Mohd. Naushad v. NCT Delhi (2023)
Anshita Agarwal
University Of Petroleum And Energy Studies(UPES), Dehradun
This Case Commentary is written by Anshita Agarwal, a Fourth-Year law student of University Of Petroleum And Energy Studies(UPES), Dehradun
CASE DETAILS:
COURT- Supreme Court
EQUIVALENT CITATIONS- 2023 8 Supreme 406
BENCH- B.R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
DECIDED ON- 06-07-2023
CASE TYPE- Criminal Appeal
PARTIES:
APEALLANT- Mohd. Naushad
RESPONDENT- State (Govt. OF NCT OF Delhi)
INTRODUCTION:
This case highlighted the offense of criminal conspiracy to execute a bomb blast carried out on “6th July 2023 in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi” which resulted in death and grievous hurt to 13 and 38 people respectively. The criminal proceedings were heard by the bench of the Supreme Court consisting of B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol. The accused were charged under numerous statutes like- the Indian Penal Code (now Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023), Explosive Substance Act, Arms Act, and Indian Evidence Act (now Bhartiya Sakshya Sanhita,2023).
Circumstantial evidence which also includes confessions of the accused and testimony of witnesses was highly relied on by the prosecution, while the defense argued that the confession was coerced and that evidence produced by the prosecution did not establish the chain of evidence against the accused.
But the court relied upon the importance of quality rather than quantity of evidence and acknowledged that the accused had committed acts which are against the public interest hence, was liable.
This case emphasized the challenges of prosecution by circumstantial shreds of evidence and the significance of confession and testimony by witnesses.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
On 21st May 1996, a bomb blast occurred in the central market of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, resulting in death and serious bodily injury to many people present there. It was believed that the criminal conspiracy was made to commit a bomb blast to destabilize the country and hamper public peace.
The case of Mohd. Naushad v. NCT Delhi emphasized a bomb blast that occurred in 1996 in the central market of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which resulted in death and serious bodily injury to many people present there. Based on the circumstantial evidence, confessions made, and testimony witnesses, several accused were tried, including Javed Ahmed and Mohd. Nausad even, some of them were convicted with death sentences. Later, the High Court acquitted A5 and A6 i.e. Mirza Nissar Hussain and Mohd. Ali Bhatt and Killey respectively. And commuting the death penalty of A3 to Life imprisonment. The Supreme Court then upheld the punishment of A3 and A9 and rejected the plea for acquittal. This case mainly highlighted the challenges of using circumstantial evidence and confession in matters related to terrorism and attacks.
The main issues which were addressed in this case are –
1. Whether the circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?
2. Whether the confession made by one accused b can be used as substantial evidence against the co-accused, specifically when direct evidence is lacking?
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment delivered by the high court emphasized the significance of circumstantial evidence and stated that the evidence produced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the accused being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that because absence of a Test identification parade does not invalidate the prosecution’s case and highlighted the importance of quality of evidence rather than quantity of evidence, and hence the testimony of witnesses should not be discarded outrightly. The Supreme Court also highlighted that the mere acquittal of one accused does not lead to the acquittal of all accused, and clarified that the offense of criminal conspiracy is the “joint responsibility” of all the conspirators, and each of them is liable for all the offenses committed by them out of that conspiracy.
CASE ANALYSIS:
The case included several accused convicted for various offenses like criminal conspiracy and bomb blasting. Two FIRs were filled one was related to a bomb blast in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and another one was presented for theft.
Out of 17 accused, 1 died 7 were absconded and only the remaining 9 accused were tried for several offences committed by them jointly. The trial court, in its judgment, convicted or acquitted the offenders according to their offenses.
The ratio decidendi of the case can be found out from the court’s findings. The court has convicted or acquitted the accused according to the offenses done by them. The ratio decidendi has established the legal principles as well as logic that resulted in the court’s decision in every case.
OBITER DICTA
Obiter dicta refer to a comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in a legal opinion that is not necessary for the decision of the case.
According to this case, the court’s observations on the nature of the offenses, the consequences of crimes on society, or the need for making more strict laws to prevent future happenings. These observations although not establishing legal principles, can provide guidelines and reasoning for the court in this case.
According to judgment given by the supreme court, sets away the judgment given by a high court of Delhi. And all the contents of Prayer provided by Respondents i.e. Mohd. Naushad and Javed Ahmed were dismissed by the SC.
Furthermore, the Appeal made by the State (NCT, Delhi) was duly accepted by the honorable court and Mohd. Naushad along with other accused was convicted for the offenses committed under sections 302(murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 307(attempt to murder), 436(mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy a house, etc.) also section 5 of Explosive Substance Act and thus granted the accused with life imprisonment.
Here, the honorable court of India relied upon the case of Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gaffar v. State of Maharashtra[1], wherein an important and hence justified principle was laid down according to which the punishment for life imprisonment will prevail over the punishment for death, in these such cases Supreme Court relied independently on the circumstantial evidence.
Moreover, by taking into consideration para number 93 and 94 of Union of India v. Shriharan and Ors[2], in this case, also primacy was given to life imprisonment instead of the punishment of death, here, life imprisonment refers to imprisonment for a lifetime of the accused person or till the last breath of the accused.
Along with this, the honorable Court ordered the convicting of all the offenders who were granted bail and canceled the request for granting bail.
The Supreme Court of India in this case not only disposed of the trial but also expressed sadness of our criminal justice system, which lacks speedy trials. The SC also highlighted the “involvement of influential persons” in slow trials. Thus, this case is setting for alarm for the public welfare and security.
References:
1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24847628/
2. https://www-scconline-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/Members/SearchResult.aspx