- (1.) A convict, who is facing the threat of death gallows, is before us in this appeal. He is an illiterate foreign national and unable to engage a counsel to defend himself. He is tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.122 of 1998 dated 03.11.2004 without assignment of counsel for his defence. Such a result is confirmed by the High Court on a reference made by the Trial Court for confirmation of death sentence and has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant vide its order dated 04.08.2006.
(2.) The convict, (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") is charged, convicted and sentenced under Sections 302/307 of Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and also under Section 3 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the High Court, which appears to be accurate statement of facts, proceeds on these lines : " 2. On 30-12-1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one blueline bus No.DL-IP-3088 carrying passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at the Ram Pura Bus Stand on Rohtak Road for passengers to get down. The moment that bus stopped there an explosion took place inside the bus because of which its floor got ripped apart. Four passengers of that bus, namely, Ms. Tapoti, Taj Mohd. Narain Jha and Rajiv Verma died and twenty four passengers including the conductor of that bus were injured due to that explosion. Two policemen (PWs 41 & 52) were on checking duty at that but stop at the time of blast. On their informing the local police station police team reached the spot. Crime team and bomb disposal squad were also called and the damaged bus was inspected and from the spot debris etc. were lifted and sealed. 3. On the basis of the statement of Head Constable Suresh (PW-41), who was one of the two policemen on duty at the bus stop of Rampura, a case under Section 307 IPC and Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered at Punjabi Bagh police station. Investigation commenced immediately. With the death of some of the injured persons on the day of the incident itself Section 302 IPC was also added. Hunt for the culprits responsible for that macabre incident also started. However, for over two months nobody could be nabbed. 4. It appears that as a result of different incidents of bomb blasts in Delhi including the present one the intelligence agencies became more active and started gathering information about the incidents of bomb blasts in the city. It came to light that some persons belonging to terrorist organizations were actively operating in the city of Delhi for causing terror by killing innocent people and causing damage to public property by exploding bombs. On the basis of secret information the police raided some houses in different parts of Delhi on 27.02.1998 and from those houses hand grenades and material used for making bombs was recovered in large quantity. The chemicals recovered were sent to CFSL, which confirmed that the same were potassium chlorate and sulphuric acid and were opined to be constituents of low explosives. Some persons were arrested also and during interrogation they had disclosed to the police that they were members of a terrorist organization and their aim was to create terror and panic in different parts of the country by exploding bombs to take revenge for the killings of innocent muslims (sic.) in India and further that they had come to India for Jehad. On 27.02.1998 itself the police had registered a case vide FIR No.49 of 1998 under Sections 121/121-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well under Section 25 of the Arms Act at Main Delhi Railway Station. On the basis of information provided by the apprehended terrorists the police made more arrests including that of one Mohd. Hussain (who now is the appellant before us in Crl. A. No.41 of 2005 and reference to him will now onwards be made as 'the appellant'). The appellant was apprehended when his house in Lajpat Nagar was raided pursuant to the information given by other apprehended terrorists. As per the prosecution case the appellant himself had opened the door on being knocked by the police and on seeing the police party he had tried to fire at the policemen from the pistol which he was having in his hand at that time but could not succeed and was apprehended. His pistol was seized. It appears that during the interrogation by the police the appellant and three more persons, namely, Abdul Rehman, Mohd. Ezaz Ahmed and Mohd. Maqsood confessed about their involvement in the present incident of bomb blast in the bus on 30.12.1997. That information was then passed over to Punjabi Bagh police station on 18.03.1998 by the Crime Branch and accordingly all these four persons were formally arrested for the present case also on 21.3.1998 for which date the investigating officer of the present case had sought their production in court by getting issued production warrants from the court seized of the above referred case of FIR No.49/1998. The investigating officer moved an application before the concerned court on the same day for holding of Test Identification Parade (TIP) in respect of the appellant in view of the suspicion expressed by PW-1 Darshan Kumar, the conductor of the bus involved in the blast regarding one passenger who had boarded his bus from Paharganj bus stop along with a rexine bag for going to Nangloi but instead of going upto Nangloi he had got down from the bus at Karol Bagh leaving his rexine bag underneath the seat which he had taken and which was near the seat of the conductor. The conductor had given the description of that passenger. As per the prosecution case the explosion had taken place below that seat which that passenger had occupied and underneath which he had kept his rexine bag. Although on 21-03-98 the appellant did not object to holding of identification parade but he refused to joint test identification parade which was fixed for 23-03-98 stating that police had taken his photographs. 5. During the investigation of the present case the debris collected from the place of bomb blast and some damaged pieces of the bus etc. were sent to Central Forensic Laboratory (CFSL) and after examination it was revealed that in the seized material contained explosive mixture of chlorate, Nitrate, Sulphate and sugar were detected. Mixture of these chemicals, as per CFSL, report Ex. PW-34/A, is used for making explosives/bombs and the mixture could have been initiated by the action of sulphuric acid and the mixture was "explosive substance". 6. On completion of investigation of the present case the police filed a charge-sheet in Court against four accused persons for the commission of offences under Sections 302/307/120-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. In due course the four persons were committed to Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.2.1999 discharged three accused persons namely, Abdul Rehman, Mohd. Maqsood and Ezaz Ahmed while against fourth accused Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar (the appellant herein) charges under Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 3 and in the alternative u/s 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act were framed. The appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried."
(3.) The prosecution had examined as many as 65 witnesses and on conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C"), who had denied his guilt and pleaded false implication. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, held the appellant guilty of the charges and accordingly, imposed death penalty. The conviction and sentence is affirmed by the High Court. At this stage itself, it is relevant to notice that the appellant had pleaded, both before the Trial Court and the High Court, that he was not given a fair and impartial trial and he was denied the right of a counsel. The High Court has noticed this contention and has answered against the appellant. In the words of the High Court : " 45. Faced with this situation Mr. Luthra came out with an arguments that this case, in fact, needs to be remanded back to the trial back for a fresh trial because the trial court record would reveal that the accused did not have a fair trial inasmuch as on most of the hearing when material witnesses were examined he was unrepresented and the trial court did not bother to provide him legal aid at State expense and by not doing that the Trial Court, in fact, failed to discharge its pious duty of ensuring that the accused was defended properly and effectively at all stages of the trial either by his private counsel or in the absence of private counsel by an experienced and responsible amicus curiae. Mr. Luthra also submitted that, in fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge himself should have taken active part at the time of recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses by putting questions to the witnesses who had been examined in the absence of counsel for the accused. It was contended that the right of the accused ensured to him under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India for a fair trial has been, thus, violated. In support of this argument which, in fact, appears to us to be the sheet anchor for the appellant, Mr. Siddharth Lutha cited some judgments also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are reproduced as STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ANIL, 1997 AIR(SC) 1023, TYRON NAZARETH VS. STATE OF GOA, 1994 Supp3 SCC 321, SUK DAS VS. UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH, 1986 AIR(SC) 991, RANJAN DWIVEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA, 1983 3 SCC 307. One judgment of Gauhati High Court reported as "Arjun Karmakar Vs. State of Assam,1987 1 Crimes 133" was also relied upon by Mr. Luthra. 46. There can be no dispute about the legal proposition put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is the duty of the Court to see and ensure that an accused in a criminal trial is represented with diligence by a defence counsel and in case an accused during the trial remains unrepresented because of poverty etc., it becomes the duty of the Court to provide him legal aid at State expense. We find from the judgment of the trial Court that this point was raised on behalf of the accused during the trial also by the amicus curiae provided to the accused when his private counsel stopped appearing for him. The learned trial Court dealt with this arguments in para no.101 of the judgment which is as under:- "It is next submitted that material witnesses have not been cross examined by the accused and as such, their testimony cannot be read against him. I may add that from the very beginning of the trial, the accused has been represented by a counsel Sh. Riaz Mohd. and he had cross-examined some of the witnesses. Later on, when Sh. Riaz Mohd. did not appear in the Court on some dates, Mrs. Sadhna Bhatia was appointed as AmicusCuriae to defend the accused at State expenses. If the accused did not choose to cross examine some witnesses, he cannot be forced to do so. Moreover, later one accused prayed for cross-examination of PW-1 Sh. Darshan Kumar, which was allowed though it was filed at a belated stage after a long period of time. The accused did not desire any other witness to be cross examined. Not only this, statement of PW-1 Sh. Darshan Kumar was recorded on 18-05-1999 and he was also present on 3-6-1999 and 13-08-1999, but on all three dates, the cross-examination of this witness was deferred at the request of the accused, who was ultimately discharged with nil cross-examination. This shows that accused himself was not interested in cross-examining the witnesses. As such, this submission is also without merit." 47. We have ourselves also perused the trial court record and we are convinced that it is not a case where it can be said that the accused did not have a fair trial or that he had been denied legal aid. We are in full agreement with the above quoted views of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this objection of the accused and we refuse to accept the plea of the appellant that this case should be remanded back for a re-trial. ";