sanjay Jain. They also carefully considered the arguments presented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave and Advocate on Record Kamini Jaiswal on behalf of the accused. Furthermore, the Supreme Court assessed the credibility and validity of each piece of evidence presented by both parties before overturning the acquittal granted by the Delhi High Court for two of the convicted individuals.
Case Review:
The explosion orchestrated by the accused individuals resulted in the tragic death of 13 people, with 38 others sustaining injuries. Additionally, it caused significant harm to the livelihoods of shopkeepers whose stores were destroyed in the blast. The recovery of evidence from the residence of A3 and the confessional statement made by A9 strongly suggest that these accused individuals were involved in planning future acts of terrorism in the country. Notably, the incident occurred on 21.05.1996, approximately 27 years ago, and the Trial Court handed down the death sentence on 22.04.2010, more than 13 years ago. Considering these factors, along with the accused acting under the influence of principal conspirators, the Supreme Court did not deem it appropriate to impose the death penalty, even though the case falls within the category of the rarest of rare cases.
The Full Bench, consisting of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol, expressed serious concern about the delayed and inadequate handling of the criminal proceedings against the accused by both the investigating agencies and the Trial Court. They noted that the attack on Lajpat Nagar market, a significant market located in the heart of the capital city, was a matter of great importance. The Bench emphasized that the case had not received the necessary promptness and attention it deserved.
Although the Delhi High Court identified various shortcomings in the prosecution’s case against the two convicts, Hussain and Bhatt, the Supreme Court conducted a thorough examination of the matter. It was determined that Hussain specifically traveled from Kathmandu to Delhi to arrange for the bomb blast and possessed knowledge of shops where incriminating materials used in bomb preparation were purchased. He even disclosed a failed plot to carry out the attack two days before the incident on 19-05-1996 when the battery failed.
As for Bhatt, the Court found his involvement in the entire process, from the bomb’s preparation to its execution, particularly highlighting his significant role on the day the bomb failed to explode. The Court emphasized that Bhatt’s contribution in rectifying defects, along with other co-accused individuals, as evidenced in the confessional statement of A9 (Javed), played a crucial part in the tragic event where people lost their lives.
The Court has handed down life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to four individuals who were charged in the 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case. It affirmed the guilt of two individuals and reinstated the punishment for two former death row convicts.
In 1996, an explosion took place at the Lajpat Nagar Central Market in Delhi, leading to the tragic loss of 13 lives, injuries to 38 individuals, and significant damage to properties. The Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF), identified as a terrorist group, asserted responsibility for this incident. The Delhi Police detained six individuals suspected to be Kashmiri militants and two others, one of whom was a woman, on suspicions of their participation. Additionally, certain individuals connected to criminal organizations were also implicated in connection to the explosion.
The court had no doubt that the incident was part of an international conspiracy against India, and it was believed that the convicts would have attempted further attacks if they hadn’t been apprehended by the police. The Bench referenced the case of Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra to highlight that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence or where the High Court has imposed a life imprisonment or acquittal, a Court may prioritize life imprisonment over the death penalty.
Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused in the commission of the crime, establishing that these four accused were part of a criminal conspiracy to carry out the blast in the capital city.
Criminal conspiracy in Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to carry out an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful act through unlawful methods. For an agreement to be considered a criminal conspiracy, at least one party must perform an act related to the agreement.9 Sept 2024
Conclusion:
The introduction of criminal conspiracy under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reflects a continued commitment to addressing organized and collective criminal behavior. By retaining the core principles from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita emphasizes the importance of intent, agreement, and concerted action in establishing criminal conspiracy. It highlights that even when conspiracies are formed covertly, they can be prosecuted based on circumstantial evidence, as direct evidence is often scarce.
The 2023 statute provides clarity on the threshold of liability for conspirators, ensuring that individuals involved in planning illegal acts are held accountable even if the crime itself is not completed. It strengthens the legal framework for tackling complex conspiracies, particularly in the context of evolving criminal activities that involve multiple parties.
FAQs
1. What is criminal conspiracy?
– Criminal conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an illegal act or to achieve a legal act through illegal means. The essence of the offense is the agreement itself, regardless of whether the act is actually carried out.
2. What is the difference between criminal conspiracy and abetment?
– Abetment involves encouraging, assisting, or facilitating someone to commit a crime, whereas criminal conspiracy involves an agreement between individuals to commit a crime. Conspiracy does not require an actual commission of the crime, while abetment typically requires some involvement in the crime itself.
3. Can a person be convicted of conspiracy even if the crime is not committed?
– Yes, a person can be convicted of criminal conspiracy even if the planned crime is not committed. The crime of conspiracy is complete once the agreement is made.
4. Does criminal conspiracy require the conspirators to know each other?
– No, conspirators do not need to personally know each other. As long as there is a mutual agreement to achieve the illegal act, they can be considered co-conspirators.
______________
