Crl.A. Nos. 1240-1241 of 2010 etc.                           1

ITEM NO.1C               COURT NO.2            SECTION II [FOR JUDGMENT]

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1240-1241 OF 2010

MD.JAMILUDDIN NASIR                               Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF WEST BENGAL                              Respondent(s)

WITH  CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1242-1243 of 2010 [AFTAB AHMED ANSARI @AFTAB ANSARI V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL]             Date: 21/05/2014  These Appeals were called on for pronouncement of  

    judgment today.

For appellants  in Crl.A. 1240-1241 &  1242-1243 of 2010 Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Adv.

Mr. Saren Naved, Adv.      Ms. Ria Singh, Adv.

Mr. A.K. Roy, Adv.  Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, Adv.

For Respondents  in Crl.A. 1240-1241 & 1242-1243 of 2010  Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, Sr. Adv.  

Mr. Kabir S. Bose, Adv.                     Mr. Anip Sachthey, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv.  Mr. Saakaar Sardana, Adv.  Ms. Shagun Matta, Adv.

Mr. A.K. Roy, Adv.  Ms. Snehasish Mukherjee, Adv.

*****

Crl.A. Nos. 1240-1241 of 2010 etc.                           2

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim  

Kalifulla pronounced the judgment of the Court for a  

Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik  

and His Lordship.

For the detailed reasons recorded in the signed  

reportable judgment, the appeals are partly allowed  

to the extent that the imposition of death penalty  

for offence under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is  

set aside and imposition of death penalty for  

offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with  

120B IPC is modified into one of life and in the  

case of appellant Aftab such life imprisonment  

should be suffered by him till the end of his life  

and in the case of appellant Nasir life imprisonment  

should be for a minimum period of 30 years without  

any remission.  Appeals stand disposed of in terms  

of the signed reportable judgment.

        [KALYANI GUPTA]          [RENU DIWAN]           COURT MASTER         COURT MASTER        

 [SIGNED  REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL   NOS.1240  -1241 OF 2010   

Md. Jamiludin Nasir …. Appellant

VERSUS

State of West Bengal  …. Respondent With

CRIMINAL APPEAL   NOS.1242  -1243 OF 2010     Aftab Ahmed Ansari @ Aftab Ansari …Appellant

VERSUS

The State of West Bengal …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the High Court  

of Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.428 of 2005 which was preferred  

by Nasir and Aftab together. The said Judgment was rendered on  

05.02.2010 in Death Reference Case No.2 of 2005 in Sessions  

Case No.79 of 2002 as well as Criminal Appeal Nos.247 of 2005,  

377 of 2005, 425 of 2005 and 428 of 2005.  The Appellant in  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1240-41 of 2010 is Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               1 of 195

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Nasir’). The Appellant in Criminal Appeal  

Nos.1242-43 of 2010 is one Aftab Ahmed Ansari (hereinafter  

referred to as ‘Aftab’).

2. The Sessions Case was tried by the learned Judge XIIth Bench, City  

Sessions Court at Calcutta in Sessions Case No.79 of 2002. The  

FIR was registered on 22.01.2002 in FIR No.19 for offences under  

Sections 121, 121A, 122, 120B, 302, 333, 427 and 21 Indian Penal  

Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), as well as Sections  

25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as  

‘Arms Act’). The FIR was registered at 06.36 a.m. The date and time  

of the occurrence was noted as 22.01.2002, 06.30 a.m. The General  

Diary (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.D.’) entry number was 1889 in  

the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station. The place of occurrence  

was noted as in front of the American Centre, 38H, Jawaharlal  

Nehru Road, which was stated to be located 1¼ km North-West of  

the Police Station. The name of the Complainant was Shri Barun  

Kumar Saha. According to the Prosecution, as many as 17 accused  

were involved in the offence, out of which only 9 faced Trial and from  

the remaining 8, there were 6 absconders out of whom one is now  

facing Trial and the remaining 5 continue to remain absconding. Two  

of the offenders, namely, Zahid and Salim died in an encounter on  

27.01.2002, at a place called Hazaribagh, that is how 9 accused  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               2 of 195

alone came to be tried in the Sessions Case No.79 of 2002. By a  

Judgment dated 26.04.2005, the Trial Court found A1-Mohd.  

Jamiludin Nasir, A2-Adil Hassan, A3-Rehan Alam, A6-Musarrat  

Hussain, A7-Nushrat Alak, A8-Aftab Ahmed Ansari and A9-Shakir  

Akhtar guilty of charges under Sections 121A, 121, 122 of IPC and  

Sections 302, 307, 333, 467, 471 and 468 IPC read with Section  

120B of IPC. They were also found guilty of the offences under  

Sections 25(1A), 27(2), and 27(3) of the Arms Act read with Section  

120B of IPC. The trial Court in its Judgment ultimately convicted A1-

Jamiludin Nasir, A2-Adil Hussain, A3-Rehan Alam, A6-Musarrat  

Hussain, A7-Hasrat Alam, A8-Aftab Ahmed Ansari and A9-Shakir  

Akhtar and acquitted A4-Mohd. Shakeel Mallick and A5-Patel Dilip  

Kumar Kantilal of all the charges framed against them and were set  

at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Thereafter, by its  

order dated 27.04.2005, imposed the sentence of death for the  

offence under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act as mandated under the  

said provision, sentenced them to death for the charge under  

Section 121 IPC apart from other sentences of imprisonment for  

offences under Sections 121A, 122, 302 read with 120B, 307 read  

with 120B, 333 read with 120B, 467 read with 120B, 471 read with  

120B and 468 read with 120B of IPC 25(1A),  27(2) and 27(3) of the  

Arms Act read with 120B IPC. The trial Court held that all the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               3 of 195

convicts who were found guilty were to be hanged till death subject  

to confirmation by the High Court and all the sentences to run  

concurrently.  

3. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court acquitted A2-Adil  

Hussain, A3-Rehan Alam of all the charges. In so far as A6-Musarrat  

Hussain, A7-Nushrat Alak and A9-Shakir Akhtar are concerned, the  

Court acquitted them of the offence of waging of war but convicted  

them only for the offences under Sections 467 read with 120B, 468  

read with 120B and 471 read with 120B IPC and thereby imposed a  

lesser sentence. As far as A1-Mohd. Jamiludin Nasir and A8-Aftab  

Ahmed Ansari are concerned, the High Court confirmed their  

conviction, as well as the sentence imposed by the trial Court on all  

counts.  While A1-Nasir and A8-Ansari have come forward with the  

above appeals, the State has filed Criminal Appeal Nos.1244 to  

1247 of 2010 as against that part of the Judgment of the High Court  

which modified the conviction and sentence in respect of A6-

Musarrat Hussain, A7-Hasrat Alam and A9-Shakir Akhtar. Though,  

the above appeals were also posted along with the present appeals,  

which were being disposed of by this Judgment by our order dated  

23.04.2014, we have de-tagged the said appeals for want of time.  

We are, therefore, now concerned only with the appeals filed by  

Nasir and Aftab. One other fact to be mentioned is that the acquittal  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               4 of 195

of A4-Mohd. Shakil Mallick and A5-Patel Dilip Kumar Kantilal by the  

trial Court was not even challenged by the State before the High  

Court.

4. The case of the Prosecution as narrated before the Courts below  

can be stated as thus: one Asif Reza Khan(hereinafter referred to as  

‘Asif’), who was detained in October-November, 2001 in connection  

with the kidnapping of one Khadim, happened to meet Aftab in Tihar  

Jail where both of them were under detention. While Asif is a  

resident of Calcutta, Aftab is stated to be an Indian National as per  

the Chargesheet. While they were in detention in Tihar Jail, they  

stated to have developed friendship which later on gave scope for  

Aftab’s involvement in the crime with which we are concerned. As  

the narration goes, Asif and Nasir were childhood friends as they  

happened to have their initial education in a Madarsa upto High  

School level though thereafter, they were separated. It is also the  

case of the Prosecution that some time in 1991 Asif had been to  

Kashmir and was in contact with one Salahuddin and Dr. Mushtaq  

Ahmed who made him feel that he should involve himself much  

more deeply in Jehadi movement. In the above-stated background  

when Asif happened to meet Aftab in Tihar Jail, where both of them  

were under detention in the year 1998/1999, their ideology seemed  

to have enabled them to develop close relationship. It is also stated  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               5 of 195

that Asif was released from Tihar Jail in the year 1999 and met Nasir  

in Calcutta who was by then married and was on the look out for a  

job as he had just then left the avocation in which he was placed.  

Asif stated to have assured Nasir of continued employment with him  

having regard to their childhood relationship, which persuaded Nasir  

to join hands with Asif in the year 1999. Asif while inviting Nasir to  

extend his services in his business ventures, namely, export of  

leather garments along with his associates, also wanted him to get a  

suitable accommodation for one Niaz Hussain to set up his leather  

export business venture. Nasir was a resident of No.46, Tiljala Lane.  

When the building in No.1, Tiljala Lane was developed at that time,  

Nasir stated to have approached the developer, namely, PW-47,  

who also offered one of the flats in the ground floor of No.1, Tiljala  

Lane. At the behest of Nasir, Niaz Hussain was able to clinch the  

deal of securing the ground floor premises of No.1, Tiljala Lane,  

initially by paying an advance sum of Rs.98,000/- and the balance  

amounts in Rs.2000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.60,000/-, in all a sum of  

Rs.2,60,000/-. The possession of the said premises was stated to  

have been handed over to Niaz Hussain, as well as his brother Fiaz  

Hussain in the month of April/July 2001. Be that as it may, after the  

initial association of Nasir with Asif in the year 1999 as their close  

intimacy developed further, Asif stated to have issued directions to  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               6 of 195

Nasir for carrying out various assignments such as securing a fake  

passport for himself, as well as, for his friend, namely, Aftab in  

different names. Such fake passports stated to have been arranged  

by Nasir through a person in the passport office of Bihar. That apart,  

as was instructed by Asif, Nasir was sent to Agra and Jaisalmer.  

Nasir was introduced initially at Banaras to Aftab who according to  

Asif was his fast friend and that Nasir should function as directed by  

his close friend Aftab in all future endeavours through emails.

5. In October, 2001 Asif introduced Nasir to Zahid, Salim and Sadakat  

when he went to Agra for the second time.  In the first week of  

September, 2001 as per Asif’s email, Nasir secured a rented flat at  

Khan Road, Khirgaon, Hazaribagh. After taking over possession of  

the ground floor flat at No.1, Tiljala Lane, it is stated that that was a  

place earmarked for all future meetings and on one occasion Asif  

deliberated that to raise more funds they should indulge in  

kidnapping activities. It appears that it was in that process Asif  

stated to have been detained in the case of kidnapping of one  

Khadim some time in October-November, 2001. It is further stated  

that in December, 2001 while he was in detention and was being  

enquired at Bhawani Bhawan, he was shifted to Rajkot at Gujarat  

where he was stated to have been killed in an encounter on  

08.12.2001. When Asif met with his death on 08.12.2001, Zahid  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               7 of 195

stated to Nasir and other gang members to take certain serious  

revenge actions and that they should wait for Aftab’s orders for the  

same. Based on certain instructions issued by Aftab to Nasir,  

Sadakat and Zahid who came to Calcutta on 14 th to 16 th January,  

2002, were lodged in the No.1, Tiljala Lane, Calcutta.  The e-mail  

messages forwarded to Nasir and exchanged between Zahid,  

Sadakat and Aftab stated to have revealed that the untimely death of  

Asif in the encounter at Rajkot required to be retaliated in equal  

force and that should teach a lesson to the Government of India and  

the Police Personnel. With that object in mind, the whole emissary of  

the gang led by Aftab, which included Nasir, Sadakat, Zahid, Salim  

and others operated.  The master mind was stated to be that of  

Aftab who was also supported with different ideas by Zahid, Salim,  

Sadakat and Nasir. In one of the messages forwarded to Nasir by  

Aftab which was also forwarded to the other accomplices it was said  

that there should be an attack on Bhawani Bhawan, where Asif was  

taken after his detention in Khadim’s case for interrogation. To the  

said suggestion, Nasir stated to have replied that it would not be a  

good proposition as many civilians would be seriously affected and  

the Minority Commission office was also near to Bhawani Bhawan.  

Thereafter, Aftab stated to have suggested as to whether their attack  

can be directed towards any American base where also large  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               8 of 195

number of police security was being provided. While the said  

proposal of Aftab was considered for implementation by the other  

gang members, namely, Nasir, Zahid, Salim, Sadakat and others in  

the month of January, 2002, namely, on 19 th, 20 th and 21 st survey  

was stated to have been made by the above stated gang members  

of the Consulate Office of America, as well as the American Centre.  

Thereafter, it was suggested again by way of an e-mail message to  

Aftab that the American Centre would be an ideal target as they  

found that the police security personnel were in large number, that  

they were operating in shifts, that one such shift was taking place in  

the early morning at around 6-6.30 a.m. and that the police  

personnel were very lackadaisical in their duties.  The said proposal  

was suggested by the gang members to Aftab. It was thus stated to  

have been cleared by Aftab and thereafter, the plan was worked out  

by the other gang members of course with the consultation of Aftab  

by which a close survey was made on 20 th and 21 st, January, 2002.  

Initially a decision was taken to cause the attack on 21.01.2002,  

which was not carried out and Aftab was informed through an email  

about the same while he was assured that the attack will be  

successfully carried out on 22.01.2002.

6. In pursuance of the above object, it is stated that the gang members  

had assembled at No.1, Tiljala Lane where Blue Colour Maruti 800  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               9 of 195

Car bearing Registration No.BRK-4907 and a Black Colour Suzuki  

Motorcycle WB-01-P 2144 were also kept in the premises which was  

used on 19 th, 20 th,  21st and 22 nd January, 2002. After the initial  

rehearsal, stated to have been made on 19 th, 20 th and 21 st, on  

22.01.2002 morning while Nasir and Khurram Khaiyam @ Abdullah  

left No.1, Tiljala Lane in the Maruti Car and parked their vehicle at  

Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing opposite Panjabi Tea Stall  

that (deceased) Zahid and Sadakat (now facing Trial) who also left  

No.1, Tiljala Lane in the early hours of the morning went to the  

targeted place, namely, American Centre around 6.30 a.m., that  

while Zahid was riding the bike at the spot in a slow speed, Sadakat  

stated to have opened fire with AK-47 rifle/automatic gun in a close  

range of about 10 to 15 feet towards the police personnel who were  

changing their shift and while carrying out the said operation,  

shouting “A sob sarkari kutta logo key markey ura deo” got into the  

pillion of the bike driven by Zahid which reached Rippon Street  

Circular Road Crossing where Nasir and Abdullah were waiting in  

the Maruti Car. After reaching the said spot Zahid stated to have  

proclaimed that the mission was carried out (KAAM HO GAYA) as  

planned and that Sadakat who was the pillion rider with Zahid stated  

to have got into the back seat of a Maruti Car and thereafter, the car  

and the bike left the Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing. Since, in  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               10 of 195

the rehearsal session on 20 th and 21 st some passer byes at Rippon  

Street Circular Road Crossing happened to note the presence of the  

Maruti Car driven by Nasir and the Bike driven by Zahid due to some  

minor altercation at the spot, they were cited as Witnesses. In fact,  

PW-62 who along with one Gilbert Gomes were present during the  

said altercation at the same place, came to hear about the incident  

at American Centre after they came back to the neighbourhood.  

They went to Lalbazar to meet PW-101, Abu Saleh who was their  

neighbour and was posted at OC.  They shared their apprehensions  

of the connection of the same vehicles and the persons involved at  

the altercation with the American Centre attack.  PW-101 reported  

the same to PW-123 and stated that the description of the attackers’  

attire, the vehicles and the time of attack match with the incident  

reported to him by PW-62 and his friend.   However, based on the  

complaint made by Barun Kumar Saha PW-6 to Shakespeare Sarani  

Police Station through Wireless Centre, an FIR was registered.  

PW-123 was entrusted with the investigation along with a team.  

Subsequently, a team from Delhi stated to have visited Calcutta City  

Police informing about the hiding of certain militants in the city who  

are to be apprehended. A team was formed to find out the hideouts,  

through a reliable information about the hideout of the terrorists in  

Khan Road, Khirgaon and Hazaribagh. In pursuance to the said  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               11 of 195

development, that place was surrounded by the police to nab the  

terrorists.

7. The police team which proceeded to Khan Road, Khirgaon,  

Hazaribagh at 6.45 a.m. cordoned the premises and suspecting the  

inmates to be militants, stated to have announced that they should  

surrender putting down whatever weapons they possessed.  While  

doing so, when they noticed two of the inmates escaped through the  

side gate shooting at the police and in the cross fire both of them  

were injured. When the injured were taken to the hospital, on the  

way, one of the injured by name Zahid made an oral dying  

declaration to PW-113 that he was one of the persons involved in  

the shooting spree at the American Centre, that he was the shooter  

and one Sadakat was the driver of the motor bike. The said Zahid  

stated to have died enroute the hospital.  The other person Salim  

was admitted in the hospital who too later died. This happened on  

27-28.01.2002. After the encounter that had taken place at  

Hazaribagh, while the shootout incident at American Centre was  

investigated by PW-123, who was heading the special investigation  

team, he received a vital information on the intervening night of  

28-29.01.2002 at about 1.30 a.m. According to PW-113, on  

20.01.2002, Calcutta Police arrived at Hazaribagh and a seizure list  

Exhibit-246 of PW-106’s house which was rented to Nasir was  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               12 of 195

handed over. According to the seizure list, two jackets were found  

which matched the attire of the American Centre attackers. This is  

how the search for Nasir since he was the tenant was started at 64,  

Tiljala Lane which was the fake address given by him at the instance  

of Asif on the said rent agreement. Through investigation, Nasir’s  

address was found to be 46, Tiljala Lane.  In pursuance of the said  

search, PW-123 went to No.13, Dargah Road which is the house of  

in-laws of Nasir, where he took Nasir into custody and based on his  

information made a search at No.1, Tiljala Lane where the Maruti  

Car and the Motor bike were seized. In fact after the commencement  

of his investigation on 22.02.2002 evening, the team of PW-123 was  

approached by PW-62, and one Gilbert Gomes (not examined)  

through the Inspector PW-101, Lalbazar who made statements  

relating to the incident of firing in front of American Centre and their  

statement revealed the use of Maruti Car and the Suzuki Motor bike  

at Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing.  After landing at No.1,  

Tiljala Lane PW-123 could gather very many vital clues which led  

him to ultimately arrest of Aftab, who was already arrested by Dubai  

Police on 23.01.2002 and deported him to India on 09.02.2002.  

PW-123 could secure his custody through Court order on  

23.02.2002. Based on Aftab’s information, the residence of Asif was  

also searched where a diary maintained by Asif and a letter  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               13 of 195

Exhibit-46/1 written by Aftab to the wife of Asif after Asif’s demise  

was also seized. The letter was addressed to Bhabhiji for taking  

avenge on death of Asif. Later PW-105, a handwriting expert proved  

the handwriting of Aftab. In the Hazaribagh hideout after the  

encounter, PW-113 made a search of the premises where he could  

recover arms and ammunition such as AK-47 rifles, Pakistan’s  

national flag, bullets etc. According to PW-113, the deceased Zahid  

and Salim were Pakistani nationals and were members of Lashkar-

e-Taiba, while Sadakat belonged to Uttar Pradesh.   

8. It is in the above stated background that the investigation team after  

a detailed inquiry ultimately filed its final report in Chargesheet  

No.38 of 2002 dated 26.04.2002 as against 15 persons and the  

charges were under Sections 121, 121A, 302, 307, 333 read with  

122, 427, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Sessions Court, namely, the  

Calcutta City Court framed the charges against A1 to A9 on  

29.08.2002 for offences under Sections 121A, 121, 122, 302 read  

with 120B, 307 read with 120B, 333 read with 120B, 467 read with  

120B, 471 read with 120B, 468 read with 120B and 427 read with  

120B IPC apart from offences under Sections  25(1), 27(2) and  

27(3) of Arms Act.  As stated by us earlier, the trial Court acquitted  

A4 and A5 of all the charges while A1 to A3 and A6 to A9 were  

convicted of charges levelled against them.   CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               14 of 195

9. In the death reference, as well as in the appeals preferred by Nasir  

and Aftab as well as the other convicts, the High Court having  

confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Nasir and Aftab  

in toto and acquitted A2 and A3 while modifying the conviction and  

sentence in respect of A6, A7 and A9 for lesser offence by the  

impugned common Judgment, we heard these appeals preferred by  

Nasir and Aftab.

10. We heard Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan for the Appellants and Mr.  

Siddharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the  

Respondent State. We also considered the written submissions filed  

on behalf of the Appellants, as well as the State and deal with such  

of those submissions which are really relevant and deliver this  

Judgment. At the very outset, it must be stated that there was a  

detailed consideration made by the learned Sessions Judge of the  

oral evidence, as well as documentary evidence and material  

objects placed before it, while passing its Judgment on 26.04.2005.  

Equally, the Division Bench of the High Court has made a thorough  

consideration of the material evidence and also the correctness of  

the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.  In fact, though more  

than 100 Witnesses were examined on the side of the Prosecution  

and more than 250 documents were placed before the trial Court,  

we find that the crucial evidence which led to the ultimate conviction  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               15 of 195

of Nasir and Aftab were mainly based on the confession of Nasir and  

the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 123 and the Exhibits. Also based on  

the above evidence, certain questions put to Nasir and Aftab under  

Section 313 of Cr. P.C. were also referred.   

11. Before proceeding further to examine the respective contentions, at  

the very outset, it will have to be stated that the conviction and  

sentence imposed on the Appellants under Section 27(3) of the  

Arms Act has to be set aside since the said provision was struck  

down by this Court in State of Punjab vs. Dalbir Singh – (2012)  

3 SCC 346. We can usefully refer to the relevant conclusions  

reached in the said decision which has been set out in paragraphs  

85 to 91. The said paragraphs are as under:

“85. All these concepts of “due process” and the concept of a  just, fair and reasonable law have been read by this Court into  the guarantee under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.  Therefore, the provision of Section 27(3) of the Act is violative  of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 86. Apart from that the said Section 27(3) is a post- constitutional law and has to obey the injunction of Article 13  which is clear and explicit. Article 13(2) is as follows:

‘13.(3) The State shall not make any law which takes  away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part  and any law made in contravention of this clause  shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.’

 87. In view of the aforesaid mandate of Article 13 of the  Constitution which is an article within Part III of our  Constitution, Section 27(3) of the Act having been enacted in  clear contravention of Part III rights, Section 27(3) of the Act is  repugnant to Articles 14 and 21 and is void.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               16 of 195

88. Section 27(3) of the Act also deprives the judiciary from  discharging its constitutional duties of judicial review whereby  it has the power of using discretion in the sentencing  procedure. This power has been acknowledged in Section 302  of the Penal Code and in Bachan Singh case it has been held  that the sentencing power has to be exercised in accordance  with the statutory sentencing structure under Section 235(2)  and also under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1973. Section 27(3) of the said Act while  purporting to impose mandatory death penalty seeks to nullify  those salutary provisions in the Code. This is contrary to the  law laid down in Bachan Singh.

89. In fact the challenge to the constitutional validity of death  penalty under Section 302 of the Penal Code has been  negatived in Bachan Singh in view of the sentencing structure  in Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure  Code. By imposing mandatory death penalty, Section 27(3) of  the Act runs contrary to those statutory safeguards which give  judiciary the discretion in the matter imposing death penalty.  Section 27(3) of the Act is thus ultra vires the concept of  judicial review which is one of the basic features of our  Constitution.

90. It has also been discussed hereinabove that the ratio in  both  Bachan Singh and  Mithu has been universally  acknowledged in several jurisdictions across the world and  has been accepted as correct articulation of Article 21  guarantee. Therefore, the ratio in Mithu and Bachan Singh  represents the concept of jus cogens meaning thereby the  peremptory non-derogable norm in international  law for  protection of life and liberty. That is why it has been provided  by the Forty-fourth Amendment Act of  1978 of  the  Constitution, that Article 21 cannot be suspended even during  the proclamation of emergency under Article 359 [vide Article  359(1-A) of the Constitution].

91. This Court, therefore, holds that Section 27(3) of the Arms  Act is against the fundamental tenets of our constitutional law  as developed by this Court. This Court declares that Section  27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 is ultra vires the Constitution and  is declared void.”

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               17 of 195

12. In the light of the said legal position, we have no hesitation in setting  

aside that part of the Judgment of the trial Court as well as the High  

Court imposing the punishment of death sentence as against the  

Appellants for the offences found proved under Section 27(3) of  

Arms Act.

13. Having steered clear of the said position, when we proceed to  

examine the correctness of the conviction and sentence imposed on  

the Appellant, at the forefront, we find that the case of the  

Prosecution broadly depended upon the confession of Nasir, the  

Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1240-41 of 2010.  In fact realizing  

the serious implications of the said piece of evidence relied upon by  

the Prosecution, Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan for the Appellants  

profusely attacked the reliance placed upon the said material  

evidence in the form of confession recorded under Section 164 of  

Cr.P.C. on its acceptability, reliability, veracity and also its  

applicability as against the co-accused. We shall consider the  

submission of the counsel for the Appellant at a later stage.  For the  

present, we wish to examine as to what the confession contains and  

to what extent the gravity of the offence and the extent and  

involvement of the accused who were proceeded against in this  

case were touched upon in order to appreciate the case of the  

Prosecution.   CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               18 of 195

14. The confession of Nasir is marked at Exhibit-201. The confession  

has been recorded by PW-97- SDJM on 22.02.2002.  After the  

compliance of the ingredients set out in Section 164 Cr.P.C., the  

confession was recorded in the form of question and answer and  

contained as many as 19 such questions and answers.  In fact  

question No.1 to 18 were all questions which were put by PW-97 in  

order to ensure that the Appellant Nasir who made the confession  

should feel at ease, that there was no necessity in law for him to  

make the confession, that he was not supposed to make this  

confession at the instance of anyone much less the police  

authorities, that the facts and details mentioned in the confession  

may be detrimental to his interest and may land him in conviction  

and that if he so wished he can take some more time and decide  

whether or not he should make the confession.  We find that to the  

questions put by PW-97, the Magistrate, namely, question Nos.1 to  

18, Appellant Nasir made it clear that he came forward to make the  

confession voluntarily, that he was troubled by his conscience and to  

give vent to his feelings, namely, the sin which he committed by  

carrying out the attack at the American Centre on 22.02.2002 along  

with other gang members which he did in his own homeland, he was  

having sleepless nights and therefore, decided to make his  

confession.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               19 of 195

15. While examining the said part of the confession recorded by the  

Magistrate PW-97, namely, the questions and answers from 1 to 18,  

the ingredients of Section 164 Cr.PC. can also be noted. The  

ingredients of the said provision states that any metropolitan or  

judicial Magistrate can record any confession or statement made to  

him in the course of investigation of crime under the Chapter XI. The  

proviso to sub-section (1) also empowers the Magistrate recoding  

the confession to record it by audio-video electronic means in the  

presence of the advocates of the person accused of an offence. Sub  

section (2) stipulates that the Magistrate should before recording any  

such confession explain to the person making it that he is not bound  

to make a confession, that the said confession maybe used as  

evidence against him and that that apart if the Magistrate gets the  

impression that the person making the confession was not making it  

voluntarily he should not record such a confession. Under sub-

section (3) the person who initially comes forward to make a  

confession can at any time while before the confession is recorded  

express his desire or unwillingness to make the confession and in  

such an event the Magistrate should not authorize police custody for  

such person. Under sub-section (4) any confession should be  

recorded in the manner provided under Section 281 which provides  

for the recording the examining of the accused. The confession  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               20 of 195

should be signed by the person making the confession and the  

Magistrate should record at the foot of the confession the prescribed  

format provided in the said sub-section (4). Under sub-section (6)  

the Magistrate who records the confession or statement under  

Section 164 should forward to the Magistrate by whom the case is to  

be enquired into or tried. Going by the prescriptions contained in  

Section 164, what is to be ensured is that the confession is made  

voluntarily by the offender, that there was no external pressure  

particularly by the police, that the concerned person’s mindset while  

making the confession was uninfluenced by any external factors that  

he was fully conscious of what he was saying, that he was also fully  

aware that based on his statement there is every scope for suffering  

the conviction which may result in the imposition of extreme  

punishment of life imprisonment and even capital punishment of  

death, that prior to the time of the making of the confession he was  

in a free state of mind and was not in the midst of any persons who  

would have influenced his mind in any manner for making the  

confession, that the statement was made in the presence of the  

Judicial Magistrate and none else, that while making the confession  

there was no other person present other than the accused and the  

Magistrate concerned and that if he expressed his desire not to  

make the confession after appearing before the Magistrate, the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               21 of 195

Magistrate should ensure that he is not entrusted to police custody.  

All the above minute factors were required to be kept in mind while  

recording a confession made under Section 164 in order to ensure  

that the confession was recorded at the free will of the accused and  

was not influenced by any other factor. Therefore, while considering  

a confession so recorded and relied upon by the Prosecution, the  

duty of the Sessions Judge is, therefore, to carefully analyse the  

confession keeping in mind the above factors and if while making  

such analysis the learned Session Judge develops any iota of doubt  

about the confession so recorded, the same will have to be rejected  

at the very outset. It is, therefore, for the Sessions Judge to apply his  

mind before placing reliance upon the confessional statement made  

under Section 164 and convince itself that none of the above factors  

were either violated or given a go by to reject the confession  

outright. Therefore, if the Session Judge has chosen to rely upon  

such a confession recorded under Section 164, the appellate Court  

as well as this Court while examining such a reliance placed upon  

for the purpose of conviction should see whether the perception of  

the Courts below in having accepted the confession as having been  

made in its true spirit provide no scope for any doubt as to its  

veracity in making the statement by the accused concerned and only  

thereafter the contents of the confession can be examined.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               22 of 195

16. Keeping the above prescription of Section 164 in mind, when we  

examine the answers of Nasir to the questions 1 to 18 we find that  

PW-97 explained to Appellant Nasir that his confession should be  

voluntary and that whether he was really making it on his own.  

Appellant Nasir also specifically stated that nobody including the  

police, enticed him to make the statement, that no 3 rd degree method  

was applied on him by the police for making his confession. PW-97  

also made it clear to him that he was not a police officer, that he is a  

Magistrate of a Court, that he was not under any compulsion to  

make a statement, that if he withdraws from his offer to make the  

confession he will not hand him over to the police and that he will be  

sent back to the jail. After explaining all the above when he asked  

the Appellant Nasir about his desire to make the confession, he  

stated that he still wanted to give his statement by adding that he  

was not able to bear the pain of his conscience and wanted to get rid  

of it. He also stated that he was brought from the jail, that the  

previous night he was only staying in the jail, that he had absolutely  

no fear in his mind and that he wanted to depose on his own accord.  

In question No.11, the Magistrate while stating that Nasir was free to  

make his statement, mentioned that such statement might ultimately  

lead to his conviction and might attract either a life sentence or even  

capital punishment and even after explaining to that extent, when  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               23 of 195

PW-97 asked him whether the Appellant Nasir still wanted to give  

the statement and asked him to give a serious thought before  

answering the said question, Nasir’s answer to question No. 11 was  

“I know. I have sinned and I deserve punishment.” Again in question  

No.12, PW-97 wanted to ascertain whether he was voluntarily  

making the statement or under any compulsion to which Nasir  

replied that it was absolutely voluntary. When he was asked as to  

why he wanted to make the statement Nasir replied that because of  

the sin he committed by carrying out the attack on the American  

Centre on 22.01.2002 along with his gang members, his conscience  

was heavy and he felt guilty that he carried out the attack on his own  

homeland and that he could not eat or sleep and, therefore, he came  

forward to give the statement. PW-97 thereafter again gave 10  

minute’s time for Nasir to think over, for which Nasir replied that he  

did not need any more time and only thereafter, the Magistrate PW-  

97 proceeded to record the statement.  

17. We find that the Magistrate did not want to give any chance to  

anyone to gain the impression that the confession which the  

Appellant Nasir wanted to make was recorded without giving him  

any scope to rethink or that unaware of the consequences that he  

came forward to make the statement. In fact it must be stated  

PW-97 was thorough with the ingredients prescribed in Section 164  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               24 of 195

relating to the recording of a confession by an accused and that he  

was not carrying out the exercise in a mechanical way but with all  

earnestness and in a highly dispassionate manner. Therefore, that  

part of the requirement, namely, the procedure to be followed while  

recording a confession statement has been scrupulously adhered to  

by PW-97 before allowing the Appellant Nasir to make his  

confession. Again at the end, the Magistrate certified in the manner  

required under Section 164(4) and it was mentioned that no police  

personnel was allowed in his chambers when the confession was  

recorded.  

18. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned counsel while attacking the  

reliance placed upon the confession by the learned Sessions Judge,  

as well as the High Court submitted that there is a serious lacuna in  

the recording of the confession and, therefore, the same ought not  

have been relied upon. The learned counsel for the Appellant took  

us through the evidence of PW-123, the head of the special  

investigating team, Mr. Anil Kar who in his evidence stated that  

Appellant Nasir was in judicial custody as between 13.02.2002 and  

27.02.2002 but on 21.02.2002, PW-110 sub-inspector M.A. Ahad  

produced Appellant Nasir before PW-123 stating that the Appellant  

Nasir desired to make a confessional statement before the Court in  

connection with this case and that PW-123 thereafter, sent him  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               25 of 195

before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta with a  

prayer for recording the confessional statement of the accused. The  

learned counsel submitted that if between 13.02.2002 to 27.02.2002,  

Appellant Nasir was in the judicial custody, going by the version of  

PW-110 and PW-123 on 21.02.2002, it was not known how the  

accused was in the custody of PW-110 the Sub-Inspector of police  

who stated that the Appellant expressed his desire to make his  

confession. The learned counsel would contend that if the said  

statement of fact as deposed by PW-110 and PW-123 is to be  

accepted, the confession which was recorded on 22.02.2002 when  

the Appellant was in the custody of police, will have to be rejected at  

the very outset. According to the learned counsel, in the above said  

background, the recording of the confession creates serious doubts  

and aspersions inasmuch as there was every scope for the police to  

have applied pressure on him and as is the practice, custodial  

confession cannot be the basis for conviction.  The sum and  

substance of the learned counsel was that when Appellant was in  

police custody, as has been stated by the investing officer PW-123  

on 21.02.2002, the confession on 22.02.2002 will not satisfy the  

ingredients set out in Section 164 Cr.P.C.  and consequently, such a  

confession cannot be taken as a valid confession made by the  

accused in order to put the same against him for his ultimate  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               26 of 195

conviction.

19. As against the above submission, learned Additional Solicitor  

General brought to our notice a requisition made by PW-123 on  

21.02.2002 to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on  

21.02.2002 and the directions issued by the learned Magistrate for  

the production of Appellant Nasir for recording the confession on the  

next day, i.e. 22.02.2002 at 1 p.m. A perusal of the letter dated  

21.02.2002 of PW-123 to the Chief Metropolitan disclose that while  

Appellant Nasir was in judicial custody till 27.02.2002 in connection  

with the American Centre case, in between he was also taken into  

custody by the police in respect of another case in case No.53 dated  

11.02.2002 for an offence under Section 25(1B)(a) of Arms Act, that  

he was being produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan  

Magistrate for remanding him in judicial custody till 07.03.2002  

pending further investigation. Simultaneously, a request was also  

made to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for recording the  

confessional statement of Appellant Nasir who volunteered to make  

the said statement relating to the incident of American Centre. While  

considering the said request made by PW-123, learned Metropolitan  

Magistrate 14th Court, Calcutta passed the directions as under:

“Thus I think that time should be given for his reflection of  mind before making any statement before me though he  volunteered himself for making confession.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               27 of 195

Thus the Superintendent, Presidency Correctional Home,  Alipore is directed to keep this accused Md. Jamiludin Nasir  in complete segregation from other undertrial prisoner or  stranger or from any unwarranted elements for his reflection  of mind and produce this accused before me at 1 pm on  22.2.2002 i.e. tomorrow.”  

20. By referring to the above, learned Additional Solicitor General  

contended that the submission of counsel for the Appellant Nasir by  

making reference to what was deposed by PW-123 is fully  

explained.

21. Having perused the above proceedings which are part of the record  

of the trial Court, in particular the letter of PW-123 dated 21.02.2002,  

we find that the custody of the Appellant Nasir with the police on  

21.02.2002 was in connection with a different case, namely, case  

No.53 dated 11.02.2002. Therefore, the judicial custody of the  

Appellant as between 13.02.2002 and 27.02.2002 in connection with  

case No.19, namely, the American Centre case was independent of  

the custody of the Appellant with the police on 21.02.2002 when he  

was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14 th Court  

with the requisition to record his confession. In fact in the said letter  

dated 21.02.2002, PW-123 has requisitioned the learned Magistrate  

to provide judicial custody even in case No.53 dated 12.02.2002 up  

till 07.03.2002, while simultaneously making a request for recording  

the confession of the Appellant Nasir. Further even while  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               28 of 195

considering the requisition made by PW-123 in the letter dated  

21.02.2002 for recording the confession, the learned Magistrate  

being aware of the statutory prescription contained in Section 164  

Cr.P.C. rightly decided not to record the confession but issue  

directions to keep Appellant  Nasir in the custody of the  

Superintendent,  Presidency Correctional  Home Alipore and  

produced him on 22.02.2002 at 1 p.m. in order to ensure that the  

Appellant was free from the influence of police. Therefore, the  

Magistrate having thus ensured that the Appellant Nasir was taken  

into custody of the Court and was entrusted with the Superintendent  

of the Presidency Correctional Home till his production on the next  

day at 1 p.m. It must be stated that by resorting to such a course,  

the Magistrate ensured that there was no scope for any lacuna being  

created in the recording of the confession of the Appellant.  In the  

light of our above findings, we do not find any force in the  

submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant on this score.

22. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan further contended that PW-97, the Judicial  

Magistrate who recorded the confession of Appellant Nasir did not  

follow the proper procedure as prescribed by law.  In support of the  

said submission, learned counsel took us through the cross-

examination of PW-97 wherein PW-97 stated that he did not ask  

Appellant Nasir as to when he was arrested, as to where he was  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               29 of 195

kept before his production in Court, as to whether he was kept in  

police custody after the remand, as to whether he was in the police  

custody prior to the recording of the statement under Section 164, as  

to whether the police behaved properly towards the accused, that he  

did not ascertain from the Correctional Home authority about the  

order passed by him to ensure that the Appellant was segregated  

from other accused, as to whether the place where the accused was  

kept was free from the influence of the police, whether after his order  

prior to recording of the confessional statement the accused was  

taken to a place of segregation or was taken to jail directly and  

whether the accused was taken to Court prior to the recording of the  

confessional statement with the other accused persons or alone.  

Based on such answers elicited from PW-97, the learned counsel for  

the Appellant argued that the Magistrate PW-97 who recorded the  

confession statement failed to follow the procedure as prescribed  

under Section 164. While considering the said submission, it will  

also be appropriate to refer to the question and answers 1 to 18 in  

the confessional statement Exhibit-201 recorded by PW-97 and also  

that part of the deposition in chief examination which is relevant on  

this aspect which reads as under:

“In connection with the same case (G.R.190 of 2002) the  record was sent to me enter (?) on 21.2.2002 for recording  confessional statement of Md. Jamiludin Nasir. The accused  Md. Jamiludin Nasir was produced before me and identified by  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               30 of 195

Constable No.724 Swapan Kumar Sanyal. After production I  asked the constable to leave my chamber and I also asked  Md. Jamiludin Nasir to sit on chair for recording his statement  under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He was given necessary caution  and even after giving caution that he will not be sent back to  the police even if he declines to make confessional statement  but he was very much inclined to make confessional  statement. After having talk with the accused and giving  necessary pre-caution once again as per provisions of Section  164(2) Cr.P.C. regarding each of the contention of instant  section,  he submitted before me that  he will  make  confessional statement before me. I thought that time should  be given for his reflection of mind before making any  statement before me though he volunteer himself for making  confessional statement. I thereafter asked the Superintendent,  Presidency Correctional Home, Alipore to keep the accused in  complete segregation from other undertrial prisoners or any  stranger or from any unwanted element for his reflection of  mind and produce this accused person before me on 22nd  February, 2002 at 1 p.m. I, thereafter sent the accused  Jamiludin Nasir for reflection. On the second day accused Md.  Jamiludin Nasir was produced before me and identified by  Constable No.4390 Tapanendu Pati and Constable No.6062  Sujit Kumar Saha for recording confessional statement under  Section 164 Cr.P.C. These constables were asked to leave  the chamber and I asked the accused person to sit on chair.  When he was being asked as to wherefrom he was coming,  he replied to me that he came from jail and inclined to make  confessional statement. He was given necessary caution once  again as laid down in Section 164 Cr.P.C. but he still wanted  to make statement. He was kept in segregation in J.C. but he  was inclined to make confessional statement after having talk  with him. I explained once again each matter containing in  Section 164 Cr.P.C. sub-clause (2) and I properly confined  him that he ought to have reflex carefully before making such  a statement. He was given a 10 minutes gap for his reflection  of mind. After pause of 10 minutes he was given caution again  but still he was inclined to make confessional statement  inspite of statutory warning. As such, I recorded his  confessional statement following all the procedures as far as  possible. The statement was in 23 pages and it was kept in  sealed cover. I, thereafter forwarded the same before the Ld.  C.M.M. for perusal. The accused was sent back to J.C.”

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               31 of 195

23. When we read this part of the deposition of PW-97 along with the  

answers to questions 1 to 18 in Exhibit-201, we find that PW-97 had  

ensured prior to the recording of the confessional statement as to  

the mindset of Appellant Nasir, his readiness to make the  

confessional statement without any hindrance and uninfluenced by  

any other force including police authorities and only thereafter,  

proceeded to record the statement.  Having seen the above part of  

the deposition of PW-97 and the answers to questions 1 to 18 in  

Exhibit-201, the confessional statement of Nasir, we are convinced  

that the Magistrate had exhaustively dealt with the statutory  

prescription under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there is absolutely no  

flaw in the recording of the said statement. Therefore, the said  

contention of the learned counsel  also does not merit any  

consideration.

24. Having held that the confession statement of Appellant Nasir made  

under Section 164 was free from any technical flaw in its recording,  

as well as the procedures contemplated under the said provision, we  

now proceed to examine the truthfulness of its contents.

25. When we consider the various facts narrated by Appellant Nasir  

which are found in his answer to question No.19 which runs to as  

many as 16 pages since the confession of Appellant Nasir who is  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               32 of 195

one of the main accused in the case on hand has been relied upon  

by the trial Court, as well as the High Court to a great extent, we  

wish to examine the same threadbare before expressing our views  

on such reliance placed upon by the Courts below.  When we read  

the confession, we find that it contains very many details pertaining  

to himself, his family members, his earlier contact with deceased  

Asif and his subsequent contact with Asif in the year 1999 and  

thereafter how through Asif he became part of the group of other  

accused persons and at various stages he came in contact with  

different accused at different places and as to how ultimately the  

conspiracy was hatched for making the attack at the American  

Centre and as to how it was finally executed successfully. It also  

explains as to how subsequently he came to be apprehended by the  

police and thereafter, his repentance for whatever had happened to  

which he was also a party which pricked his conscience and  

ultimately made him to volunteer himself and make the statement on  

his own uninfluenced by any other external force as he felt that he  

committed a great sin by being part of the occurrence against his  

own homeland. In fact we feel that we should make reference to the  

above factors noted by us in his confession before dealing with the  

submission of learned counsel Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan as to the  

various deficiencies in the confession as compared to other  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               33 of 195

evidence which according to learned counsel should dissuade us  

from relying upon the said confession statement.  

26. As stated by us in the confession, he described as to how he was  

living with his parents and his other brothers and sisters in a rented  

house at 30/18/1A Rai Charan Ghose Lane, Calcutta-39 and where  

his parents continued to live. According to him, Asif who was also  

living in Calcutta was his classmate at Beniapukur High Madarasa  

and that they were good friends in school days.  He also mentioned  

that Asif after his schooling became a member of a Students Islamic  

Organisation and that he wanted Nasir also to join, which he was not  

inclined. According to Nasir, he not only knew Asif but also all his  

family members. He made a reference to Asif’s visit to Kashmir in  

1991 where he became a ‘Jehadi’ and that he wanted Nasir to be by  

his side. Nasir would state that earlier he was working in some  

companies to earn his livelihood, that in 1994 he came to know that  

Asif was arrested by Delhi Police under the provisions of TADA and  

that in 1999 he fled from Tihar Jail and landed at Calcutta.  

According to Nasir in 1999, he met Asif again when Asif wanted  

Nasir to arrange for a passport for him as he wanted to go abroad  

stating that since he has become a jailbird and everybody is looking  

at him with some sort of suspicion, he therefore, wanted to go and  

earn his livelihood in some foreign country. Nasir, thereafter stated  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               34 of 195

to have took Asif to his native town and introduced him to Akil who is  

a tout in the passport office, Patna for getting a fake passport for Asif  

which deal was stated to have been struck after meeting him.  He  

would then say that during Mohram festival, when he met Akil he  

informed that his friend Asif did not get a passport for him but got a  

passport for one of his friends in a fake name ‘Farhan Mullick’ who is  

none other than Aftab. Later when Nasir met Asif and asked him as  

to why he got a passport for another person, Asif informed him that  

that person is his close friend Aftab Ansari who lives in Banaras, as  

he offered him a job and that the said friend was in a hurry to get a  

passport, he got him a passport. Nasir further informed that  

thereafter, Asif offered a salary of Rs.2000/- to him stating that he is  

going to start a business of construction of buildings. He would  

however, say that no such construction activity was carried on by  

Asif.

27. In January 2001, Nasir got his first month’s salary and thereafter,  

Asif wanted Nasir to find a space for one of his friends by name Niaz  

Hussain (absconding accused) for starting a leather import export  

business. The said Niaz Hussain was also introduced to Nasir.  

Appellant Nasir stated to have arranged the ground floor Flat of  

No.1, Tiljala Lane for Niaz Hussain which deal was finalized for a  

total consideration of Rs.2,66,000/- in April, 2001 through PW-47  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               35 of 195

Dilip Kumar Singh. According to him after taking possession of No.1  

Tiljala Lane by making some alteration, a garage was set up in the  

said flat where Niaz brought a blue Maruti 800 bearing registration  

No.BRK 4907 and thereafter, Niaz and his brother Fiaz used to visit  

the place. Around April-May 2001 when Nasir, Asif, Niaz and his  

brother Fiaz were at No.1, Tiljala Lane, Asif suggested the idea of  

indulging in kidnapping of big businessmen in various cities in order  

to make more money and that Aftab would lead them all meaning  

thereby that Aftab would tell them where, how and what to do. Asif  

asked Nasir to look after his gang members and collect cash from  

wherever he wanted him to get it promising that he would continue  

to pay his monthly salary of Rs.2000/-. Asif also stated to have said  

that for kidnapping purposes they would require arms and  

ammunitions and vehicles which should be gathered. In May 2001,  

Nasir stated to have gone to Agra as per the instructions of Asif,  

where he was received by one Arsad Khan @ Aslam (herein after  

referred to as ‘Arsad’) who was also a member of the gang of Asif.  

Arsad stated to have handed over Rs.1 lakh cash to Nasir which he  

brought back and handed over to Asif.  

28. In August, 2001 Asif stated to have taken Nasir to a Cyber Café and  

opened an e-mail account and taught him how to check and receive  

e-mails.  The e-mail  account  opened for  Nasir  was  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               36 of 195

‘basketball4my@hotmail.com’ and  the password was ‘7days13harj.’  

The second e-mail address was ‘z4zipzap@hotmail.com’ and the  

password was ‘100dinsonarka’. Both the e-mails were in Nasir’s  

name. Asif instructed Nasir to keep checking the e-mails.  

Subsequently, in August 2001 based on an e-mail message of Asif,  

he went to Banaras where he introduced him to his friend Aftab  

Ansari and said that he can be called as ‘Bhaisaheb’. Aftab stated to  

have paid Rs.5000 along with a black suitcase with wheels and  

asked Nasir to keep in touch with him through e-mail. In the first  

week of September, 2001 as directed by Asif, Nasir fixed a rented  

flat at Khan Road, Khirgaon, Hazaribagh. He was assisted by  

Hassan Imam and another man by name Sarwar. The name of the  

landlord was Majid Khan and the rent was fixed for Rs.1500 per  

month. The tenancy was for a period of 11 months. Nasir stated to  

have informed the landlord and his children that the premise was  

booked for running a business in Chappals, while in reality it was a  

hide out of Asif’s gang members. Zahid was also one of the gang  

members who stayed in that place.  

29. In October-November 2001, Aftab started sending e-mails to Nasir  

and his e-mails used to be in the name of ‘Karan’ and sometimes in  

the name of ‘Aman’, ‘Abdul’, etc. In October, 2001 Nasir went to  

Agra for a second time at the instructions of Asif where he was again  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               37 of 195

received by Arshad and introduced to Zahid, Salim and Sadakat.  

Nasir was also informed that Zahid and Salim were Pakistan  

Nationals while Sadakat was from Uttar Pradish. Nasir was directed  

to take them to Hazaribagh premises and lodge them there. The  

next day morning they all left Agra and went to Hazaribagh in the  

Maruti 800 and a Maruti Zen. Again he received an e-mail from  

Bhaisahab (Aftab) saying Asif had been nabbed by the police which  

was received by him in the first week of November. In the last week  

of November 2001, Bhaisahab again e-mailed Nasir and asked him  

to go to Jaipur. When Nasir went to Jaipur he met Hassan Imam and  

they stayed in Uday Palace Hotel. As per the instructions of  

Bhaisahab they met one Dilip Bhai at Jaipur and by exchanging two  

separate Rs.10 notes, they received Rs.2 lakh from him. Based on  

further instructions of Bhaisahab they proceeded to Jaisalmer where  

they purchased a Jeep of 1988 make for Rs.80000/- from where  

they were asked to go to Barmer to fetch 15 kg of Atta, which means  

‘RDX’. However, the subsequent e-mail sent by Aftab they were told  

that the party cancelled the consignment and they can return back to  

Jaipur. Nasir returned back to Calcutta, while Hassan Imam went  

back to his home. This stated to have happened in the first week of  

December, 2001.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               38 of 195

30. After Nasir returned to Calcutta, Aftab informed him through e-mail  

that Asif was shot dead in an encounter by the Gujarat Police and  

his dead body was being flown to Calcutta. According to Nasir, the  

said information was a shocking news to him. Nasir confirmed that  

he used to receive mails through ‘b4bapu@hotmail.com’ and  

‘behzad50@hotmail.com’ as well as ‘z4zipzap@hotmail.com’. In  

December, 2001 he went to Khan Road, Khirgaon, Hazaribagh  

where Zahid, Sadakat, Salim and Hassan Imam were present. They  

set down together for a meeting. Zahid and Sadakat said that police  

had killed Asif and they should avenge it and they should not spare  

the Calcutta police either. In the meeting it was deliberated that they  

should blow off Government buildings and carry out killing of  

Policemen and show them the consequence of taking on the  

Jehadis. They also stated that the Calcutta police were never before  

faced with an encounter by Jehadis and that they should teach them  

a lesson. In the meeting it was decided that they would wait for the  

instructions of Bhaisahab and that wherever he asked them to attack  

they should attack. Zahid and Sadakat who were in a fit of anger  

shown two AK-47 rifles and huge collection of cartridge and said that  

they were fully ready and only awaiting Bhaisahab’s order.  

According to Nasir, all of them were using the cyber café in  

Hazaribagh for communication. Zahid and Sadakat, who had been  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               39 of 195

to Jodhpur returned back to Calcutta on 14 th and 16 th January, 2002  

respectively who were received by Nasir at the station. They brought  

large leather bags along with them and as per the instructions of  

Bhaisahab through e-mail, Nasir lodged both of them at Niaz  

Hussain’s flat at No.1, Tiljala Lane and that Nasir was taking care of  

them.  

31. On 18.01.2002, Hassan Imam stated to have visited Nasir’s flat with  

a black Motorcycle bearing Registration No.WB-01-P2144 which he  

left at Hazaribagh. On that day Abdullah also came to his flat and  

stayed with him. They were waiting for the message from  

Bhaisahab. Thereafter, Zahid told them that Bhaisahab sent a  

message as per which they should launch an attack on the Central  

Investigation Department Bhawani Bhawan where Asif was kept for  

interrogation. According to Nasir, the said proposal was opposed by  

him stating that such an attack would be unjust as chances of  

innocent people becoming causalities and also the office of Minority  

Commission was located there. Nasir’s view point was conveyed to  

Bhaisahab and Bhaisahab agreed to Nasir’s view point. He  

suggested a place of American base and where there would be  

policemen as well as from where they could escape after carrying  

out the attack. On 19.01.2002, Nasir got the motorcycle repaired at a  

cost of Rs.400/- and that around 4-4.30 p.m., Nasir along with Zahid,  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               40 of 195

Sadakat, Abdullah went out of Niaz’s flat in a blue Maruti 800 (BRK  

4907) and went to the American Embassy where the police were  

checking the cars. From there they went to American Centre at  

Chowringhee Road. After three or four rounds they saw that there  

was no checking of cars at the American Centre and that policemen  

sitting there appeared to be very slack in their duties. Thereafter,  

Zahid stated to have decided that they should carry out their attack  

in that place.  

32. On 20.01.2002, by way of rehearsal they all went to American  

Centre in the Motorcycle, as well as in the Maruti Car, that Zahid  

was driving the Motorcycle and Sadakat was the pillion rider. The  

car was driven by Nasir and Abdullah was sitting along with him.  

Around 6.30 a.m., they noticed that lot of policemen were present at  

the American Centre as shifting of duties was taking place. He also  

referred to the manner in which he drove the Maruti Car and stopped  

it while going at a high speed opposite to a tea stall in front of  

Jeevan Deep building in which process a gentleman who was taking  

tea got the tea spilled over his hand and that an altercation stated to  

have taken place and that the issue was sorted out amicably.  

Thereafter, they returned back to the flat at No.1, Tiljala Lane. It is  

stated that Zahid fixed 6.30 a.m. on 21.01.2002 to be the time for  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               41 of 195

attack but then he changed it and said they would carry out the  

attack on 22.01.2002 at 6.30 a.m.  

33. After the said decision they stated to have proceeded to the  

American Centre in the Car, as well as the Motorcycle and watched  

the shifting of duties by the police at the American Centre. After  

taking tea in the same place, they returned back to No.1, Tiljala  

Lane. As they were not clear about the location of the American  

Centre building and the route to the said place Nasir stated to have  

prepared a rough sketch map of the American Centre and the route  

to it. This was shown to Zahid and he was convinced and could  

comprehended the route. Thereafter, Nasir, Zahid, Sadakat and  

Abdullah set down and decided as to who would do what during the  

attack. Zahid stated to have mentioned that he would be driving the  

motorcycle along with a pistol and that Sadakat would be the pillion  

rider carrying an AK-47 and that Sadakat would launch the attack on  

American Centre. Zahid directed Nasir to drive the Maruti 800 by  

taking Abdullah along with him and park the car by the side of the  

crossing of Rippon Street and Circular Road and wait for Zahid and  

Sadakat. After carrying out the attack they would return to that place  

and Sadakat would move into the car with the AK-47 rifle and Nasir  

should speed of towards the flat at No.1, Tiljala Lane. Zahid then  

informed Bhaisahab through e-mail about the date, time and place of  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               42 of 195

attack, i.e. 22.01.2002 at 6.30 a.m. at American Centre and  

Bhaisahab also confirmed the proposal. On 22.01.2002, Nasir stated  

to have woken up at 5 a.m. and thereafter, he woke up everybody  

else asking them to get ready, that Zahid wore a Chocolate colour  

Jacket and armed himself with a pistol and Sadakat wore a green  

colour Jacket with an AK-47 rifle from a long pillow and placed it  

inside a cricket bat cover. As planned, Zahid drove the motorcycle  

along with Sadakat as the pillion rider and Nasir drove the Maruti  

800 along with Abdullah. Nasir, as per the plan, stated to have  

parked the car at Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing and they got  

out of the car and started facing the street. Around 6.45 a.m., Zahid  

came speeding down in his motorcycle with Sadakat in the pillion  

and pulled out beside the car. Immediately thereafter, both said ‘job  

done’ (KAAM HO GAYA). Sadakat got down and got into the car  

with the AK-47 rifle with the cricket bat cover and thereafter, they  

sped of towards No.1 Tiljala Lane and Zahid followed them.  

34. On the way, Sadakat stated to have narrated in detail how the attack  

was carried out. After reaching the flat, Sadakat said it will not be  

right for him to stay at Calcutta as people had seen him while he  

was launching the attack. While leaving Calcutta, Sadakat stated to  

have handed over the AK-47 to Zahid and left along with Abdullah to  

the station and that thereafter, Abdullah did not return. On  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               43 of 195

23.01.2002 Zahid also stated to have left Calcutta having packed the  

AK-47 and his own pistol in his bag who was seen of by Nasir in the  

Howrah station. After seeing of Zahid, Nasir went to his in-laws  

place. On 26.01.2002, Nasir went to the flat at Khan Road,  

Khirgaon, Hazaribagh where he met Zahid, Salim and Sadakat and  

they celebrated their successful attack at the American Centre. He  

thereafter, returned back to Calcutta. On 29.01.2002, Nasir sent an  

e-mail to Bhaisahab informing him that Zahid and Salim have been  

killed in an encounter by the police which was widely published in  

the newspaper. On the night of 29.01.2002, he was arrested by the  

police at his in-laws’ place and thereafter, he took the police and  

showed the flat of Niaz Hussain, i.e. No.1 Tiljala Lane from where  

the police seized the motorcycle and Maruti 800 which was used in  

the attack and several other documents. He also took them to his flat  

at No. 46 Tiljala Lane where the police seized some more  

documents including his driving licence, passport, pocket notebook,  

sketch map of the American Centre and a National Flag of Pakistan,  

which Zahid left with him while fleeing.  

35. Nasir took the police to the cyber café at Kustia Road and also  

showed the whole route to the police that had been used before and  

after the attack. A revolver which was given to him by Zahid for his  

protection was also seized by the police. At the end, Nasir stated  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               44 of 195

that earlier he was scared of Aftab and that now since he has also  

been nabbed, he did not want to be a traitor against his country and  

therefore, came forward with his statement.  

36. Having noted the various facts in the confession of Nasir, it must be  

stated that such a meticulous description of men and material, date,  

time and events including the passwords and e-mail addresses  

could have been revealed only by a person who was really  

acquainted with those details. It is very difficult for anyone to imagine  

these facts and put it in a narrative form. In fact, whatever lacunae  

that could be pointed out by Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan was in our  

considered opinion a very insignificant one which would not in any  

manner either discredit the statement or would go to the extent of  

saying that the statement was designed and procured or tailor-  

made at the instance of someone, much less the investigation team  

to suit the case of the Prosecution. It must be remembered that  

PW-97 who being a Judicial Magistrate, nothing could be stated that  

he was in any way either influenced or prejudiced or in any manner  

persuaded to tow in line with the Prosecution to record such a  

statement. There was not even a remote suggestion to PW-97 that  

he was under the grip of the Prosecution while recording the  

confession of Appellant Nasir.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               45 of 195

37. Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan pointed out the following non-corroborative  

factors to discredit the confessional statement of Nasir. The non-

corroborative factors, which were pointed out by Ms. Nitya  

Ramakrishnan were:  

(a)The month and year when No.1 Tiljala Lane flat was booked and  possession handed over to Niaz Hussain.

(b)The opening of the e-mail account as per record and as per the  statement of Nasir.

(c)About the factum of who was riding the bike and who was  shooting on the date of occurrence.  

(d)At the site of conspiracy what was the decision taken as to  shooting and riding  

(e)The time delay considering the distance from the site of  conspiracy to the place of occurrence as well as the returning  time.  

(f) If Nasir’s confession is to be believed, the AK-47 should have  been recovered.  

(g)The unexplained access to Nasir by police. (h)Make the confession unreliable and the custodial confession  

always to be treated with a pinch of suspicion.  

38. When we deal with the above non-corroborative factors referred to  

by learned counsel for the Appellant, the first one related to the  

month and year of the handing over of the flat at No.1, Tiljala Lane  

to Niaz Hussain. In the confession, Nasir stated that around April–

May 2001, he along with Asif, Niaz and his brother Fiaz were  

involved in a discussion at flat No.1, Tiljala Lane, Calcutta-700031.  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               46 of 195

The learned counsel referred to the evidence of PW-47 Dilip Kumar  

Singh, who was the promoter of the said building at No.1, Tiljala  

Lane, which stated that the agreement was dated 11.07.2001, which  

was signed in the presence of the owner of the building witnessed  

by Nasir and Benod Kumar Roy and that on that day itself he  

handed over possession to Niaz Hussain based on the agreement.  

The learned counsel, therefore, contended that there is a vast  

difference in taking over possession of the flat as between what was  

stated by Nasir and the flat promoter PW-47.  

39. When we consider the said contention we can only say that PW-47  

had the agreement in his hand which was dated 11.07.2001 while  

Nasir who was making his confessional statement was not referring  

to any specific document. While according to Nasir it was April-May  

2001 as per the document, it is found to be 11 th July 2001. There is  

no difference in the year concerned, namely, 2001. In fact, Nasir  

himself was not sure as to whether it was April or May. Therefore, he  

said April-May, 2001. As between April-May, 2001 and July 2001 it  

must be stated that the same cannot be held to be such a serious  

discrepancy in order to state that on that score the confession which  

he was able to narrate with high amount of cogency which explains  

the sequence of events as from the early childhood of the Appellant  

till he realised his folly in 2002 when he came forward to make the  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               47 of 195

confession should be rejected. We therefore, reject the said  

submission as the same does not seriously impinge upon the  

confession made by the Appellant.

40.  The next submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant  

related to the fact about as to who was riding the bike and who was  

shooting at the occurrence as to whether it was Zahid or Sadakat. In  

the confession, we find, according to Nasir, Zahid made a statement  

that he would drive the motorcycle with a pistol and that Sadakat  

would be the pillion rider with AK-47 rifle in his hand who would  

attack the people at the American Centre. Again while narrating the  

events starting from the early morning of 22.02.2002, Nasir stated  

that Zahid wore a chocolate colour jacket arming himself with a  

pistol and Sadakat wore a green colour jacket and drove out with an  

AK-47 rifle and placed it in the cricket bat cover. He also stated that  

Zahid drew the motor bike while Sadakat was the pillion rider with  

the AK-47. It must be stated that since the above statement of facts  

have come from the horse’s mouth who was fully involved in the  

conspiracy as well as the ultimate execution along with the other  

conspirators and the executants, his word must carry weight. We say  

so because when once the confession made by Nasir is free from  

any flaw either technical or factual and as stated earlier he was part  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               48 of 195

of the perpetrators of the crime, his word should carry weight in so  

far as the execution of the crime is concerned.  

41. Nasir having participated in the crime right from its initiation till its  

execution and was taking care of the whole gang besides his own  

participation, it should be held that the facts stated by him as  

regards the crime part of it must carry due weightage and must be  

accepted. Therefore, when Nasir stated that as decided by Zahid on  

the previous day, i.e. on 21.01.2002 he would drive the bike along  

with the pistol and Sadakat would carry out the shooting with AK-47  

as a pillion rider and when the same was stated to have been  

carried out meticulously on 22 nd January, 2002 making further  

description about the colour of the jackets worn by Zahid and  

Sadakat and that as planned Zahid, drove the vehicle carrying a  

pistol and Sadakat was the pillion rider with the AK-47, the said  

statement of Nasir must be accepted without any hesitation.  

42. While, thus accepting the said position as stated by Nasir in his  

confession, the non-corroborative factors pointed out was the  

version of PW-62 and PW-113 and some variation in the version of  

eye-Witnesses, namely, PWs-6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20. It is  

necessary, however, to refer to those Witnesses before answering  

the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant. The learned  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               49 of 195

counsel drew our attention to the deposition of Witnesses, namely,  

PW-6, PW-9, PW-15, PW-16, PW-18, PW-19, PW-20, PW-62 and  

PW-113. Learned counsel for the Appellant by referring to the  

version of the above Prosecution Witnesses as compared to the  

confession made by Nasir submitted that while according to Nasir,  

Zahid was riding the bike wearing a chocolate colour jacket and  

Sadakat was the shooter wearing the green colour jacket, which was  

also the version of PW-62 who happened to see the person wearing  

chocolate colour jacket driving the motor bike and person with green  

colour jacket as pillion rider carrying a cricket bat cover.  PWs-6, 9,  

15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 who are all claimed to be eye-Witnesses to  

the shooing incident stated that the person who was shooting with  

the AK-47 was wearing a chocolate or brown colour jacket and the  

rider of the bike was wearing a green colour jacket. She also pointed  

out to us that all the above Witnesses identified Exhibit-XXVI, the  

photograph of Zahid taken after his death. Learned counsel further  

referred to evidence of PW-113 who was part of the team which  

carried out the encounter at Hazaribagh stated that Zahid while  

being taken to the hospital in a serious condition, made a dying  

declaration that he was the person who shot at the police personnel  

at the American Centre while Sadakat was the driver.  By pointing  

out the above evidence of different Witnesses, learned counsel  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               50 of 195

submitted that here again there is a pointed variation as between the  

version of the Prosecution Witnesses and that of the confession of  

Nasir.   

43. The contention, therefore, was that the said variation would create  

serious lacuna in the evidence of the Prosecution inasmuch as there  

was no definite evidence as to who was the shooter and who was  

the rider. It was therefore, contended that the said factor is another  

vital non-corroborative factor which would seriously impinge the  

confession.  When we consider the said submission, we have to  

point out that PWs-6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 were all eye-

witnesses to the shooting occurrence.  Many of them were injured  

eye-witnesses.  The evidence of PW-6 discloses that the shooting  

by the person with AK-47 was taking place within a distance of  

10-15 feet only. The time of occurrence was 6.35 a.m.  All the eye-

witnesses also stated that the shooter was wearing Chocolate or  

Brown colour jacket and the rider was wearing a Green colour  

jacket. Therefore, it is relevant to keep in mind that as per the eye-

witnesses’ version the person who was shooting was wearing  

chocolate/brown colour jacket and the person who was driving was  

wearing green colour jacket.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               51 of 195

44. When we consider the above evidence, we find that according to  

PW-113, Zahid made a declaration, while he was sinking, that he did  

the shooting operation and Sadakat was the rider. As far as  

PW-113’s evidence is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon  

for the simple reason that what was stated to him by Zahid cannot  

be taken as a dying declaration. In order to be a valid dying  

declaration as specified under Section 32, primarily such statement  

of a dead person would be relevant to the cause of his death or any  

of the circumstances of the transactions which resulted in his death  

and that too in cases in which the cause of his death comes into  

question. That apart, it is by now well settled that for a statement to  

be accepted as a dying declaration, it should have passed the  

rigorous tests laid down in various judicial pronouncements as such  

a statement would be a self-inflicting one. More so, when it is  

claimed to be a oral declaration not supported by any other  

evidence, be it oral or documentary, therefore, based on the ipsi dixit  

of PW-113 referring to Zahid’s declaration, it cannot be accepted as  

a valid piece of evidence. Therefore, the said part of the evidence of  

PW-113 relating to the so-called dying declaration of Zahid will have  

to be eschewed from consideration. When we say so, we are  

cautious of the fact that the Hazaribagh encounter gave a vital clue  

to the Investigating Team dealing with the American Centre case,  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               52 of 195

which in our considered opinion will not be in any way hindered by  

eschewing from the considering the dying declaration aspect of  

PW-113’s evidence. If the so-called dying declaration of Zahid is  

eschewed from consideration, what is left is the evidence of the eye-

witnesses, i.e. PWs-6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 62 and the confessional  

statement of Nasir. The eye-witnesses account merits acceptance  

as they had the full view of the assailants. In fact, according to some  

of them, both were shooting, some of them identified the photo of  

Zahid as the person who was riding the bike and shooting. Going by  

the version of Nasir, Zahid was riding and Sadakat was the pillion  

rider. We only point out that there was no non-corroborative factor  

as was sought to be demonstrated on behalf of the Appellant in  

order to state that the whole evidence of the eye-witnesses should  

be rejected and that on that ground, the confession cannot also be  

relied upon. We will have to bear in mind that the confession has  

unfurled the whole of the story of the Prosecution, while this part of  

the evidence is confined to the act of shooting by one of the  

conspirators and that of riding a bike by anther conspirator. We are  

convinced that the evidence on record in particular the eye-witness  

account who had the benefit of looking at the person who was  

shooting at the spot in the close vicinity and who are able to note a  

glaring feature namely, the dress worn by the shooter and the driver  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               53 of 195

and also identified the photograph of the driver when shown to them,  

there is no reason why their version should not be believed for the  

purpose of identifying the assailant at the place of occurrence.  

Therefore, a cumulative consideration of our above discussion  

makes it clear that the confession of Nasir as it stands was not in  

any way contradicted by any of the Prosecution Witnesses, namely,  

PWs-6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20.  

45. When we come to PW-62, according to whom at Rippon Street  

Circular Road Crossing when he was looking at Maruti car driven by  

Nasir with co-passenger, two persons arrived in a motor cycle  

stating that their mission was accomplished and that the person  

wearing green colour jacket who was a pillion rider, got down from  

the bike carrying a cricket bat cover, got into the car and thereafter,  

the car and the bike left the spot. Here again, we are not impressed  

by the submission that going by his version it should be held that  

there was a serious contradiction as regards the shooter and the  

rider which will lead to a conclusion of non-corroborative factor to  

discard the confession. Firstly, PW-62 was not an eye-witness to the  

shooting occurrence; secondly as between the place of occurrence  

and Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing what really transpired as  

between the rider and shooter was not known to him.  The  

significance of PW-62’s evidence would mainly relate to the  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               54 of 195

identification of Nasir who had parked the vehicle at the spot where  

PW-62 and his friend were taking tea and by virtue of the haphazard  

parking on the road, there was a traffic jam which necessitated  

PW-62 to approach Nasir and ask him to park the vehicle properly in  

order to clear the way for smooth movement of vehicles. It was in  

that aspect the version of PW-62 assumes more significance. It is  

true at that point of time a little later he also witnessed the two  

persons who arrived at the spot in a motor bike expressing their  

successful achievement of their operation and one of them who was  

the pillion rider got into the Maruti car after which both the vehicles  

left the spot. It can only be stated that even assuming for the sake of  

argument based on the PW-62’s version some contradiction as  

regards the jacket colour having regard to the overwhelming  

evidence pointed out by us by making reference to PWs-6, 9, 15, 16,  

18, 19 and 20, evidence of PW-62 should be ignored as a very  

insignificant one. Therefore, on this ground we are not convinced  

that any non-corroborative factor can be attributed to dislodge the  

confession.   

46. Learned counsel for the Appellant also argued by stating that there  

was time delay involved considering the site of conspiracy the place  

of occurrence and the returning time to the site which was all  

improbable. As per the confession of Nasir, they all left No. 1, Tiljala  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               55 of 195

lane at 5.30 a.m. The occurrence stated to have taken place at 6.30  

a.m. at the American Centre. The contention is that having regard to  

the location of the place of conspiracy and the site of occurrence, it  

is highly improbable that the occurrence could have taken place at  

6.30 a.m., when the conspirators left the place of conspiracy at 5.30  

a.m. We do not find any substance in the said submission since with  

reference to such time factor there should always be some time  

allowance given, in which event, the said factor cannot be taken as a  

non-corroborative factor at all to reject the confession made by  

Nasir.  

47. One other submission made was that if the confession of Nasir is to  

be believed, the AK-47 should have been recovered. We are at a  

loss to understand as to how the non-recovery of AK-47 rifle would  

vitiate the confession. In fact, learned Additional Solicitor General in  

his submissions stated that the AK-47 rifles seized at the hideout of  

the conspirators at Hazaribagh along with the recovered bullet  

jackets at the occurrence spot, namely, the American Centre were  

all sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for an expert opinion and it  

turned out that none of the bullets fired and recovered at the  

American Centre matched with the gun recovered at Hazaribagh  

premises. Learned Additional Solicitor General, therefore, contended  

that the non-recovery of the AK-47 which was used at the place of  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               56 of 195

occurrence cannot be a factor to reject the Prosecution case as  

framed against the accused. We find force in this submission. In  

fact, as per the confession of Nasir, after the shooting operation and  

after they all retuned back to No. 1, Tiljala Lane, both Sadakat and  

Zahid left Calcutta carrying their baggages.  Zahid lost his breath in  

the encounter on 28-29.01.2002. Whatever arms and ammunition  

including the AK-47 rifles at the premises at Hazaribagh was found  

to be the weapons not used for shooting at the American Centre.  

Sadakat was an absconder, though, later he was apprehended and  

is now being tried. Therefore, any recovery made at the instance of  

Sadakat, who is now facing the trial, is not known. In such  

circumstances, the non-recovery of the AK-47 which was used for  

shooting at the American Centre cannot be a ground to disbelieve  

the statement contained in the confession of Nasir.

48. As far as the contention made on behalf of the Appellant that non-

production of the weapon used in the attack is fatal to the case of  

the Prosecution is concerned, the reliance placed upon by the  

learned Additional Solicitor General to the decision reported in Ram  

Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - (2012) 12 SCC 339 would meet  

the said contention. In paragraphs 8 and 10, this Court has also held  

that the non-production of the weapon used in the attack is neither  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               57 of 195

fatal to the Prosecution case nor any adverse inference can be  

drawn on that score. Therefore, the said submission is also rejected.

49. While referring to the non-corroborative factors the learned counsel  

for the Appellant submitted that the unexplained access to Nasir by  

police when he was produced before the Magistrate on 21.02.2002  

for recording his confession read along with the above factors  

makes the confession fully unreliable. We have referred to the  

requisition made by PW-123 and the order passed by the  

Magistrate, 14 th Court Calcutta on 21.02.2002 by which he issued  

directions to lodge the Appellant Nasir in the Calcutta Presidency  

Correction Home on that day by segregating him from other accused  

and strangers for being produced on 22.02.2002 to give enough time  

for Appellant Nasir to rethink as to whether or not he should make  

the confession. We have found that the Appellant was in the custody  

in connection with case No.53 dated 12.02.2002 for certain offences  

under the Arms Act while he was in judicial custody up till  

22.02.2002 and, therefore, those materials disclose as to how  

Appellant Nasir happened to be in the custody of the police on  

21.02.2002. Inasmuch as the said situation has been explained by  

valid documents, the said circumstance also does not in any way  

vitiate the confession made by Nasir.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               58 of 195

50. Learned counsel then submitted that custodial confession should  

always be treated with suspicion. Learned counsel referred to the  

decisions reported in Shivappa vs. State of Karnataka - (1995) 2  

SCC 76, Bhagwan Singh and others vs. State of M.P. - (2003)  

3 SCC 21 and Aloke Nath Dutta and others vs. State of West  

Bengal - (2007) 12 SCC 230  in support of her submissions.  

Learned counsel then referred to some of the answers made by  

Appellant Nasir in the Section 313 questioning. Specific reference  

was made to question Nos.562, 563, 564, 770, 771 and 772. For  

question No.562, the answer was ‘I do not know, I am innocent’. The  

question was with reference to PW-97, namely, the Magistrate who  

recorded the confession of the Appellant, who stated that he certified  

about the voluntariness of the statement and proved the statement  

before the Court marked as Exhibit-201 and what was the reaction  

of the Appellant. By saying that he was innocent and he did not  

know anything, we do not find anything to be implied that the whole  

of the confession has to be rejected based on the said answer.  

Question No.563 was again related to PW-97 wherein it was put to  

Appellant Nasir that learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate sent  

Nasir the case record of GR190 of 2002 for recording the  

confessional statement of Nasir and what he had to say. The answer  

was that ‘on 21.02.2002, I was on police record, I was not sent to  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               59 of 195

any Magistrate for recording confessional statement’, though, the  

said answer contradicted the factum of the confessional statement  

recorded by PW-97. By merely accepting such a denial of the factum  

of production of the Appellant for the purpose of recording of  

confessional statement before PW-97, it cannot be inferred that as  

between the version of PW-97 and the stand of the Appellant without  

anything more, the stand of the Appellant should be believed. In fact,  

for question No.564, it was explained to the Appellant that PW-97  

gave necessary caution to him, assured him that if he declined to  

make any statement he will not be sent to police custody and that  

thereafter, PW-97 sent him for jail custody for refreshment of his  

mind with a direction to the Superintendent, Presidency Correction  

Home to keep him in complete segregation. Here again the  

Appellant came forward with only an answer that it was false and  

that he was innocent. We can understand if the Appellant had stated  

that nothing transpired on 21 st February, 2002 and 22 nd February,  

2002 when the confession was recorded by the Magistrate PW-97.  

On the other hand, according to PW-97, the Appellant wrote the  

statement in his own handwriting and proved the statement before  

the Court which was marked as Exhibit-201. When that fact was put  

to the Appellant by way of question No.567, the Appellant pleaded  

ignorance. Therefore, the Appellant’s answers to those questions  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               60 of 195

does not reflect the true state of affairs, therefore, based on that it  

cannot held that the confession should be disbelieved.  

51. Similarly, for question No.770, it was specifically stated that the  

Appellant Nasir gave a confessional statement under Section 164  

Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14 th Court on 22.02.2002  

and what he had to say. A simple answer was that it was false and  

that he was innocent. For question No.771, where it was put to  

Appellant that he gave a statement before the Magistrate, that he  

was put in segregation in Presidency Correctional Home for  

reflection of memory and the Magistrate gave sufficient warning as  

contemplated under the Act. Before recording his statement the  

answer was;

“ I was taken to Correctional Home on 22.02.2002 that he was  innocent that at 7 p.m from a small (illegible) of Hugly river  coming office (illegible) bridge Sagar Setu.”

52. The said answer does not in any way give any acceptable ground for  

rejecting the confession made by the Appellant. Again for question  

No.772, the Appellant answered that he did not give any statement.  

Except mere denial about the confession made, we do not find any  

other positive evidence on the side of Appellant to reject the  

confession. In fact, other than the above answers there was nothing  

on record to show that the Appellant retracted from his confession.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               61 of 195

Therefore, the confession made by the Appellant before PW-97  

does not suffer from any infirmity in law or facts. The purport of  

Section 313 questioning is to enable the accused to come forward  

with the acceptable explanation while refuting the various evidence  

alleged against him. Unfortunately, the Appellants failed to avail the  

opportunity to confront the facts support by valid evidence.

53. As far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in  

Shivappa (Supra), paragraph 6 is relevant, which reads as under:

“6. From the plain language of Section 164 CrPC and the  rules and guidelines framed by the High Court regarding the  recording of confessional statements of an accused under  Section 164 CrPC, it is manifest that the said provisions  emphasise an inquiry by the Magistrate to ascertain the  voluntary nature of the confession. This inquiry appears to be  the most significant and an important part of the duty of the  Magistrate recording the confessional  statement of an  accused under Section 164 CrPC. The failure of the  Magistrate to put such questions from which he could  ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession detracts so  materially from the evidentiary value of the confession of an  accused that it would not be safe to act upon the same. Full  and adequate compliance not merely in form but in essence  with the provisions of Section 164 CrPC and the rules framed  by the High Court is imperative and its non-compliance goes  to the root of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to record the  confession and renders the confession unworthy of credence.  Before proceeding to record the confessional statement, a  searching enquiry must be made from the accused as to the  custody from which he was produced and the treatment he  had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that  there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence  proceeding from a source interested in the Prosecution still  lurking in the mind of an accused. In case the Magistrate  discovers on such enquiry that there is ground for such  supposition he should give the accused sufficient time for  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               62 of 195

reflection before he is asked to make his statement and  should assure himself that during the time of reflection, he is  completely out of police influence. An accused should  particularly be asked the reason why he wants to make a  statement which would surely go against his self-interest in  course of the Trial, even if he contrives subsequently to retract  the confession. Besides administering the caution, warning  specifically provided for in the first part of sub-section (2) of  Section 164 namely, that the accused is not bound to make a  statement and that if he makes one it may be used against  him as evidence in relation to his complicity in the offence at  the Trial, that is to follow, he should also, in plain language, be  assured of protection from any sort of apprehended torture or  pressure from such extraneous agents as the police or the like  in case he declines to make a statement and be given the  assurance that even if he declined to make the confession, he  shall not be remanded to police custody.”

54. When we apply the various principles set out in the said paragraph  

to the case on hand, we find the Magistrate PW-97 had elaborately  

applied all the principles laid down therein before recording the  

confession. Therefore, the said decision fully supports the action of  

the Magistrate PW-97 in having recorded the confessional statement  

in accordance with law.  

55. Reliance was then placed upon the decision in Bhagwan Singh  

(supra). Paragraph 30 was referred to which reads as under:

“30. It has been held that there was custody of the accused  Pooran Singh with the police immediately preceding the  making of the confession and it is sufficient to stamp the  confession as involuntary and hence unreliable. A judicial  confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so when  such a confession is retracted. It is not safe to rely on such  judicial confession or even treat it as a corroborative piece of  evidence in the case. When a judicial confession is found to  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               63 of 195

be not voluntary and more so when it is retracted, in the  absence of other reliable evidence, the conviction cannot be  based on such retracted judicial confession. (See Shankaria v.  State of Rajasthan, SCC para 23)”

56. In the first place in the case on hand, the confession was recorded  

after the Appellant was directed to be kept in the Presidency  

Correctional Home under the custody of its Superintendent and,  

therefore, he was not in the police custody. Thereafter, the Appellant  

never retracted from the confession made before PW-97 except his  

incoherent answers to some of the questions relating to the  

confession in the Section 313 questioning. We, therefore, do not find  

any scope to apply the said decision to the facts of this case.

57. Reliance was then placed upon the decision in Aloke Nath Dutta  

(supra). In paragraphs 104 to 107, this Court has explained as to  

how the Court must be extremely cautious in dealing with confession  

made under Section 164 especially such confession is retracted,  

which read as under:

“104. Section 164, however, makes the confession before a  Magistrate admissible in evidence. The manner in which such  confession is to be recorded by the Magistrate is provided  under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The  said provision, inter alia, seeks to protect an accused from  making a confession, which may include a confession before a  Magistrate, still as may be under influence, threat or promise  from a person in authority. It takes into its embrace the right of  an accused flowing from Article 20(3) of the Constitution of  India as also Article 21 thereof. Although, Section 164  provides for safeguards, the same cannot be said to be  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               64 of 195

exhaustive in nature. The Magistrate putting the questions to  an accused brought before him from police custody, should  sometime, in our opinion, be more intrusive than what is  required in law. (See Babubhai Udesinh Parmar v. State of  Gujarat.) 105. In a case where confession is made in the presence of a  Magistrate conforming the requirements of Section 164, if it is  retracted at a later stage, the Court in our opinion, should  probe deeper into the matter. Despite procedural safeguards  contained in the said provision, in our opinion, the learned  Magistrate should satisfy himself whether the confession was  of voluntary nature. It has to be appreciated that there can be  times where despite such procedural safeguards, confessions  are made for unknown reasons and in fact made out of fear of  police.

106. Judicial  confession must  be recorded in strict  compliance with the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure. While doing so, the Court shall not go by  the black letter of law as contained in the aforementioned  provision; but must make further probe so as to satisfy itself  that the confession is truly voluntary and had not been by  reason of any inducement, threat or torture.

107. The fact that the accused was produced from the police  custody is accepted. But it was considered in a routine  manner. The learned Magistrate in his evidence could not  even state as to whether the Appellant had any injury on his  person or whether there had been any tainted marks  therefore.

58. Having referred to the above paragraphs, we find that none of the  

instances and principles referred to therein when applied to the facts  

of the present case persuade us to hold that the confession made by  

the Appellant cannot be relied upon.        

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               65 of 195

59. Learned counsel for the Appellant in her submissions, argued about  

the truthfulness in respect of the statements contained in the  

confession as compared to the other evidence of the Prosecution.  

Learned counsel prefaced her submission by saying that the  

confession will have to be seen as to whether it was to buttress the  

various contradictions in the evidence of the Prosecution.  The  

learned counsel referred to the fact about the contradiction as  

regards the handing over of the flat at No.1, Tiljala Lane, which  

according to PW-47 was on 11.7.2001, while in the confession it was  

stated to be in April-May, 2001.  Reference was then made to the  

fact about whether Zahid was the shooter or the pillion rider. As far  

as the above two factors are concerned, we have already dealt with  

the same in detail and found that there was no material contradiction  

over the same. Learned counsel then pointed out that in the  

confession, Appellant Nasir alleged to have stated that after getting  

out of No. 1, Tiljala Lane flat he advanced towards the Rippon Street  

Circular Road crossing, where he parked the car and his co-

passenger Abdullah as well as himself got out of the car and were  

facing the street.  As compared to the said statement, learned  

counsel referred to the evidence of PW-62 who was examined to  

establish that on 22.01.2002 Appellant Nasir along with another  

person were found at that spot. The learned counsel pointed out that  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               66 of 195

according to PW-62 on 22.1.2002 at about 6.20/6.30 a.m., he was in  

Beniapukur lane after crossing of AJC Bose road in the shop of one  

Ashok Nandi to purchase milk where he met his friend Gilbert  

Gomes.  He further stated in front of the shop of Nandi he noticed  

the Maruti 800 blue colour car parked in a wrong trajectory and that  

a lorry which came from Beniapukur side could not pass the road  

due to such wrong parking by the driver of Maruti car. He further  

stated that in order to clear the traffic jam he and his friend  

approached the Maruti car driver who though initially did not respond  

properly, when they noted the registration number of the car, the  

driver set right the parking of the car which ultimately cleared the  

traffic jam.  He also stated that the registration number of the Maruti  

car was BRK 4907. However, in the course of the cross examination  

he stated that Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing is almost in the  

opposite of Beniapukur Lane and AJC Bose road towards right and  

that there are footpath in Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing on  

both sides. Learned counsel contended that according to Appellant  

Nasir he parked the car at Rippon Street  Circular Road Crossing  

and he and Abdullah got out of the car facing the street.  According  

to PW-62 the car was parked in Beniapukur Lane which is a material  

contradiction.   

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               67 of 195

60. On a consideration of the above facts stated by Appellant Nasir in  

his confession and PW-62 as regards the location where the car was  

parked on 22.01.2002 in the early morning, we find that in the cross  

examination it was elicited from PW-62 to the effect that Rippon  

Street Circular Road Crossing, Beniapukur Lane and AJC Bose  

Road were all situated adjacent to each other and therefore, we do  

not find any material contradiction on the said aspect.

61. It was submitted that in the light of the said contradiction, it will have  

to be inferred that PW-62 could not have identified the Appellant and  

the co-passenger who was in the car and therefore, the reliance  

placed upon PW-62’s memory was not strong enough to support the  

circumstance.

62. On this aspect reliance was placed upon State (NCT of Delhi) vs.  

Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru – (2005) 11 SCC 600. As far as  

the decision in Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra) is  

concerned, our attention was drawn to paragraphs 304, 306, 315  

and 320. In paragraph 304 this Court after adverting to certain  

deficiencies in the recording of the confession this Court declined to  

rely upon it. Thereafter, in paragraph 306 excluding the confession  

from consideration this Court  proceeded to examine the  

circumstantial evidence against the accused and assess whether he  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               68 of 195

joined the conspiracy.  After discussing the various circumstances,  

this Court also referred to the reliance placed upon the evidence of a  

witness who was examined as PW-45 in the case to implicate the  

accused in the factum of conspiracy and found that there were no  

clinching circumstance so as to reach a conclusion unaffected by  

reasonable doubt that the particular accused was a party to the  

conspiracy along with his cousin, the prime accused.  In the case on  

hand we have held that there was no deficiency much less any  

serious one in accepting the confession recorded by the Magistrate  

under Section 164 as we have found that the Magistrate was  

examined as PW-97 observed all the ingredients required in law in  

particular Section 164 Cr.P.C. As the facts involved in Navjot  

Sandhu (supra) are not comparable to the one in the case on hand,  

we cannot apply the reasoning stated in that case to the facts of this  

case. In the light of our above finding on the confession of Appellant  

Nasir, we find that the reliance placed upon Navjot Sandhu @  

Afsan Guru (supra) is of no assistance to the Appellant.  

63. Having dealt with the issue relating to confession and before  

examining the other corroborative materials in the form of evidence,  

both oral and documentary, placed in support of the Prosecution, we  

wish to note the submissions of learned counsel in relation to the  

appeal filed by Aftab in Criminal Appeal Nos.1242-43 of 2010. Ms.  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               69 of 195

Nitya Ramakrishnan submitted that Aftab was arrested on  

22.03.2002 and that his conviction was mainly based on the  

confession of Appellant Nasir. After referring to the same the learned  

counsel submitted that the confession of the co-accused cannot be  

relied upon as the same is not substantive evidence under Section  

30 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to a ‘Evidence  

Act’).  

64. Learned counsel  contended that the evidence of PW-123,  

Investigation Officer, relating to the recovery of a letter and notebook  

marked as Exhibit-46/1 cannot be taken as a recovery made at the  

instance of Aftab and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the  

said document. According to the learned counsel, the said document  

can only be stated to have been taken on record by way of a seizure  

and not by way of recovery at the instance of Appellant Aftab. When  

we refer to the said part of the evidence of PW-123, we find that  

after taking Appellant Aftab into judicial custody, PW-123 recorded  

his statement and pursuant to his statement conducted a search of  

the house of deceased Asif at No.38D, Mofidul Islam Lane with the  

help of the local police and based on the admissible part of the said  

statement seized one notebook and one letter written in Hindi from a  

small almirah kept inside the room of Asif in the presence of  

Witnesses. The seizure list prepared was marked as Exhibit-44 and  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               70 of 195

the signature of Appellant Aftab was also marked which form part of  

the record. That apart there is also the evidence of PW-105,  

handwriting expert, who after examining the letter Exhibit-46/1  

opined that the handwriting found in the letter and some of the  

writing in the diary are in the handwriting of the Appellant. Apart from  

PW-123, the seizure witness PW-63 and PW-119 were also  

examined. Asif’s brother PW-39 was also examined on the side of  

the Prosecution.  

65. Evidence of PW-105, the handwriting expert, has opined that the  

writings found in Exhibit-46/1 and the specimen handwritings of  

Aftab produced before him were similar. That part of the evidence of  

PW-105 is as under:  

“Manner of writing Hindi writings ‘Aftaab’, ‘Ahmed’;  ‘Ansari’, with the formation of ‘Awe’ in Aftaab and ‘Awe’ in  Ahemed and Ansari, formation of ‘Haw’, ‘maw’, ‘Daw’ (18 th  letter in the alphabet), manner of putting the matra of ‘eekar’ in  ‘Ansari’ are found similar in Q37 and S57, S58 and S62.

In short, all the significant characteristics as observed in the  questioned writings are found similarly exemplified at one  place or the other in the standard writings and they are within  the limits of natural variations. The cumulative consideration of  all the writing habits leads me to the irresistible opinion of  common authorship.”

66. Learned counsel for the Appellant also brought to our notice the  

evidence of PW-39 Ali Reza Khan who is the younger brother of the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               71 of 195

deceased Asif.  In his evidence PW-39 identified Appellant Nasir in  

the Court.  While referring to his brother Asif, he stated that after his  

schooling, Asif did his graduation from Maulana Azad College,  

thereafter went to Aligarh Muslim University (hereinafter ‘AMU’) for  

studying a course in journalism and that he was also member of  

Student Islamic Organisation. He further stated that when Asif was  

studying in AMU sometime in 1993-94 he was arrested in TADA  

case. When he referred to one of Asif’s friend Abdullah who came to  

visit Asif in Calcutta along with some others, one of whom was Dr.  

Mushtaq Ahmed a Kashmiri, he stayed in their house for two days  

and that thereafter, when he met Asif after his arrest in TADA case  

he found Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad was also a co-accused before the  

Tees Hazari Court. He further stated that Asif once introduced  

PW-39 to another gentleman who was also arrested and whose  

name was Aftab Ansari. PW-39 thereafter identified Appellant Aftab  

in the Court.  In the latter part of his evidence he stated that Asif was  

released in the year 1999 when he came back to Calcutta and was  

residing with them and after 1999 when Abdullah came to their  

residence to meet Asif, his mother was annoyed and asked him to  

leave the house forthwith and also threatened him with a broomstick  

and thereafter, none of Asif’s friends visited their house. He also  

referred to the subsequent arrest of Asif in 2001 in connection with  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               72 of 195

Khadim’s kidnapping case and that he was taken to Calcutta  

Bhavani Bhavan. He mentioned about the killing of Asif on  

08.12.2001 by the Rajkot Police in a fake encounter. He also  

referred to the visit of the police at the residence on 02.04.2002 and  

the search made in their house. When PW-39 was specifically asked  

as to whether police searched the room of Asif, he replied as under:  

“our room was not searched by police on 02.04.2002”.  The  

Prosecution requested the Court to treat the witness as hostile at  

that point of time and cross examined him thereafter. Subsequently  

he denied the suggestion that police entered the room of Asif  

searched and recovered the notebook Exhibit-45/1 and the letter  

dated 14.1.2002 written by Aftab marked as Exhibit-46/1. However,  

he admitted the signatures found in Exhibits-44/1, 45/1, 46/1, 46/2,  

46/3 and 46/4. He also confirmed that he informed the police that  

Asif went to Kashmir and became a Jehadi, though he could not  

remember the date.  He also stated that he informed the police  

about Asif’s meeting with one Salahuddin, leader of Hizbul  

MuZahideen and also Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad another leader, when  

they discussed about terrorism to be continued in India by them.  He  

further stated that he informed the police that Asif developed an  

impression that the Government of India was not taking proper care  

of Muslims and therefore, they wanted to teach a lesson to the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               73 of 195

Indian Government with the help of militant groups of Kashmir. Dr.  

Mushtaq Ahmad who came to their residence sometime back was  

the very same person who visited them later. He would further state  

that he informed the police that Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad stayed in the  

room of Asif and held closed-door meetings but he did not state to  

police as to whether he heard them discussing about Jehad against  

India.   

67. In the course of his cross examination on behalf of Appellant Aftab  

and others, PW-39 addressed the Court and gave a statement. In  

the said statement he attempted to throw allegations against the  

police that he was forced to affix his signatures antedating them and  

that he was under mental pressure by police authorities. However,  

certain statements made by PW-39 are significant which are as  

under:  

“I was put into belief that Aftab Ansari is the root cause of all  evils caused to by elder brother from his arrest to death and I  began to hate Aftab Ansari. I came to learn about Asif’s  various activities from the chargesheet of TADA case at Delhi.  The statement which is made to police is on the basis of  chargesheet of TADA case. There is no man named Aftab  Ansari in the chargesheet. I have read only one chargesheet  against my elder brother. I gave statement to police, to some  extent truly voluntarily and to some extent under pressure;  later it transpired that some statements were inserted that  which I did not state.  I state about the mental state of Asif and  his disillusionment against the Government of India which I  gathered from the chargeesheet of Tada case.”  (underlining is  ours)

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               74 of 195

68. At the end of the cross examination on behalf of Appellant Aftab, he  

confirmed that it was a fact that he identified Aftab Ansari and  

Jamiludin Nasir in Court under the pressure of Police.  Again he  

stated that it was not a fact that under pressure of police ‘I  

indentified these persons’. Learned counsel by referring to the above  

evidence of PWs-123, 105 and 39 submitted that the above  

evidences were not sufficient enough to convict the Appellant Aftab.  

Again, the learned counsel by referring to Section 30 of the  

Evidence Act would contend that they were not substantive enough  

to be relied upon. Learned counsel relied upon Haricharan Kurmi  

vs. State of Bihar - AIR 1964 SC 1184, Mohd. Khalid vs. State  

of W.B. - (2002) 7 SCC 334, Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru  

(supra), Kehar  Singh and others vs.  State (Delhi  

Administration) - (1988) 3 SCC 609 for the purpose of clarifying  

the position that various reference to car numbers in diary  

Exhibit-45/1 would not be sufficient to convict the Appellant however  

much suspicious it may be. The learned counsel  therefore,  

contended that neither the letter nor the diary entry can be relied  

upon or believed to prove the conspiracy. Reliance was place upon  

State through Superintendant of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini  

and others - (1999) 5 SCC 253 and Alamgir vs. State (NCT,  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               75 of 195

Delhi) - (2003) 1 SCC 21, wherein it was cautioned by this Court  

not to rely upon such slippery evidence and that by barely relying  

upon handwriting expert’s opinion, a conclusion cannot be drawn.   

69. As against the above submission of Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan  

learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned  

Additional Solicitor General in his submission contended that the  

confession of Appellant Nasir was voluntary and can therefore be  

relied upon by the Court. The Learned Additional Solicitor General  

contended that the contents of the confession of Appellant Nasir was  

fully corroborated inasmuch as the Prosecution was able to retrieve  

all the e-mails based on some of the entries found in the diary  

maintained by Asif, the passwords given by Appellant Nasir and the  

downloaded messages from the various e-mail accounts revealed  

how the entire operation was carried out.  Learned Additional  

Solicitor General would describe the whole scheme of the operation  

carried out by the Appellants into four parts, namely, forming a  

Jehadi movement, visiting Kashmir for that purpose and subsequent  

meeting of Asif with Appellant Aftab when they conspired and  

subsequently at the instance of Appellant Aftab a further conspiracy  

was carried out to take a revenge for the killing of Asif.  Learned  

Additional Solicitor General, however, fairly submitted that the  

acquittal  of A4 and A5 became final as the same was not  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               76 of 195

challenged by the State.  As far as the acquittal of A2 and A3 is  

concerned, he contended that the same has been challenged in  

Criminal Appeal Nos.1244 to 1247 of 2010 and in the very same  

appeal, the state has also challenged the reduction of offence and  

sentence imposed on A-6, 7 and 9 who were acquitted of conspiracy  

for murder but were convicted for forgery by the High Court. It will  

have to be reiterated that we have de-tagged the said Criminal  

Appeal Nos.1244-47 of 2010 for want of time.  

70. As far as the conviction and sentence imposed on Appellant Nasir  

and Aftab is concerned, learned Additional Solicitor General pointed  

out that altogether 17 persons were involved out of whom 9 of them  

were prosecuted and dealt with by the trial Court and the High Court.  

One absconder by name Sadakat is now facing trial and that Niaz  

Hussain, Fiaz Hussain, Hazrat Imam and Abdullah are still  

absconding while Asif is no more. Two others namely Zahid and  

Salim died in the Hazaribagh encounter. Learned Additional Solicitor  

General referred to the testimony of PW-6 and whose information  

was noted in Exhibit-11 in the form of a statement and that the  

wireless information given by him was forwarded to the  

Shakespeare Sarani Police Station which was entered in the G.D. as  

entry No.1899 at 6.36 a.m. Learned Additional Solicitor General also  

referred to a formal FIR Exhibit-261. Learned Additional Solicitor  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               77 of 195

General therefore, contended that there was no doubt as to the  

registration of the FIR, that the evidence of PW-121 disclose that the  

statement was recorded between 9-10 a.m. and that after visiting the  

spot, he went to SSKM Hospital and recorded the statement.  He  

also pointed out that the hospital was just about 1 km from the place  

of occurrence.  The learned Additional Solicitor General then  

referred to the evidence of PWs-9, 15, 18, 19 and 20 who were all  

eye-witnesses to the incident, as well as the evidence of PW-62 who  

happen to note the presence of Appellant Nasir along with the  

absconding accused Abdullah the two assailants, namely, the  

deceased Zahid and accused Sadakat who is now facing trial.  

Leaned Additional Solicitor General also pointed out that the colour  

of the jacket owned by the shooter and the driver of the bike were  

uniformly stated by the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the only  

variation was by PW-62 who interchanged the jacket.  The learned  

Additional Solicitor General submitted that the plausible explanation  

can be that in between the place of occurrence namely the American  

Centre and the Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing, where PW-62  

noted the presence of Zahid and Sadakat, what really happened as  

regards the wearing of jacket cannot be stated with any certainty.  

The learned Additional Solicitor General stated that when there was  

overwhelming evidence of the eye-witness as well as the witness  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               78 of 195

who noticed the jackets of the driver of the bike and the pillion rider  

at No.1 Tiljala Lane, the change of colour mentioned by PW-62 will  

not materially affect the case  of the Prosecution.  The learned  

Additional Solicitor General further pointed out that in any event,  

PW-62 was able to identify Appellant Nasir in the Test Identification  

Parade and also the photograph of the deceased Zahid Exhibit-XXVI  

and, therefore, there was enough evidence supporting the case of  

the Prosecution to confirm the conviction. The learned Additional  

Solicitor General again fairly submitted that though the AK-47 Rifle  

seized from Hazaribagh was different from the one which was used  

at American Centre, an attempt was made to find out whether the  

weapon seized in Hazaribagh were used in the offence.  However,  

the forensic report disclosed that those weapons were not used. The  

Additional Solicitor General therefore, submitted that the Prosecution  

never attempted to insist that those weapons seized including the  

AK-47 rifle were the weapons used in the attack at American Centre.  

While referring to the evidence of PW-113, who was posted as the  

O.C. of Hazaribagh Police Station and was part of the investigation  

team at the Hazaribagh incident, learned Additional Solicitor General  

submitted that those contradictions pointed by learned counsel for  

the Appellant were minor and the said witness was really important  

to support the nabbing of Zahid who died in the encounter and  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               79 of 195

whose link to the incident on 22.2.2002 was found out in that  

process. Learned Additional Solicitor General by referring to the  

evidence of PW-83 Dr. Lakshmikanta Ghose who conducted the  

post mortem of one of the victims, specifically stated that the death  

was due to a gun shot injury and that the injuries were from high  

velocity self loading automatic weapons.  It was however, pointed  

out that PW-83 fairly admitted that such an information was not  

referred to in the post mortem report.  The learned Additional  

Solicitor General also referred to the evidence of PW-95, the Senior  

Scientific Officer and the report Exhibit-190 and the forensic report  

and submitted that a cumulative consideration of the above material  

evidence conclusively established the offence for which the  

Appellants were charged.   

71. While summing up his arguments, the learned Additional Solicitor  

General submitted that the e-mails exchanged between Nasir and  

Aftab, its contents revealed the stay of Aftab in Banaras, the  

purchase of a Jeep, meeting of different persons by Appellant Nasir,  

the contact of Asif and Aftab, the plan hatched after 14.01.2002, the  

decision taken to shift the target of attack from Bhawani Bhawan to  

American Centre, the decision to carry out the mission initially on  

21.01.2002, which was postponed to 22.01.2002 read along with the  

evidence of PW-39, the younger brother of Asif, who confirmed the  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               80 of 195

mindset of Asif after his joining with Jehadi movement when he met  

several of his like minded persons in their own house where they  

were discussing about their hatred towards the Government of India  

as in their opinion Muslims were not given their due share and,  

therefore, they should take a revenge as against the Government.  

The said version of PW-39 was fully supporting the confessional  

statement of Appellant Nasir wherein he also referred to the  

declaration made by Asif of having joined the Jehadi movement after  

his visit to Kashmir sometime in the year 1991 and thereafter, Asif’s  

introduction of Appellant Nasir to Aftab, the opening of the e-mail  

accounts in the name of Appellant Nasir to enable him to keep in  

touch with Aftab and carry out all the directions issued by Aftab, on  

various occasions when as per the direction of Aftab and Asif,  

Appellant Nasir went to Agra and Jaisalmer for collecting cash and  

on one occasion to collect consignment of Atta which is the other  

name for RDX, though the consignment was not procured at that  

time, the untimely death of Asif in an encounter on 08.12.2001,  

which angered the gang members of Asif, the resolution of their  

desperate mood expressed in Exhibit-46/1, written by Aftab to the  

wife of Asif, the subsequent arrival of Zahid, Sadakat, Salim and  

other members who were initially lodged at Hazaribagh premises  

and after the demise of Asif stayed in No.1, Tiljala Lane flat where  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               81 of 195

the conspiracy was hatched in the meeting which was attended by  

Appellant Nasir, Zahid, Sadakat, Niaz Hussain, Fiaz Hussain, who  

were every now and then given e-mail instructions by Appellant  

Aftab. The decision taken by the conspirators in the meeting held at  

No.1, Tiljala Lane flat were that they decided to attack Bhawani  

Bhawan, but heeding to the advice of Appellant Nasir that such an  

attack may result in more causalities of civilians, as well as to the  

Minority Commission Office located in the said premises, they  

refrained from attacking. The leader of the gang Aftab was  

subsequently, consulted through e-mail who suggested to explore  

the possibility of attacking the American Consulate or American  

Centre where after the gang members surveyed both the places and  

ultimately felt that attack on the American Centre would be more  

appropriate as they found heavy police security being posted on the  

main road adjoining the American Centre and who were not alert in  

their duties and in the early morning the change of shift of police  

personnel was taking place. The said decision of the gang was  

again forwarded to Appellant Aftab who having agreed to the  

proposal, initially agreed to lodge the attack on 21.01.2002, which  

was postponed to 22.01.2002 and was successfully executed as  

decided by the conspirators.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               82 of 195

72. Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that all the above  

factors were fully established by legal evidence in the form of a  

confession made under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. by Appellant Nasir  

corroborated by the various e-mails, which were retrieved and were  

proved through PW- 67 and 104, the acquisition of the flat by one of  

the gang members Niaz Hussain, absconding accused, based on  

documents Exhibit 63 as well as the oral evidence of PW-47, the use  

of Maruti 800 bearing registration No.BRK-4907 and the Suzuki  

Motorcycle bearing registration No.WB-01-P2144, which were  

recovered from the premises at No.1, Tiljala Lane, the fake  

passports secured by Aftab with the assistance of Appellant Nasir,  

the securing of Hazaribagh premises on rent supported by the  

evidence of the owner, the encounter which had taken place at  

Hazaribagh wherein one of the assailant Zahid and other gang  

member Salim, were secured and, the recovery of arms and  

ammunitions from the Hazaribagh premises, the diary of Appellant  

Nasir whose handwriting was established through the evidence of  

handwriting expert PW-105, the arrest of Appellant Aftab in March  

2002 and based on the admissible portion of statement, search was  

conducted in the premises of deceased Asif’s bedroom where a  

diary Exhibit-45/1 and the letter written by Aftab himself to the wife of  

Asif marked as Exhibit-46/1 which revealed the mindset of Aftab to  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               83 of 195

take revenge for the death of Asif, were all sufficient to conclude the  

conspiracy hatched by the Appellants and other gang members,  

their loaded mens rea to wage a war against the State as part of  

their Jehadi  movement and having unfortunately successfully  

executed the said event of attacking the police personnel at the  

American Centre on the morning of 22.01.2002 in which operation  

as many as 18 police personnel received gun shot injuries out of  

which five lost their lives apart from civilians. The learned Additional  

Solicitor General, therefore, contended that the imposition of death  

sentence on the Appellants for the offences for which they were  

convicted by the trial Court as confirmed by the High Court, does not  

call for any interference. Reliance was placed upon the decision  

reported in Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay - AIR 1958 SC 22  

for the proposition that confession if corroborated by the other  

evidence against a co-accused can be relied upon and that the  

same principle was followed recently in the decision reported in  

Ram Singh (supra).  

73. The sum and substance of the submission of learned counsel for the  

Appellant was that all events prior to the killing of Asif such as  

Appellant Nasir’s childhood relationship with Asif, his involvement in  

Jehad, visit to Kashmir, attempt for procurement of Atta-RDX,  

opening of e-mails, etc., were all wholly irrelevant. Subsequently, it  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               84 of 195

was submitted that taking a flat in No. 1, Tiljala Lane was also  

irrelevant to the allegation of conspiracy to the attack of the  

American Centre. Equally Asif’s detention along with Aftab at Tihar  

Jail was also irrelevant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel  

prior to 07.12.2001, i.e. the killing of Asif which took place on  

08.12.2001, whatever referred to were wholly irrelevant. The learned  

counsel would contend that whether involvement in petty land  

crimes are connected with attack on American Centre will have to be  

examined. It was submitted that as per Section 10 of the Evidence  

Act, it was only after 07.12.2001 the conspiracy was stated to have  

been hatched. Therefore, identification of the persons involved and  

the materials were more relevant. While examining the said aspect,  

the learned counsel submitted that the so-called dying declaration of  

Zahid after the Hazaribagh encounter to PW-113 was counter to the  

other evidence and that it was Zahid who was driving and Sadakat  

was the pillion rider and, therefore, that was a material contradiction  

compared to the statement of Nasir by way of a confession under  

Section 164. The learned counsel submitted that this was not  

answered either by the trial Court or by the High Court and by the  

learned Additional Solicitor General. She also contended that  

PW-113 was totally ignorant as to how the photograph of the  

deceased Zahid was taken, who took it, the details as to the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               85 of 195

negatives and the person who handed over the photos to him.  

Therefore, the identification of Zahid in Exhibit-XXVI and Salim in  

Exhibit-XXVII by PW-113 cannot be relied upon. In the said  

background, it was contented that the evidence of PW-62 on the  

identification of the deceased Zahid was also unreliable. It was,  

therefore, contended that if the oral dying declaration of Zahid to  

PW-113 is to be taken as true in all respects, as per which Zahid  

was the shooter and Sadakat was the driver then the statement  

contained in Nasir’s confession as well as that of PWs-47, 48 and 62  

will be wholly untrue. By referring to the eye-witnesses, the learned  

counsel submitted that on the 7 spot eye-witnesses, 3 have said that  

Zahid was involved in the shooting, while PWs-15, 18 and 19 only  

stated that he was one of the two who was involved in the shooting  

and PWs-16 and 19 identified Zahid as one of the miscreants.  

Therefore, such a reference made by the eye-witnesses cannot form  

the basis to conclude as to who was the shooter and who was the  

driver of the motor bike. The contention was that the contradictions  

on identification was therefore overwhelming with reference to the  

person, as well as the dress worn by the two so-called assailants  

and, therefore, it will be wholly unsafe to rely on such a weak  

evidence to confirm the conviction. While referring to PW-62, the  

learned counsel contended that he identified, only based on his  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               86 of 195

memory, of the driver with the particular colour jacket and the other  

person who got into the parked car driven by Appellant Nasir and not  

based on their respective facial features. Therefore, the learned  

counsel contended when there is serious doubt about the place  

where he saw them where the car was stated to have been parked  

and the difference in the colour of the jacket and the contradiction is  

serious enough to reject his evidence. It was also contended that  

according to PW-62, he approached a known police officer on his  

own accord and disclosed what he saw on the date of the incident.  

The learned counsel contended that such a claim of PW-62 would  

attract Sections 7 and 11 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as persons  

who were involved in such a planned crime would not have given  

scope for creating a traffic jam or high acceleration of the vehicle  

and, therefore, it is hard to believe that PW-62 could have witnessed  

such an incident and reported to the police. Therefore, the evidence  

of PW-62 in referring to the traffic jam, colour of the jacket of the  

assailants is wholly unbelievable. The learned counsel submitted  

that PW-62 who had the glimpse of the assailants deceased Zahid,  

Sadakat and Appellant Nasir could not have identified Zahid by  

looking into the photo after 1½ year of the incident and, therefore,  

the evidence of PW-62 should be put to a litmus test. The learned  

counsel therefore contended that even the Test Identification Parade  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               87 of 195

of Appellant Nasir, who was apprehended on 29.01.2002 and the  

holding of the Test Identification Parade on 11.03.2002, creates  

serious doubts and aspersions inasmuch as in between the two  

dates, he was taken to several places. The learned counsel  

therefore contended that no reliance can be placed upon PW-62 or  

other Witnesses.  

74. As far as PW-47 was concerned, the learned counsel contended  

that he himself was involved in a dacoity case, that while his  

statement was recorded on 29 th-30th January 2002 he was in the  

police custody from that very date till 7 th February 2002 and,  

therefore, his version is also wholly unreliable. As far as PW-48 is  

concerned, according to the learned counsel, his evidence cannot  

also be relied upon, inasmuch as, he denied his role as a Witness in  

some other case and, therefore, he must have been a stock witness.  

If the above evidence of the Witnesses is eschewed then virtually  

there is no corroboration of the confession of Appellant Nasir.  

Consequently, there was no reliable evidence on which the case of  

the Prosecution was built and consequently, the conviction cannot  

be sustained. The learned counsel for the Appellant reiterated her  

submission as to why the confession of Nasir should not be relied  

upon as the recording of his confession was made when he was in  

police custody on 21.02.2002 and that the Magistrate did not  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               88 of 195

properly ensured his segregation and relieved from the clutches of  

police before recording his confession on 22.02.2002.  

75. The learned counsel contended that as a Constitutional Right when  

the retraction of the confession was made, the other requirements  

ought to be fulfilled to ensure in criminal trial that the confessional  

statement can be relied upon. It was submitted that the every detail  

of the confessional statement was prepared as early as on  

12.02.2002 itself based on e-mails and it was a tailor-made  

statement on 22.02.2002 when he was in police custody and such  

recording was made up to 7 p.m. On corroboration the learned  

counsel contended that the weapons seized were admittedly not  

used at the place of occurrence and there was no evidence as to  

what happened to those weapons if the weapons seized at  

Hazaribagh were nothing to do with the incident. It was contended  

that the parking of the car at Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing  

was not proved inasmuch as the contradiction was not explained  

and, therefore, what could not be supported by way of legally  

acceptable evidence was sought to be filled up with the tailor-made  

confession.  

76. Learned counsel therefore, contended that all the above factors only  

shows considerable doubt and that the benefit of doubt should go in  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               89 of 195

favour of the Appellants. The learned counsel relied upon the  

decisions reported in Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs.  

Republic of India - (2011) 2 SCC 490 at page 508 paragraphs 41,  

42, 44, 45, 50 and 53. Reliance was also placed upon the decision  

Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra) at pages 746, 747, 748,  

750, 751 paragraph 229. Learned counsel  also relied upon  

Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh (supra), paragraph 64 for  

the principles on 164 confession. Reliance was also placed upon the  

decisions in Subash and Shiv Shankar vs. State of U.P. - AIR  

1987 SC 1222 at 1224 paragraphs 8 and 9 and Nalini (supra) at  

paragraph 7 for the proposition that mere presence of accused with  

the gang of conspirators will not be sufficient and that there must  

have been an agreement to the conspiracy. Reliance was also  

placed upon paragraphs 603, 604 and 607 of the said Judgment.  

Reliance was also placed upon Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad  

Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid vs. State of Maharashtra -  

(2012) 9 SCC 1 at page 201 paragraph 526 for the above  

proposition.

77. As far as Appellant Aftab’s case was concerned, the learned counsel  

contended that the Prosecution primarily relied upon Appellant  

Nasir’s confession and since the confession of a co-accused is not  

substantive evidence the same can be examined only as provided  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               90 of 195

under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, if only the rest of  

the evidence can be believed the conviction of Aftab cannot be  

approved.  The Learned counsel contended that in the first place the  

retracted confession of Nasir cannot be relied upon.  If confession of  

Appellant Nasir cannot be relied upon what left is a letter said to  

have been written by Aftab to Asif’s wife and a diary which was  

seized from Asif’s house.  As far as the diary is concerned, learned  

counsel contended that it does not contain any details except some  

entry relating to a stolen car. That at best, it can only lead to a  

charge of stealing of the car and nothing more.  As far as the letter  

Exhibit-46/1 is concerned the learned counsel contended that it only  

states that Amir was making all preparation and it does not show  

who that Amir was and at best it can only be stated that an  

expression of anguish was made in that letter over the killing of Asif  

and in the absence of the examination of the lady namely the  

‘Bhabhi ji’ no reliance can be placed upon the said exhibit.  As far as  

the evidence of PW-39 was concerned, it was contended that he  

admitted and signed a backdated statement and therefore, a letter  

recovered in such murky circumstances cannot be relied upon and  

in any case the said letter was not in any way connected with the  

incident occurred on 22.01.2002. Learned counsel  therefore,  

contended that the letter cannot be the basis for supporting the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               91 of 195

confession or to prove the conspiracy. By referring to the e-mail  

messages, the learned counsel contended that the messages also  

do not make any reference to the conspiracy and no explosive was  

used in the attack. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that  

there was virtually no evidence against Aftab in order to support the  

conviction.  The case at best is only suspicion in so far as Aftab is  

concerned and there is no legally acceptable evidence against him.  

In support of her submission reliance was place upon Haricharan  

Kurmi (supra) at paragraph 12, Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru  

(supra) at paragraph 38, Kehar Singh (supra) at page 730  

paragraphs 269 & 270 and Alamgir (supra) at paragraph 13. The  

learned counsel therefore contended that the appeal deserved to be  

allowed and the Appellants should be set at liberty.

78. Having heard learned for the Appellant as well as learned Additional  

Solicitor General for the State, we formulate the following questions  

for consideration in this appeal:

1) Whether the charge under Section 27 (3) of the Arms  Act can be maintained in the light of the decision of this  Court in Dalbir Singh (supra)?

2) Whether apart from the confession of Appellant Nasir  what  are the material  legal  evidence oral  and  documentary as well as in the form of material objects  to support the case of Prosecution?

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               92 of 195

3) Whether the confession of Appellant Nasir was  recorded in accordance with Section 164 Cr.P.C?

4) To what extent the contents of the confession can be  used by the Prosecution?

5) Whether there was any contradiction in the evidence  both oral  as well  as documentary vis-à-vis the  confession made by Appellant Nasir?  

6) Whether the confession of Appellant Nasir can be relied  upon as against the co-accused/Appellant Aftab?

7) Whether there was sufficient corroboration of the  contents of the confession of Appellant Nasir with the  other evidence both oral and documentary relied upon  by the Prosecution?

8) Whether the offence charged against the Appellant for  which the Appellants were proceeded against were  conclusively proved?  

9) If the offence was made out as held by the Courts below  whether the sentence of death can be held to be the  appropriate punishment, if not, what is the punishment  to be imposed?

79. Having formulated the questions, we now proceed to answer the  

same in seriatum.

80. Question No.1: Whether the charge under Section 27(3) of the  

Arms Act can be maintained in the light of the decision of this Court  

in Dalbir Singh (supra)?

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               93 of 195

We have considered this question in the very beginning of our  

Judgment and by referring to paragraphs 85 to 91 which we have  

extracted earlier, we have held that Section 27(3) of the Arms Act having  

been struck down on the ground that it was ultra vires of the Constitution  

and declared as void, the convictions and sentence imposed on the  

Appellants under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act cannot survive and the  

said question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative.   

81. Question No.2: Whether apart from the confession of Appellant  

Nasir what are the material legal evidence oral, documentary as well  

as in the form of material objects to support the case of  

Prosecution?

When we proceed to answer the said question, we will have to refer  

to the Witnesses who were examined in support of the charges and whose  

evidence touches upon the crucial facts involved in the case. The  

Witnesses are PW-6, PW-9, PW-15, PW-16, PW-18, PW-19, PW-20,  

PW-37, PW-38, PW-39, PW-47, PW-62, PW-83, PW-95, PW-97, PW-105,  

PW-113, and PW-123. Having noted the Witnesses who were examined in  

support of the charges, it is necessary to briefly note the version of those  

Witnesses and to what extent the said version supported the case of the  

Prosecution. To start with, we can refer to the evidence of PW-6, who is  

the Complainant. PW-6 is one Barun Kumar Saha who was working as a  

Sergeant on the date of occurrence, namely, 22.01.2002. He was posted  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               94 of 195

in the Wireless Branch of Calcutta Police and was on night duty from  

21.01.2002. According to him, at 6.30 a.m. of 22.01.2002 when he was on  

night shift duty in the vehicle No.WG-60 he went to the American Centre  

as part of his duty. The vehicle was parked by his driver in front of the  

American Centre. He got down from the vehicle on the left side, while the  

driver was in his seat. The time, according to him, was about 6.30 a.m. and  

that suddenly he saw one boy of 25-30 years not known to him wearing a  

pant, shirt and an open jacket of brown colour holding AK-47 rifle in his  

hand and started shooting towards the police force who were changing  

over duty at American Centre and another person of same age group also  

wearing a pant and shirt as well as a green colour jacket following the  

other boy in a black colour motorcycle and the boy firing at the police force  

while moving also abused the police personnel. PW-6 would say that when  

he tried to counter both of them by pulling his revolver the man who was  

firing with AK-47 aimed at him while firing and therefore, he ducked by the  

side of his Jeep. He also stated that thereafter, the said boy boarded the  

motorcycle run by the other man and fled away towards South in full speed  

while he continued to fire the gun. He further stated that he saw several  

men of the police force in duty before the American Centre were lying  

down bleeding on the footpath on the ground, etc. PW-6 identified the  

person who was driving the motor bike by referring to his photograph  

which was marked as Exhibit-XXVI and the colour photograph which was  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               95 of 195

marked as Exhibit-XXVII. He identified the green colour jacket worn by the  

driver of the motorcycle which was marked as material Exhibit-XXVIII.  

According to PW-6, both the persons who were firing at the police force  

were at a distance of 10-15 feet from the prison van in the North-West  

direction. PW-6 through wireless communicated the said incident on  

22.01.2002 at 6.36 a.m. which was in turn communicated to the jurisdiction  

police station, namely, Shakespeare Sarani Police Station and the  

information which was received at 6.36 a.m. was entered in the G.D.  

bearing No.1889. The summary of the content of the information was  

recorded and the same was treated as the FIR. The statement of PW-6  

was also recorded which form part of the FIR and on 23.01.2002 a further  

statement of PW-6 was also received in the police station wherein PW-6  

mentioned that he forgot to mention about the gun-man who was firing  

from AK-47 rifle was wearing a Green colour jacket and the man on  

motorcycle who was wearing a Brown colour jacket. This is the sum and  

substance of the evidence of PW-6. From the evidence of PW-6, it  

transpires that there was a firing incident at the American Centre towards  

the police force by two miscreants, that one who was wearing a Brown  

colour jacket was firing with AK-47 rifle while the person who was wearing  

a Green colour jacket was closely following him in a Black colour  

motorcycle, that PW-6 identified the photograph of the person who was  

driving the motor bike marked as Exhibit-XXIV. The Green colour jacket  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               96 of 195

worn by him was marked as Exhibit-XXVI-II. Further, having witnessed the  

incident himself and as he was the Sergeant of the wireless section of  

Calcutta police, he immediately conveyed the information through wireless  

to the Control Room of the Calcutta police. PW-6 also identified the motor  

bike which was marked as material Exhibit-XXX.

82. The next witness is PW-9. On the relevant date he was working as  

Inspector attached to Calcutta Armed Police, 9 th Battalion. His name  

is Gopal Chandra Dubey. He in his evidence while confirming the  

version of PW-6 as to what happened in the early morning of  

22.01.2002 he also confirmed that due to the firing by the two  

miscreants, police personnel were got injured, that the person who  

was firing towards the police force with AK-47 rifle was wearing  

Chocolate (Brown) colour jacket while the person who was riding the  

motorcycle was wearing Green colour jacket and that he was also  

firing with 9 mm pistol. PW-9 identified the Green colour jacket worn  

by the rider of the motorcycle as material Exhibit-XXIX and the  

colour photograph of the man who was driving the motor bike as  

material Exhibit-XXVI. He also identified the Chocolate (Brown)  

colour jacket worn by the man who was firing as material Exhibit-

XXVIII.  

83. PW-15 is another eye-witness to the incident who was Constable  

attached to Calcutta Armed Police who was on duty in the night shift  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               97 of 195

of 21.01.2002 before the American Centre and after performing his  

night duty on the early morning of 21.01.2002 while the shifting was  

taking place he confirmed the version of PW-6 and PW-9 and stated  

that the person who was firing with AK-47 rifle was wearing a Brown  

colour jacket and the person who was driving the motor bike was  

wearing Green colour jacket. He also identified the material exhibit  

bike as well as the photograph of the shooter.   

84. PW-16 is one Rana Pratap Sinha another Constable working in  

Armed police who was also on duty at the relevant point of time, i.e.  

on 21.01.2002 who also confirmed the version of PWs-6, 9 and 15.  

According to him, he saw the man wearing Chocolate (Brown) colour  

jacket firing towards the police force with AK-47 rifle and the man  

who was riding the bike was wearing a Green colour jacket. He also  

identified the photo of the person who was firing with AK-47 rifle.  

85. PW-18 Roshan Chhetri stated that another Constable of Armed  

Police who was on the night duty on 21.01.2002 in the wireless van,  

witnesses the man wearing Chocolate (Brown) colour jacket firing  

with AK-47 rifle and before PW-18 could fire at the miscreants,  

bullets shot fired by the miscreants hit him in his ring finger and that  

he fell down. He, however stated that he saw the other miscreants  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               98 of 195

wearing Green colour jacket riding the motor bike. He also identified  

the jacket which was marked.  

86. Identical version was spoken to by the other two eye-witnesses,  

namely, PWs-19 and 20.

87. All the above eye-witnesses uniformly confirmed that of the two  

miscreants the one who was firing towards the police force at 6.30  

a.m. on 21.01.2002 was wearing a Chocolate (Brown) colour jacket  

and the person who was riding the motor bike was wearing a Green  

colour jacket. The evidence of PW-6 is categoric to the effect that  

the shooting operation, at the instance of the miscreants, was from a  

distance of 10 to 15 feet. Therefore, a cumulative consideration of  

the above version of the eye-witnesses confirm the involvement of  

the two miscreants, that the one who was shooting was wearing a  

Chocolate (Brown) colour jacket, that the one who was wearing a  

Green colour jacket was riding the motor bike who was also firing  

with aid of 9 mm pistol, that the occurrence took place on  

22.01.2002 at about 6.30 a.m., that due to the firing incident many of  

the police personnel who were on duty both in the previous shift of  

21-22.01.2002 and the other group of personnel who were changing  

over the duty from the morning of 22.01.2002 were injured severely  

as many of them were found lying on the ground and the empty  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               99 of 195

bullets were scattered all around the place. It was also confirmed  

that the shooting was within a distance of 10 to 15 feet from the  

miscreants and the target of attack.  

88. Having noted the above eye-witness account of the Witnesses  

PW-6, PW-9, PW-15, PW-16, PW-18, PW-19 and PW-20, we can  

proceed to consider the version of the other Witnesses.  

89. Going by seriatum we can refer to PWs-37 and 38. The sum and  

substance of the evidence of PW-37 can be noted as under.  

90. As per the version of PWs-37 and 38 Sanjay Paul and Jayant Kumar  

Bose, both were taking tea at the crossing of Middleton Street and  

Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing in the Punjabi Tea Stall. That  

on 20 th January, 2002 at 6.30 a.m., they saw a Blue colour Maruti  

Car which came in high speed and sudden brake was applied and in  

that process another person who was sipping his tea got it spilled  

over his hand pursuant to which an altercation took place between  

the said man and the driver of the vehicle. They, therefore, noted the  

number of the vehicle as BRK-4907. They also stated that motor  

bike followed the said Maruti Car and the rider of the motorcycle  

joined with the driver of the car in abusing the other person who got  

his tea spilled over. They further stated that on 22.01.2002 they  

noticed a motor bike crossing PW-37 in full speed towards Camac  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               100 of 195

Street. From the evidence of PWs-37 and 38 what all could be  

gathered was that they happened to see the Maruti 800 car bearing  

Registration No.BRK-4907 parked at the crossing of Middleton  

Street and Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing near Punjabi Tea  

Stall.  

91. Keeping the said part of the evidence of PW-37 in mind, the  

evidence of other Witnesses PWs-47 and 62 can be referred to.  

According to PW-47, Dilip Kumar Singh, who is a building promoter  

and who promoted the building at No.1, Tiljala Lane in July 2001  

handed over possession of the flat in the ground floor of the said  

building to one Niaz Hussain who was introduced to him by  

Appellant Nasir, who was also living in the same lane in a different  

building. According to PW-47 on 20.01.2002, he noticed Appellant  

Nasir along with another person went out in the early morning 5.30  

a.m. in the Maruti 800 Car and two other persons who were also  

staying in No.1, Tiljala Lane followed the said Maruti Car in a motor  

bike. It is, however, elicited in cross-examination that he was in the  

custody of the police between 30.01.2002 and 07.02.2002 in  

connection with the dacoity case which was disposed on  

07.02.2002. The other part of his evidence related to the sale  

effectuated by him in favour of one Niaz Hussain, absconding  

accused, the ground floor flat in No.1, Tiljala Lane for a sale  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               101 of 195

consideration of Rs.2,66,000/- and that possession was handed over  

to Niaz Hussain and the same date when the document was  

executed, namely, 11.07.2001. Since the execution of the document  

for flat No.1, Tiljala Lane was born out by Exhibit P-4 which was also  

witnessed by the owner of the land who was also examined as  

PW-48 apart from the exhibit having been marked, to that extent, the  

evidence of PW-47 can be accepted. PW-48 is one Benod Kumar  

Roy who is also resident of No.1, Tiljala Lane living in the first floor.  

He witnessed the sale document to Niaz Hussain. In his evidence he  

confirmed the seizure of Pakistan National Flag from the ground  

floor flat occupied by Niaz Hussain at No.46, Tiljala Lane on  

5.2.2002.  

92. The other relevant witness is PW-62. PW-62 is one Shahid Iqbal.  

According to him, on 22.01.2002 at 6. a.m., he went to Beniapukur  

Lane to purchase milk and at that time his friend one Gilbert Gomes  

was also present, (not examined) as a witness as he was not  

keeping good health. PW-62 deposed that while he was in front of  

the shop of one Ashok Nandi at Beniapokur Lane he saw a Maruti  

Car parked in front of the shop of Nandi, that a Lorry got struck in  

the said road due to the haphazard parking of the Maruti Car,  

therefore, out of curiosity he noticed the number of the vehicle which  

was BRK-4907. He would say that to clear the traffic jam he asked  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               102 of 195

the car driver to set right the parking of his vehicle, that with some  

hesitation the driver corrected the parking and that a little later he  

saw a Black colour motor bike which came there from which one  

gentleman was the pillion rider got down telling the driver of Maruti  

Car ‘KAAM HO GAYA’ and that the said person holding a cricket bat  

bag on his shoulder, which contains some material inside. PW-62  

also noted the number of the motor bike which he later identified in  

the Court at the time of his examination. According to PW-62, on  

that day, in the forenoon when news spread about the firing which  

had taken place at the American Centre, he felt that the occupants  

of Maruti Car and the Black motor bike might be involved in the  

occurrence and since he knew one PW 101 Police Inspector of  

Lalbazar by name Shaleh Babu, he along with his friend Gilbert  

Gomes approached him and informed as to what they witnessed in  

the morning. He further stated that as per his direction, he gave his  

statement to the officer of the Special Investigation Team. There  

was a Test Identification Parade in which PW-62 identified Appellant  

Nasir. He also identified the photo of the motor bike rider which was  

marked as Exhibit-XXVI.  

93. Though, extensive cross-examination of PW-62 was made and  

learned counsel for the Appellant tried to prick-holes in his evidence,  

we are convinced that the version of PW-62 being an independent  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               103 of 195

witness and having been able to pass on the information whatever  

he noticed in the morning on the very same day in the forenoon to  

one of his known police officer, namely, Mr. Shaleh Babu, Inspector  

of Lalbazar, there is no reason why his version should not be  

accepted in the absence of any other serious deficiency pointed out  

either as interested witness or a stock witness or any other  

deficiency on his part. As far as the non-examination of his friend  

Gilbert Gomes was concerned, it was established before the Court  

that at the time of trial, the said person was seriously ill and the  

necessary medical records were also produced in support of the  

said stand. Therefore, non-examination of friend of PW-62 also does  

not cause any dent in his version.  

94. The next witness is PW-39. PW-39, Ali Reza Khan, is the younger  

brother of the deceased Asif. The evidence of PW-39 is to the effect  

that Appellant Nasir was the childhood friend of Asif, that Asif after  

his schooling and graduation went to Aligarh Muslim University to  

study Journalism, that he joined the Student Islamic Organisation  

and that in 1993-94 he was arrested in a TADA case. PW-39 while  

revealing the names of the friends of Asif referred to Abdullah who is  

one of the absconding accused. He also referred to Dr. Mushtaq  

Ahmed, a Kashmiri, who once came and stayed in their house along  

with Asif. According to PW-39, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed was also a co- CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               104 of 195

accused with Asif which he noticed when he visited Tees Hazari  

Court. PW-39 also referred to Appellant Aftab who was introduced to  

him by his brother Asif at Delhi. In one place PW-39 mentioned that  

when Abdullah came to their residence after 1999 his mother was  

seriously perturbed and scolded him and also showed him a broom  

stick and thereafter, none of the friends of Asif visited their house.  

The further evidence of PW-39 was that Asif was involved in the  

kidnap of Khadim and that he was taken into custody and kept at  

Calcutta Bhawani Bhawan. He also referred to the killing of Asif in  

December, 2001 at Rajkot in a fake encounter. Though, PW-39  

referred to the visit of police officers to their house on 2 nd April 2002  

he denied any search conducted in the house. At that stage at the  

request of Public Prosecutor he was treated as a hostile witness and  

the Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine him. In the  

cross-examination though PW-39 admitted his signatures in  

Exhibits-44/1, 45/1, 46/1, 46/2, 46/3 and 46/4, he took the stand that  

he put his signature out of compulsion. In the cross-examination  

PW-39, however, stated that he did inform police that Asif went to  

Kashmir and became Jehadi. He further elaborated by saying that  

he came to know that Asif went to Kashmir met one Mr. Salahuddin  

leader of Hijbul MuZahiddin and Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed another leader  

and discussed about the terrorism to be continued in India. PW-39  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               105 of 195

confirmed that he informed the police that Asif developed an  

impression that the Government of India was not taking proper care  

of Muslims and for that they wanted to teach a lesson to the Indian  

Government with the help of militant groups of Kashmir. He also  

confirmed that Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed who earlier visited their house  

was the very same person whom he referred as Dr. Mushtaq  

Ahmed. He also deposed that he did inform police that Dr. Mushtaq  

Ahmed stayed in their residence in the room of Asif and held close  

door meeting though he did not state that such discussion pertain to  

Jehad against India. It is also the evidence of PW-39 that he was  

made to believe that Aftab was a root cause for all the evil caused to  

his elder brother from the date of his arrest till his death and that  

PW-39 developed hatred for Aftab. Though, PW-39 turned hostile  

towards the end of his chief examination, almost at the point of  

conclusion of his evidence, he made a statement that whatever  

statement he gave to police was to some extent true and voluntary  

and to some extent under pressure. He also stated that the mental  

state of Asif and his disillusionment against the Government of India  

was gathered by him from the Chargesheet filed against Asif in the  

TADA case. PW-39 in the course of his chief-examination identified  

both Nasir and Aftab in Court though, at the end of his deposition, he  

stated that he identified both of them under the pressure of the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               106 of 195

police. From the version of PW-39 which even according to his own  

version contain half-truth and half of it was voluntary. From the  

manner in which he deposed before the Court, it can be safely  

stated that whatever he stated about Asif’s contact with Appellant  

Nasir and Aftab and also Asif’s deep involvement in Jehadi  

movement with the support of one Mr. Salahuddin, a leader of Hizbul  

MuZahiddin as well as another leader by name Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed,  

a Kashmiri, with whom he used to discuss about the militant  

activities and the hatred towards the Government of India were all  

spontaneous statements. In fact, his version that he gained a feeling  

that the fate of Asif ended in a tragic manner because of his  

association with Appellant Aftab, whom according to him was the  

root cause for the untimely demise of his elder brother. To that  

extent, the evidence of PW-39 can be noted.  

95. We also refer to the evidence of PW-46 who was one of the detenue  

along with the deceased Asif in the Tihar Jail and according to  

PW-46 he had witnessed the close contact of Asif with Aftab.

96. The next witness is PW-83, who is the postmortem doctor, who did  

the postmortem on four of the dead bodies of the policemen who  

were killed in the occurrence on 22.01.2002 at about 6.30 a.m. at  

the American Centre. After giving a detailed narration of the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               107 of 195

outcome of the postmortem conducted by him on the various bodies,  

PW-83 stated as under:

“Considering the different wounds of entry on all four dead  bodies and keeping in mind to distance of firing it appears to  me that the bullets were ejected from a high velocity self- loading automatic weapon. The injuries present on all the four  dead bodies, particularly the extent injuries caused on the vital  organs of the persons were sufficient to cause death in  ordinary course.”

97. Therefore, the said part of the evidence of PW-83 makes it clear that  

the shooting indulged in by two miscreants was from a very  

sophisticated automatic weapon, namely, AK-47 and it had resulted  

in the instantaneous death of the police personnel. To be fair to the  

said witness, it must be stated that in the course of his cross-

examination he stated that his opinion to the effect that the bullets  

were ejected from high velocity self-loading automatic weapon was  

not mentioned in any of his postmortem reports.  

98. The next witness is PW-95. PW-95 is one Dr. Ardendu Sengupta,  

who held the post of Senior Scientific Officer, Ballistic Division,  

Forensic Science Laboratory,  Government  of  West Bengal.  

According to him, he visited the site of occurrence, namely, the  

American Centre on 22.01.2002 and after extensive search of  

number of physical evidence of violence of various nature in different  

spots of that place, the recoveries of blood, small bone fragments,  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               108 of 195

fresh mark of violence, scattered presence of rifle bullets and bullet  

parts, steel core jackets, blood stains marks in various places, holes  

found in different places of the fans, building, walls, trees, etc., dents  

found in the pavements, the back rest of chairs, reception entrance,  

front wall, side wall, main gate, grill, the bullet jackets, steel course  

stated that such holes and size of the dents and other damages,  

indicated that they were all caused by gun shot and the distribution  

of this holes, dents and damages suggested that automatic or semi-

automatic type of firearm was involved in the crime, that the nature  

of portions of bullets recovered in the place of occurrence indicated  

that rimless ammunition of caliber 7.62 x 39 mm were used in the  

crime. He further stated that the directions of the holes and dents  

suggested that the projections were directed from the Western side  

excepting those on the police post when which appeared to have  

been caused by projectiles fired from its back. PW-83 also identified  

his signature in his report marked Exhibits-190 and 190/1. The  

version of PWs-83 and 95 therefore, confirms the force with which  

the shooting activity was indulged in by the two miscreants towards  

the police force on the early hours of 22.01.2002 at the American  

Centre.

99. PW-100 is one Kumar Upendra Narayan was attached to  

Shakespeare Sarani Police Station on 21.01.2002 as its A.S.I. and  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               109 of 195

according to him on 22.01.2002 he received an information at about  

6.36 a.m. from O.C. control reporting a firing before 38A, Jawaharlal  

Road, that he informed the O.C. to the duty officer and other officers  

of Thana, that he entered a G.D. entry to that effect at about 6.36  

a.m. vide a G.D. No.1889 dated 22.01.2002. The said record was  

marked as Exhibit-215 and his signature as Exhibit-215/1. The said  

evidence of PW-100 shows that immediately after the occurrence  

the information was communicated to the police station and  

necessary entries were made in the G.D. and thereby, provide no  

scope for any delay being involved in registering the crime.

100. The next witness is PW-113. His name is Kaushalya Nand  

Chowdhury. On 28.01.2002 he was posted as O.C. Sadar Police  

Station, Hazaribagh. He led one of the teams to ambush some  

terrorist who were staying in Hazaribagh on 27-28.01.2002. He  

further narrated about the manner in which the ambush of the  

premises at Hazaribagh was made between 2.30 a.m. and 6.45 a.m.  

For the present, we can make reference to his evidence in so far as  

it related to apprehension of Zahid and Salim in the course of the  

encounter of the premises at Hazaribagh. He stated that at 6.45 a.m.  

they saw two of the persons escaping from the side door and were  

also shooting against the police which was retaliated by the police.  

He further stated that they were able to apprehend two whose name  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               110 of 195

was Zahid and Salim. PW-113 stated that when they were carrying  

the injured man to the hospital he disclosed his name as Zahid and  

also revealed that he was a resident of Pakistan and that he was  

involved in the shooting incident that took place on 22.01.2002.  

According to PW-113, Zahid further informed him that in the said  

shooting incident his companion was one Sadakat and that the said  

Sadakat was driving the motor bike and himself, i.e. Zahid was the  

pillion rider of the motor bike and was firing from AK-47. PW-113  

further stated that the other injured persons name was Salim and he  

is also a man of Laskar-e-Taiba and a resident of Pakistan. PW-113  

confirmed that while taking to the hospital Zahid died on the way  

while the other injured was admitted as impatient in the hospital who  

also later died and that the said person did not make any statement.  

Since PW-113 being a police officer and if his claim that Zahid’s  

statement should be construed as a dying declaration, it should  

satisfy the rigorous tests of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, we feel  

that it will be highly risky to rely on the said part of his version of  

PW-113. It must be noted that except the ipsi dixit of PW-113 as  

regards the so-called dying declaration of Zahid there was no other  

supporting material in that respect. It should also be kept in mind  

that PW-113 was not the only person who was accompanied Zahid  

in the vehicle, in fact, while Zahid was stated to have died before  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               111 of 195

reaching the hospital the co-accused Salim was very much alive and  

was admitted in the hospital who stated to have died much later. We  

can understand if there had been any statement recorded from the  

said person to support the version of PW-113. Therefore, to the  

extent it related to the so-called dying declaration claimed to have  

made before PW-113 by Zahid is concerned we are not inclined to  

accept his evidence relating to that aspect. Though, as regards the  

recovery of arms and ammunition said to have been made by  

PW-113 in the premises at Hazaribagh at a later point of time can be  

accepted, inasmuch as, the same was born out by other records and  

the Witnesses who subscribed to the seizure of those materials.

101. We are, however, very much conscious of the fact that the  

encounter and the nabbing of the Zahid, Salim and the seizure of  

large quantity of arms and ammunition at Hazaribagh definitely gave  

a clue for the investigating machinery of the American Centre case  

to track the miscreants involved in the offence. It must be stated that  

the inability to rely upon the so-called oral dying declaration for want  

of legal sanction cannot be taken to mean that the entirety of the  

evidence of PW-113 can be eschewed from consideration. We are  

not prepared to accept the claim of oral dying declaration of Zahid to  

PW-113, inasmuch as, if it were to be accepted, it should fall within  

the four corners of the prescription contained in Section 32 of the  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               112 of 195

Evidence Act or otherwise it will create a bad precedent. We,  

therefore, do not propose to rely on the said part of the version of  

PW-113 and proceed to find out as to how the case of the  

Prosecution, as against the Appellants, was proved and whether  

they succeeded in their attempt.

102. Only other witness who is to be referred is the Investigating Officer,  

namely, PW-123-Anil Kar. He was the Inspector of Police attached  

to the Detective Department as Officer In-charge to Homicide  

Squad, Lalbazar. He was entrusted with the task of investigation of  

the case relating to the shooting incident in front of the American  

Centre. In fact, his deposition discloses that he was nominated as  

Chief Investigating Officer to investigate the said case. According to  

him, on 22.02.2002 at about 7.35 a.m., when he received a  

telephone information from the DCDD about the shoot out took place  

at the American Centre he immediately reached that spot by 8.15  

a.m. and started the investigation process. He was supported by a  

team of officials with whom he commenced the operation. He  

explained as to how he was gathering the details from 22.01.2002  

onwards on day to day basis. According to him, he gathered  

information on 28.01.2002 that the terrorist who were apprehended  

in the Hazaribagh encounter may have some link with the case  

relating to the American Centre and based on the information  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               113 of 195

gathered, he searched for the Appellant Nasir and that he also  

visited his house at No. 46, Tiljala Road, along with his team and  

ultimately he could nab Nasir on the evening of 29.01.2002 at No.13,  

Dargah Road which is the house of Nasir’s in-laws. After arresting  

Jamilludin Nasir, PW-123 based on the interrogation was able to  

unearth the concealment of the Maruti Car and Motorcycle at No. 1,  

Tiljala Lane, apart from certain other recoveries at the residence of  

Nasir himself. The evidence of PW-123, the investigation officer,  

disclose the collection of  material  evidence through the  

apprehended accused and from whom the recoveries made based  

on the admissible portion of the statement of Appellant Nasir and  

Appellant Aftab, such as, the Maruti Car, the  Motorcycle, the e-mail  

particulars, the driving licences of the Appellant Nasir, Asif,  

Abdullah, Sadakat, Zahid, National Flag of Pakistan, sketch map,  

some letters, certificates, railway tickets, air tickets from Jaipur to  

Calcutta, one pistol 7.62 bore ammunition, 12 printed pages of e-

mails by entering the mail box of the I.D.s, specimen handwriting  

and signature of Appellant Nasir, recorded confessional statement of  

Nasir as well Shakir Akhtar, the arrest of accused Musharraf  

Hussain @ Bobby and the deed of agreement pertaining to No. 1,  

Tiljala Lane flat, arrest of Appellant Aftab, and the recoveries made  

from the admissible portion of the statement of Aftab at the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               114 of 195

residence of the deceased Asif, namely, a diary and a letter written  

in Hindi by Aftab to the wife of Asif expressing his deep anguish and  

the plan to take revenge from the police.  The holding of Test  

Identification Parade for Appellants Nasir and Aftab, as well as the  

photograph of the deceased Zahid and Salim, obtaining of sanction  

from Prosecution under Sections 121 and 121A IPC from the  

authorities, preparation of the Chargesheet dated 26.02.2002  

against 15 accused wherein 5 absconding accused detained were  

also disclosed the collection of different reports from the experts  

such as FSL, handwriting expert and the opinion of the Public  

Prosecutor, as well as the Serological Report received from the  

experts and based on the above evidence gathered in the course of  

investigation, he submitted the Chargesheet as against 15 accused  

mentioning that accused 10 to 15 were absconding accused.  

103. In the evidence of PW-123, the most significant aspect related to his  

requisition for recording the confession of Appellant Nasir, another  

accused Shakir Akhtar and the seizure of vital documents at the  

residence of Asif at the instance of Appellant Aftab. On behalf of the  

Appellant serious arguments were made contending that the  

confession of Appellant Nasir was not recorded in accordance with  

the prescription contained under Section 164 of Cr. P.C. as stating  

that he could not have been voluntary as he was in police custody.  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               115 of 195

While specifically dealing with the confession of Appellant Nasir we  

have extensively dealt with the said issue and, therefore, we do not  

propose to deal with the same again. We have found that the said  

submission on behalf of the Appellant has no substance. Similarly,  

the recoveries made at the instance of Appellant Aftab at the  

residence of Asif with reference to that also we have dealt with in  

detail and reached a conclusion that the same was done in  

accordance with law and, therefore, there is no infirmity on that  

score. In other respects there was not much of controversy relating  

to evidence of PW-123. Therefore, the Final Report filed by PW-123,  

as against the accused, formulating the charges based on the  

evidence collected by the investigation machinery was duly  

considered by the trial Court as well as the High Court.

104. Having dealt with the oral evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses, it  

will also be necessary to refer to other documentary evidence which  

are relevant in connection with the charge laid against the accused  

and as found proved by the Judgments impugned in these appeals.  

The vital documents pertaining to the conspiracy and the documents  

and material  objects pertaining to the occurrence can be  

independently set out, in order to appreciate the respective  

submissions and for reaching our own conclusion.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               116 of 195

105. As far as the conspiracy is concerned, it can be referred to those  

materials which existed or came into being as between the date  

Appellant Nasir had came in contact with Asif in the year 1999 till the  

death of Asif and the materials which came into being after his  

demise. While dealing with the said materials, the attendant events  

can also be noted as has been discussed in detail in the earlier part  

of the Judgment after the contact of Appellant Nasir with Asif in  

school days. Both the statements of Nasir as well as PW-39  

disclosed that they met again in the year 1999 after Asif was  

released from Tihar Jail. Thereafter, Appellant Nasir was persuaded  

by Asif to assist him in his future endeavours which according to Asif  

was starting of construction of buildings and later some leather  

business for which he wanted Appellant Nasir to fetch a premises for  

accused Niaz Hussain who is absconding. De-hors, the confession  

of Appellant Nasir the arrangement of securing a ground floor flat at  

No.1, Tiljala Lane for Niaz Hussain was born out by the sale  

agreement dated 11.07.2001 which was witnessed by PWs-37 and  

48. PW-37 is the promoter of the said building while PW-48 was one  

of the Witnesses along with Appellant Nasir to the document.  

Therefore, after the reunion of Appellant Nasir with Asif in 1999, the  

significant event which took place was securing of the ground floor  

flat No.1, Tiljala Lane for carrying on the so-called business  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               117 of 195

operation of Asif along with Niaz Hussain and his brother Fiaz  

Hussain for doing some leather business. But it transpired that as a  

matter of fact no such leather business was carried on. On the other  

hand it came to light through PW-39 that there were frequent  

meetings of Asif with number of his other friends of whom his  

meeting with Salahuddin, a leader of Hijbul Muzahiddin and another  

Kashmiri by name Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed were significant apart from  

meeting one Abdullah.  According to PW-39 when Abdullah came to  

meet Asif at the residence of Asif, the same was not liked by his  

mother who showed a broom stick to Abdullah and whereafter none  

of Asif’s friends gathered at his residence.  Therefore, the premises  

of No.1, Tiljala Lane was the meeting point for his gang. While that  

be so, at the instance of Asif, Appellant Nasir went to Banaras where  

Asif introduced his close friend Appellant Aftab. Thereafter, e-mail  

accounts were opened for Nasir, the details of which were gathered  

by the Prosecution and placed before the Court in the form of  

Exhibit-105. Various messages transmitted through e-mail were also  

gathered from the different e-mail centres such cyber café, cyber  

centre etc., the Air Travel undertaken by Appellant Nasir from Jaipur  

to Calcutta under the alias name of Bobby was also gathered  

through the Airport Authorities which were all marked. The diary,  

driving licence, National Flag of Pakistan, a revolver, a rough sketch  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               118 of 195

showing the location of American Centre drawn by Appellant Nasir  

were all certain other vital documents which were marked before the  

trial Court.  

106. That apart, at the instance of Aftab a diary maintained by deceased  

Asif where the accounts of expenses were all noted and a letter  

written by Aftab himself to the wife of Asif were also recovered from  

the residence of Asif. Further, after the encounter incident of Khan  

Road Khirgaon, Hazaribagh which led to the nabbing of deceased  

Zahid and Salim, a large quantity of arms and ammunitions were  

also recovered from that place, as spoken to by PW-113. The above  

materials were considered both by the trial Court as well as by the  

High Court. We find from those documents and the oral evidence  

gathered by the Prosecution particularly that of PWs-37, 38, 39 and  

48 read along with the e-mail messages disclose that after Asif  

came in contact with Aftab in Tihar Jail, there was a serious  

development in the mind set of Asif which was revealed on several  

occasions in the meetings held at his residence with Mr. Salahuddin,  

leader of Hijbul Muzahiddin, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed and Abdullah  

wherein the deep rooted anguish of Asif that the Government of  

India did not meet the requirements of Muslims in this country and,  

therefore, they should teach a lesson to the State. This anguish  

expressed did not seem to be sporadic one but the evidence of  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               119 of 195

PW-39 and the e-mail messages confirmed that having regard to the  

association of Asif with the leaders of Hizbul MuZahiddin and  

another Kashmiri Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed as well as Appellant Aftab,  

persuaded Asif and his associates to gather arms an ammunition for  

insurrection an against the State.

107. Having dealt with the conspiracy aspect of the Appellants it will be  

worthwhile to refer to the principles applicable to conspiracy as has  

been laid down by this Court in various decisions. It will be suffice if  

we refer to the decision of this Court reported in Yakub Abdul  

Razak Mamon vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI,  

Bombay - JT 2013 (5) SC 142. Part of paragraphs 62 and 65 will be  

relevant for our purpose, which are as under:

“62. An important facet of the Law of Conspiracy is that apart  from it being a distinct offence, all conspirators are liable for  the acts of each other of the crime or crimes which have been  committed as a result of the conspiracy. This principle has  been recognized right from the early Judgment in Regina v.  Murphy (1873) 173 ER 502……..”  65. Since conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, to bring home the  charge of conspiracy, it is relevant to decide conclusively the  object behind it from the charges levelled against the accused  and the facts of the case. The object behind it is the ultimate  aim of the conspiracy. Further, many means might have been  adopted to achieve this ultimate object. The means may even  constitute different offences by themselves, but as long as  they are adopted to achieve the ultimate object of the  conspiracy, they are acts of conspiracy.”  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               120 of 195

108. Having applied the abovesaid principles to the case on hand, it must  

be stated that though the conspiracy in this case was hatched in  

secrecy having regard to the various circumstances exhibited in the  

form of oral and documentary evidence supported by the confession  

of Appellant Nasir, we find the existence of the conspiracy, the  

object of the conspiracy and the knowledge on the above for the  

participants of the conspiracy were all fully established. The  

outcome of the said conspiracy, therefore, attracted the charge  

under Sections 121, 121A and 122 IPC read along with 120B.

109. In this context, we also wish to refer and rely upon the decision  

reported in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Jaspal Singh - (2003) 10  

SCC 586 when the law on this provision has been succinctly stated.  

Paragraph 10 along with the extract of the Judgment reported in  

Baburao Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra - (1971) 3  

SCC 432 at page 433, can be usefully referred to.  

“10. So far as the charge under Section 120-B IPC is  concerned, it stands proved by showing that two or more  persons have agreed to do or cause to do an illegal act or an  act which is not illegal by illegal means and that some overt  act was done by one of the accused in pursuance of the  same. Where their common object or design is itself to do an  unlawful act, the specification of such act itself which formed  their common design would suffice and it would even be  unnecessary or superfluous to further substantiate the means  adopted by all or any of them to achieve such object. All the  more so, when their common object or design appears to be  to commit a series of such serious crimes and proof of any  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               121 of 195

overt act in such cases also is a mere surplusage and that  mere proof that they or some of them were concerned in the  overt acts alleged would, per se, go a long way to establish  that there existed such agreement among them. It is well  known and as observed by this Court in Baburao Bajirao Patil  v. State of Maharashtra: (SCC p. 433, para 3)

[I]ndeed it is seldom — if ever — that direct evidence of  conspiracies can be forthcoming. Conspiracy of the  present type from its very nature must be conceived and  hatched in complete secrecy, for otherwise the whole  purpose would fail.”

110. The recovery of large quantities of arms and ammunition from the  

premises at Khan Road, Khirgaon, Hazaribagh, a revolver recovered  

from Appellant Nasir, the contents of the e-mail messages and the  

letter of Aftab to the wife of Asif after the killing of Asif read along  

with some of the vital statements made by PW-39 in his evidence to  

the effect that the untimely death of Asif and his involvement in this  

antinational activities were all after his contact with Aftab when  

cumulatively considered, it is revealed that every preparation was  

made during the lifetime of Asif which got intensified after his demise  

on 08.12.2001 in the encounter at Rajkot which was masterminded  

by Appellant Aftab with the wholehearted support of Appellant Nasir  

by arranging for the stay of the other accused by securing a  

premises at Khan Road, Kirgaon, Hazaribagh by bringing those  

gang members, namely, deceased Zahid, deceased Salim, Hassan  

Imam, Sadakat from Agra to Hazaribagh with their heavy luggage  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               122 of 195

which ultimately transpired to be arms and ammunitions stored in  

the premises of Hazaribagh.  

111. From 14.01.2002 the various e-mail messages transacted between  

Appellant Nasir with Appellant Aftab and other conspirators which  

took place up to 29.01.2002 revealed the loaded mind set with which  

each one of them were operating for executing the plans which were  

originally developed by the deceased Asif and Aftab which were  

ultimately implemented with much more vehemence and vengeance  

by resorting to shooting spree towards the police force who were  

posted at the American Centre. In fact, the messages between  

14.01.2002 and 21.01.2002 exchanged between Appellant Nasir,  

Zahid and Aftab disclose the mind set with which the gang members  

hatched the conspiracy to operate and to carry out their mission of  

attacking the police force posted at the American Centre. Having  

regard to the above overwhelming documentary evidence which was  

placed before the Courts below it will have to be held that the  

conclusion ultimately reached by the Courts below based on the  

above materials coupled with the oral evidence sufficiently establish  

that the Appellants along with the other accused conspired for  

waging a war against the State.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               123 of 195

112. Question No. 3:   Whether the confession of Appellant Nasir was  

recorded in accordance with Section 164 of Cr.P.C.?

As far as the said question is concerned, we have dealt with the  

same in detail in the earlier part of our Judgment and have found that  

PW-97-Magistrate, who recorded the confession of Appellant Nasir,  

applied all precautions required under law before the confession of  

Appellant Nasir was recorded. We have also found that the submission  

made on behalf of the Appellant Nasir that at the date of recording of  

confession he was in police custody was proved to be not correct and that  

as per the direction of PW-97 himself on 21.02.2002 he was sent to the  

Presidency Correctional Home of Calcutta with a specific direction to keep  

him in segregation so that he was not mingled with other accused or  

strangers before he was produced on 22.02.2002 at 1 p.m. In fact, we  

have noted that Appellant Nasir’s answers to questions 1 to 18 recorded in  

the confession itself, as well as, the last part of the confessional statement  

amply disclose that Appellant Nasir was conscious of the implications of  

making a confession and in spite of that he proceeded to make the  

confession before PW-97. Further, we have found that at the time of  

recording of the confession PW-97 ensured that such recording took place  

in his chambers and that except himself and Appellant Nasir nobody else  

was present in the chamber much less any of the police personnel.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               124 of 195

Therefore, there was no scope for the Appellant now to contend that the  

confession was not recorded in accordance with law.  

113. Before answering this question, we wish to refer to some of the  

decisions relied upon by Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan in support of her  

submissions.  Reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court  

reported in Navjot Sandhu (Supra) in particular paragraphs 38 to  

40 and 306 and 315. In paragraphs 38 to 40 and paragraph 304 it  

was held that a confession statement cannot be straightaway relied  

upon and the proper way to approach is to marshal the evidence  

against the accused excluding the confession and the Court may  

take into consideration the confession if the other evidence disclose  

the offence alleged against the accused. We have dealt with in detail  

the confession of Appellant Nasir, the procedure followed by PW-97  

while recording the confession apart from finding out the truthfulness  

of the statement contained in the confession, as well as, various  

other evidence led by the Prosecution which also supported to a  

very large extent the statement made by Nasir in his confession.  

Even in paragraph 304 of the said decision the truthfulness of the  

confession in that case was not accepted whereas in the case on  

hand we have found that the confession is fully acceptable and the  

details contained in the confession were all true.  We have also dealt  

with the retraction alleged to have been made by Appellant Nasir in  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               125 of 195

the course of 313 questioning and found that the same does not in  

any way cause any hindrance in accepting the confession. We,  

therefore, do not find any support for the Appellant in the reliance  

placed upon the said decision.

114. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Bodhraj @  

Bodha (supra). Paragraph 16 was referred to, where the principles  

to be followed in analyzing a case dependant upon circumstantial  

evidence were noted from an earlier decision of this Court in  

Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another vs. State of  

Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1952 SC 343. We do not wish to refer to  

the said decision in detail, inasmuch as, we find that in the case on  

hand it is not merely dependant upon circumstantial evidence alone.  

We have referred to the eye-witness’  account which fully  

corroborated the confession apart from other circumstances relied  

upon by the Prosecution. We, therefore, do not find any scope to  

apply the said decision to the facts of this case.

115. As far as the decision reported in Haricharan Kurmi (supra), the  

said decision is on the implication of Section 30 of the Evidence Act  

as regards applying the confession of an accused as against the  

offence alleged against the co-accused.  We have dealt with the said  

legal aspect extensively before considering the contents of the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               126 of 195

confession made by Appellant Nasir for its applicability as against  

the co-accused Appellant Aftab. We have also applied the principles  

set down in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision while holding  

that in the case on hand, we are fully fortified in applying the  

confession made by Appellant Nasir as against Appellant Aftab  

based on the independent evidence which is available in abundance  

as against Appellant Aftab which sufficiently supported the case of  

the Prosecution. Therefore, the confession of Appellant Nasir could  

also be used while finding Appellant Aftab guilty of the charges  

levelled against him.

116. The decision reported in Mohd. Khalid (supra) was relied upon for  

the very same purpose for which Haricharan Kurmi (supra) was  

referred to. Therefore, we do not find any necessity to deal with the  

said decision in detail.

117. Reliance was placed upon a recent decision of this Court reported in  

Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh (supra). After referring to  

paragraphs 41 to 50 the learned counsel for the Appellant took us  

through the principles laid down in paragraph 64 and submitted that  

paragraph 64(iii), (v), (viii) and (ix) gets attracted to the case on  

hand. Applying the principles stated in the said sub-paragraphs, we  

do not find any scope to reject the confession of Appellant Nasir. We  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               127 of 195

have found that every one of the principles laid down therein has  

been sufficiently taken care of by the learned Magistrate/PW-97  

while recording the confession of Appellant Nasir. By applying the  

twin test, namely, the voluntariness in making the confession and its  

truthfulness, we are convinced that the reference to the said  

paragraph 64 and sub-paragraphs (iii), (v), (viii) and (ix) does not in  

any way affect the case of the Prosecution. As far as identification of  

the Appellants, as well as, the photographs of deceased Zahid and  

Salim and the other material objects, such as, Maruti 800 car,  

Suzuki Motorbike, the Chocolate and Green colour jackets worn by  

the assailants, we find that there was no lacunae in the evidence of  

those Witnesses who identified the accused as well as the material  

objects. We find that it has been made clear that identification of  

accused persons by Witnesses in the dock for the first time, though  

permissible cannot be given credence without further corroborative  

evidence. What has been stated is that the dock identification alone  

cannot be treated as substantial evidence though it is permissible. In  

the case on hand, the PW-62 who was not known to the accused  

was able to identify Appellant Nasir in a TIP Parade which was  

conducted in the Month of March, 2002, i.e. within a period of about  

2½ months after the incident. Therefore, when the said witness was  

able to identify Appellant Nasir there is no scope to doubt such  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               128 of 195

identification. Further, the identification of the photograph of the  

assailant Zahid and the jacket worn by him as identified by PW-62  

as well as the other eye-witnesses cannot be rejected, as no serious  

deficiency in their identification could be noted by us in this case.  

Therefore, the said decision also does not support the case of the  

Appellants. It is to be remembered that identity of Appellants Nasir  

and Aftab was made by PW-39, brother of Asif, whose identification  

was not questionable on any account.

118. Even the so-called retraction was not by way of a specific pleading  

made on behalf of Appellant Nasir. It was sought to be demonstrated  

that in the Section 313 Cr.P.C questioning, Appellant Nasir denied to  

have made any confession in the presence of PW-97 and, therefore,  

that would amount to a retraction. In fact, while referring to those  

questions and the answers made by Appellant Nasir, we have  

recorded our finding and that the same did not in any way affect the  

genuineness of the confession made by Appellant Nasir. Further, the  

manner in which the confessional statement was made starting from  

the days when Appellant Nasir developed his friendship with  

deceased Asif in the school days, their subsequent reunion in the  

year 1999 and the ultimate execution of the horrendous attack on  

the police force at the American Centre in which as many as five  

police personnel died and 13 number of police personnel suffered  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               129 of 195

gun shot injuries along with civilians, which narration could not have  

been prepared by the Prosecution agency with so many details  

pertaining to men and material and the sequence with which it was  

disclosed. The narration so made in the confession by Appellant  

Nasir was natural and cogent and, therefore, that also establish that  

the confession of Appellant Nasir was not only recorded in  

accordance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. but deserves to be given due  

consideration while appreciating the evidence relied upon by the  

Prosecution. We, therefore, hold that the confession of Appellant  

Nasir was recorded in accordance with Section 164 Cr.P.C.  

119. Question No. 4:   As to what extent the contents of the confession  

can be used by the Prosecution? While dealing with the said  

question we feel that Question No. 5 can also be simultaneously  

dealt with, namely, whether there was any contradiction in the  

evidence both oral as well as documentary vis-à-vis the confession  

made by the Appellant Nasir?  

We find that the above two questions are interrelated and, therefore,  

a combined consideration can be made. As has been stated by us earlier,  

the confession of Appellant Nasir having been recorded in accordance with  

law and since it contains facts and figures disclosing reflection of what  

really transpired in relation to the transaction indulged by the Appellant,  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               130 of 195

namely, the crimes in which they were involved as a gang by conspiring  

together with the evil mindset guided by the foreign nationals, namely,  

deceased Zahid and Salim who were all Pakistanis along with some  

terrorist organisation namely, Salahuddin, leader of Hizbul MuZahideen  

and  Kashmiri militant by name Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad and one Abdullah.   It  

is imperative that we must find out as to the extent to which the contents of  

the confession could be used by the Prosecution and whether such  

confession is corroborated by other materials in order to state that there  

was no contradiction in the evidence both oral as well as documentary  

when compared with the confession made by Appellant Nasir.   

120. When we examine the said aspect, we find that the following were  

the relevant details which can be culled out from the confession of  

Appellant Nasir.  

i) Nasir met Asif after his school days in the year 1999 when  

Asif was released from Tihar Jail.  Before his meeting Nasir used to  

work in leather import-export company as a helper/checker getting a  

salary of Rs.700/- per month. Asif offered him a monthly  

remuneration of Rs.2000/- per month for his continued assistance.  

ii) Asif revealed about his close friendship with Appellant  

Aftab who was residing at Banaras. The confession of Appellant  

Nasir as well as Shakir Akhtar confirms the same.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               131 of 195

iii) In January, 2001 Niaz Hussain was introduced by Asif to  

Appellant Nasir and asked Appellant Nasir to look for a flat of 600 to  

800 square feet in ground floor in No. 1, Tiljala Lane.  Nasir who was  

also residing at No. 46, Tiljala Lane arranged for a ground floor flat  

at No.1, Tiljala Lane for a consideration of Rs.2,66,000/- which was  

duly executed by the owners of No.1, Tiljala Lane, with the help of  

the promoter PW-47 Dilip Singh in July, 2001 when the flat was  

handed over to Niaz Hussain under Exhibit 63 dated 11.07.2001.

iv) Asif while meeting with other members including Appellant  

Nasir suggested that they should kidnap big businessmen in various  

cities to make money and so that they would be able to collect  

required arms and ammunition to carry out their mission.  In fact,  

Asif was arrested in connection with the kidnapping of one Khadim  

and was interrogated and arrested by police and taken to Rajkot,  

Gujarat where he was killed in an encounter.

v) In May, 2001 as per Asif’s direction Appellant Nasir went to  

Agra and met one Asad Khan who is also a member of Asif’s gang  

and collected a sum of Rs.1 lakh from him.  

vi) In August, 2001 as per the instruction of Asif and with his  

assistance e-mail account was opened for Appellant Nasir in a  

Cyber  Café  and  the  e-mail  accounts  were  a)  

basket4my@hotmail.com with the password ‘7days13harj’.  The  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               132 of 195

address of the second e-mail was z4zipzap@hotmail.com with the  

password ‘100dinsonarka’.   

vii) Again in August, 2001 as directed by Asif’s e-mail  

Appellant Nasir went to Banaras.  At Banaras he met Asif’s close  

friend Aftab Ansari who was introduced to him.  With the help of  

Appellant Nasir, Appellant Aftab got a fake passport under the name  

Farhan Mullick through Asif in the passport office of Bihar.   

viii) As per Asif’s instructions, Nasir went to the flat at Khan  

Road, Khirgaon, Hazaribagh which flat was arranged by Appellant  

Nasir as per instructions of Asif for the hideout of  Asif’s gang  

members.  The tenancy agreement of the said premises were  

established.

ix) In October-November 2001 Appellant Aftab sent series of  

e-mails through his name or under the name Karan, Amaan, Abdul,  

etc. to Nasir and other gang members.  

x) In October, 2001 at Agra, Asif introduced Zahid, Salim and  

Sadakat.  Zahid and Salim were Pakistanis while Sadakat was from  

Uttar Pradesh. They were all brought to Hazaribagh in two cars  

Maruti 800 and Maruti Zen. The cars were all parked in the premises  

at Khan Road, Hazaribagh which were later seized by police.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               133 of 195

xi) In October, 2001, Appellant Nasir bought two cottas of  

land in Hazaribagh for Rs.50,000/- which was funded by Asif.   

xii) There was an e-mail from Appellant Aftab informing about  

the detention of Asif in the Khadim Kidnapping case in November,  

2001.   

xiii)  As per Appellant Aftab’s e-mail, Nasir went to Jaisalmer  

and Darmar to fetch 15 kgs of Atta-RDX.  However, it was not  

purchased and Nasir returned back to Calcutta in the first week of  

December. The travel by Nasir was supported by documents.

xiv) Appellant Aftab sent e-mail informing about the killing of  

Asif in an encounter by Gujarat Police and his body being flown to  

Calcutta.  PW-39 also supported the said message of Appellant  

Aftab.

xv) Conspiracy was hatched at Appellant Nasir’s flat at Khirgaon  

along with deceased Zahid, Sadakat, deceased Salim and Imam  

Hussain to take revenge for Asif’s death which meeting took place  

as per the instruction/guidance of Appellant Aftab.  In the said  

meeting they conspired to blow off government buildings and to kill  

police force to show the strength of ‘Jehadis‘.  They also waited for  

the order of Bhaisaheb, namely, Appellant Aftab.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               134 of 195

xvi) Deceased Zahid and accused Sadakat came to No.1,  

Tiljala Lane on 14 th and 15 th January, 2002 respectively carrying a  

large leather bag containing things which later came to be revealed  

as arms and ammunitions.

xvii) Appellant Aftab sent an e-mail directing the gang members  

to blow off Bhavani Bhawan where Asif was kept for interrogation.  

This decision was however, opposed by Nasir stating that innocent  

people would be killed apart from the fact that the Minority  

Commission office was also located in the same building.  When this  

view of Appellant Nasir was forwarded by Zahid to Appellant Aftab,  

an alternate suggestion was made by him to attack any American  

base and kill the policemen.   

xviii) On 19.01.2002 at about 4-4.30 p.m. Appellant Nasir along  

with Zahid, Sadakat, Abdullah made a survey of the American  

Embassy and the American centre and found that American Centre  

would be more convenient as police security people were sitting in  

open and were not alert.  

xix) Another survey was made on 20 th and 21st of the American  

Centre to work out the details of attack to be made.

xx) On 21 st evening after returning from survey, deceased  

Zahid chalked out the programme.  Zahid was to drive the  

motorcycle while Sadakat was to shoot at the police force.  Nasir  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               135 of 195

was directed to take Maruti 800 and park it in a place where the  

assailants at American Centre could join after carrying out their  

assignment.   

xxi) On 22.01.2002, all the gang members got up by 5 a.m.,  

got ready while Zahid wore a chocolate (brown) colour jacket arming  

himself with pistol, Sadakat wore a green colour jacket and took an  

AK-47 rifle in a cricket bat cover.  Zahid drove the motorbike and  

Sadakat was sitting in the pillion with the AK-47 rifle. The jackets  

were alter recovered and exhibited

xxii) At 6.30 a.m. on 22.01.2002, Nasir along with Abdullah  

parked Maruti 800 car bearing Registration No. BRK 4907  at  

Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing and around 6.45 a.m. Zahid  

and Sadakat came there in the motorbike announcing that ‘Kaam ho  

gaya’ meaning thereby ‘job was done’.  Thereafter, Sadakat got into  

the rear side of the car and both the car and the bike proceeded to  

No.1, Tiljala Lane. On the way Sadakat narrated the details about  

the attack.  After reaching No.1, Tiljala Lane, Sadakat left Calcutta  

handing over the rifle AK-47 to Zahid. Maruti car bearing registration  

No.BRK 4907 and Motor bike bearing registration No.WB-01-P2144  

were recovered from No.1, Tiljala Lane

xxiii) On 23.01.2002 Zahid also left Calcutta and took the AK-47  

rifle along with him. Appellant Nasir went to his in-laws place. CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               136 of 195

xxiv) On 26.01.2002 Appellant Nasir went to Khan Road,  

Khirgaon, Hazaribagh were Zahid, Salim and Sadakat were also  

present and they all celebrated their success.  Thereafter, Nasir  

returned to Calcutta.  

xxi) On 29.01.2002, Appellant Nasir informed Appellant Aftab  

through e-mail about the encounter killing of Zahid and Salim  

through his e-mail address b4babu@hotmail.com.  On the same day  

Nasir was arrested by police at his in-laws place thereafter Nasir  

took the police to No.1 Tiljala Lane where search and seizure took  

place.   

xxvi) From No.1, Tiljala Lane police went to 46, Tiljala Lane the  

residence of Nasir where also police seized documents including a  

pocket notebook a sketch map of American Centre and national flat  

of Pakistan given to Nasir by Zahid.  A revolver given to Nasir by  

Zahid was also recovered.  All the recoveries both at No.1, Tiljala  

and No.46, Tiljala Lane were made based on the admissible portion  

of the statement of Appellant Nasir.   

xxvii) Appellant Nasir gave reasons as to why he came forward to  

make the confession namely  

a) to relive his conscience   b) he felt that he had committed a sin,  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               137 of 195

c) according to him he was earlier afraid of Aftab and now  Aftab has been apprehended on 13.3.2002, he was free  from the clutches of Aftab  d) he stated that he did not  want to be a traitor against his own country.  

e) all  whatever  he did earlier  was under  total  misapprehension  

f) now that there is no escape route for him.   

121. From what has been noted above, we find that there was no  

contradiction to any of the statement of Appellant Nasir in his  

confession but has fully corroborated those facts and events in the  

form of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the Prosecution  

was fully justified in relying upon the confession while resting its  

case on the other evidences.  

122. Question No. 6:   Whether the confession of Appellant Nasir can be  

relied upon as against Appellant Aftab?

The submission made on behalf of the Appellant was two-fold. In the  

first place, it was contended that a confession made by an accused is not  

substantive evidence as against co-accused falling under Section 30 of the  

Evidence Act. When we consider the said question, the legal position  

under the provisions of the Evidence Act requires to be noted. Sections 10  

and 30 of the Evidence Act are relevant, which are as under:

“10. Things said or  done by conspirator  in  reference to common design.-Where there is reasonable  ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               138 of 195

together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong,  anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in  reference to their common intention, after the time when such  intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a  relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so  conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of  the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such  person  was a party to it. 30. Consideration of proved confession affecting  person making it and others jointly under-Trial for  same offence.-When more persons than one are being tried  jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of  such persons affecting himself and some other of such  persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such  confession as against such other person as well as against  the person who makes such confession.”

123. Going by the above provisions, the relevance, efficacy and reliability  

of the confessional statement of Appellant Nasir when examined in  

the touchstone of Sections 10 and 30 of the Evidence Act, it will  

have to be stated that the confession of a co-accused cannot be  

treated as substantive evidence to convict other than the person  

who made the confession on the evidentiary value of it. It is,  

however, well established and reiterated in several decisions of this  

Court that based on the consideration of other evidence on record  

and if such evidence sufficiently supports the case of the  

Prosecution and if it requires further support, the confession of a co-

accused can be pressed into service and reliance can be placed  

upon it. In other words if there are sufficient materials to reasonably  

believe that there was concert and connection between the persons  

charged with a commission of an offence based on a conspiracy, it  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               139 of 195

is immaterial even if they were strangers to each other and were  

ignorant of the actual role played by them of such acts which they  

committed by joint effort. Going by Section 30 of the Evidence Act,  

when more than one person are being tried jointly for the same  

offence and a confession made by one of such persons is found to  

affect the maker as well as the co-accused and its stand sufficiently  

proved, the Court can take into consideration such confession as  

against other persons and also against the person who made such  

confession from the above proposition, we can make reference to  

the decisions of this Court in the case of Natwarlal Shankarlal  

Modi vs. State of Bombay – (1961) B.L.R. 661 and The Govt.  

of NCT of Delhi vs. Jaspal Singh - (2003) 5 SCC 589.  

124. Having noted the above legal principles relating to the application of  

confession made by an accused as against the co-accused, we wish  

to first consider and find out whether there is enough evidence  

independent of the confession of the Appellant Nasir in respect of  

the charge levelled against Appellant Aftab. In sum and substance  

the charges are conspiracy, common intention which resulted in  

serious charges falling under Sections 121, 121A, 122 as well as  

Sections 302, 307, etc. of IPC.  Keeping the confession of Appellant  

Nasir aside, when we examine the evidence available on record, we  

find that the evidence of PW-39 proves that Appellant Aftab was a  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               140 of 195

close friend of Asif, that according to PW-39 after Asif’s contact with  

Aftab the life of Asif was ruined which ultimately resulted in his  

death.  The documentary evidence namely, the sale agreement  

dated 11.07.2001 pertaining to ground floor flat at No.1, Tiljala Lane  

confirmed the factum of Asif having arranged for getting the flat for  

the absconding accused Niaz Hussain under the pretext of starting a  

leather business. The evidence of PW-39 again discloses that Asif  

and Appellant Nasir were childhood friends and they were  

associated together after 1999 when Asif was released from Tihar  

Jail.  The opening of the e-mail account in the name of Appellant  

Nasir in the cyber café  at the instance of Asif through which  

messages were exchanged between Nasir and Appellant Aftab is a  

matter of record right from 2001, that too prior to the demise of Asif.  

It is the not case of anyone that Appellant Nasir knew Appellant  

Aftab on his own. Nasir was directed by Asif to go to Banaras where  

Nasir was introduced to Aftab by Asif as his close friend for which  

the hotel records were produced which was not disputed before us.  

Even prior to that Asif made use of Nasir to get a fake passport for  

Aftab in different name called ‘Farhan Mullick’.

125. Similarly, when Nasir was summoned by Appellant Aftab to go to  

Jaipur for the purpose of getting a consignment of Atta-RDX the  

relevant air travel document supported the said fact apart from e- CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               141 of 195

mail messages. The letter of Aftab addressed to the wife of Asif has  

been proved with the help of handwriting expert.  There is no scope  

to dispute the existence of that letter and about the author of the  

said letter, namely, Aftab.   Based on the admissible part of the  

statement of the Appellant Aftab the bedroom of Asif was searched  

where the letter and the diary maintained by Asif was recovered.  

The e-mail message sent by Aftab about the death of Asif in an  

encounter on 08.12.2001, also confirmed their joint operation during  

the lifetime of Asif as well as subsequently.  Subsequent to Aftab’s  

letter to Asif’s wife, a serious development took place.  Even before  

that the flat at Khan Road, Khirgaon Hazaribagh, arranged by  

Appellant Nasir was proved by the evidence of its owner.  The rental  

receipts signed by Appellant Nasir on some occasions and by the  

deceased Zahid on some other occasions also proved the tenancy  

secured in respect of the said premises at Hazaribagh.  The parking  

of Maruti 800 and Maruti Zen in which Zahid, Salim, Sadakat and  

Imam Hasan who were lodged in the Hazaribagh flat was also  

spoken to by the landlord of the said building.  The meeting of Zahid,  

Salim Sadakat and Appellant Nasir in the premises at No.1, Tiljala  

Lane as from 14.01.2002 was supported by e-mail messages  

exchanged between Nasir and Zahid on the one side and Aftab on  

the other.  The contents of those messages disclose the exact  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               142 of 195

manner in which the accused planned to execute their mission of  

taking a revenge on the police. The specific message of Aftab  

directing that Zahid, Nasir, Salim and Sadakat should launch an  

attack on Bhavani Bhawan further reinforced the case of the  

Prosecution about the full involvement of Aftab in the transaction.  

The reply message sent to Aftab wherein the objection raised by  

Nasir as to why the attack should not be made on Bhavani Bhawan  

and the further reply from Aftab through e-mail that in that event they  

can look for an American Base and pursuant to which Zahid, Salim,  

Sadakat and Nasir visited both American Embassy as well as  

American Centre and thereafter, sent a further message to Aftab  

that the American centre would be the more fitting place to carry out  

their mission and the green signal given by Aftab again by way of an  

e-mail were all factors which independently established the full  

fledged role played by Appellant Aftab in the whole transaction  

which ultimately resulted in the hazardous attack on the police force  

posted at the American Centre. When such overwhelming evidence  

independent of confession of Appellant Nasir is on record we are  

convinced that the confession of Appellant Nasir can be fully applied  

and thereby, the involvement of Aftab in the criminal conspiracy and  

the following insurrection on the police force at the American Centre  

stands fully established and accordingly we answer the said  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               143 of 195

question to the effect that the confession of Appellant Nasir can be  

relied on as against Appellant Aftab.  

126. Question No. 7:   Whether there was sufficient corroboration of the  

contents of the confession of Appellant Nasir with the other evidence  

i.e. oral, documentary and material objects relied upon by the  

Prosecution ?

The substantive part of the confession of Appellant Nasir can be  

formulated into the following segments and while listing out those different  

segments the corroborative materials in the other evidence can also be  

noted which can be gathered from the following details:

a) Nasir met Asif again in 1999 after he was released from Tihar  

Jail. Nasir who used to work in the leather export –import  

company as a helper/checker, used to get Rs.700/- and later  

he started getting Rs.2,000/- from Asif.

PW-39 who is the brother of deceased Asif has confirmed the  

fact that Asif was in Calcutta from 1999 after his release from  

Tihar jail. PW-46 who was co-accused with Asif in the same  

case and was undergoing sentence in Tihar jail with him has  

confirmed that the sentence got over in 1999. PW-39 has also  

confirmed that Asif and Nasir were class-fellows in school and  

also stated that he knew about Nasir’s family members.  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               144 of 195

PW-47 and PW-48 have both confirmed that they have seen  

Nasir in the company of Asif in No.1, Tiljala Lane, Calcutta.  

Both have identified the photo of Asif as Exhibit-LXXIV.

b) Asif revealed about his close friendship with Appellant Aftab  

Ansari, resident of Banaras.

P.W.-46’s statement again confirmed that Asif considered  

Aftab as his friend from Benaras and introduced him to Aftab  

at Tihar jail. Statement given by Shakir Akhtar also stated that  

Aftab Ansari was introduced by Asif as his friend from  

Benaras.  Nasir’s trip to Banaras to meet Aftab at the instance  

of Asif was also established. The passport secured in the  

name of Farhan Mullick for Aftab with the help of Asif and  

Nasir was also proved.

c) In January, 2001, Niaz Hussain was introduced by Asif to  

Nasir. Nasir was asked by Asif to look for a flat for him of  

600/800 sq space on the ground floor. At the instance of Asif,  

Nasir arranged for a ground floor flat: No. 1, Tiljala Lane,  

Calcutta for one Niaz Hussain. He paid Rs.2,66,000/- to Dilip  

Singh, PW-47 in April 2001 the flat was handed over to Niaz.

Evidence of P.W.s 47 and 48 has confirmed the above.  

PW-47 has stated that he executed an agreement under  

Exhibits-63/1, 63/2, 63/3, 63/4 and 63/5 with Niaz Hussain and  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               145 of 195

handed over the possession on 11 th July, 2001. The witness to  

the said agreement is Appellant Nasir himself and PW-48 who  

resided in the 1st floor of the said building.

d) Asif suggested kidnapping of big businessmen in various cities  

to make money and for that purpose to gather arms and  

ammunition. In May 2001, as per Asif’s directions Nasir went  

to Agra and met one Asad Khan who is also a member of  

Asif’s gang.  He collected Rs.1 lakh from Asad Khan.  

Asad Khan and Aftab Ansari were both wanted under P.S.  

Case no. 232/2001.  Asif’s detention in connection with the  

kidnapping of Khadim was proved.  Subsequently, Asif stated  

to have died in an encounter by Rajkot police.

e) In August, 2001 at the instance of Asif e-mail account was  

opened  in  a  cyber  café:  First  e-mail  

basketball4my@hotmail.com, password:7days13harj, second  

e-mail : z4zipzap@hotmail.com, password: 100dinsonarka.  

Both PW-68 and PW-104 were involved in the retrieving of the  

e-mails which were sent and received by Nasir. Nasir  

confessed about the e-mail ids and their respective passwords  

involved. Through investigation from a cyber café in Kustia,  

Calcutta, owned by one PW- 67, five computers were seized  

who also signed the Exhibit-104/1 for the printouts of the e-

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               146 of 195

mails sent/received by Nasir. PW-68 is a sub-inspector who  

took the printouts of the e-mails. Exhibit-104/2. Later PW-104  

also retrieved 15 printouts of e-mails as per the direction of  

PW-123.  

f) In August 2001 as per Asif’s e-mail Nasir went to Banaras.  At  

Banaras, second Appellant Aftab was introduced to Nasir.  

Based on Nasir’s acquaintance, Asif got a fake passport made  

under the name Farhan Mullick in Bihar Passport office which  

was to be used by Aftab.

PW-111 is attached with Bihar Police who has seized the  

passport of Farhan Mullick and identified Aftab in Court as  

Farhan Mullick.

g) As per Asif’s instructions Nasir went secured a flat in Khan  

Road, Khirgaon and the said the premises was used by Asif’s  

gang members as a hideout.

PW-106 is the owner who rented out the flat to Nasir  

confirmed that he was residing there. And in the cross-

examination, he stated that he has met Sadakat and Zahid  

and they were introduced as staff members of Nasir by one  

Hasan Imam. That time Nasir was not present. Subsequently,  

on 27-28.01.2002, in the encounter at Khan Road flat, Zahid  

and Salim were nabbed as stated by PW-113.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               147 of 195

h) In October-November 2001, second Appellant Aftab started  

sending his e-mails through his name or under the name  

‘Karan’, ‘Aman’, ‘Abdul’ etc.  

i) In October 2001 at Agra, Asif introduced Zahid, Salim and  

Sadakat.  He said Zahid and Salim were from Pakistan and  

Sadakat was from UP. All of them proceeded to Hazaribagh in  

two cars- Maruti 800 and Maruit Zen.

PW-106 has confirmed in cross-examination that he saw one  

Maruti car and one Maruti Zen parked outside the flat.  Later  

incident of encounter and nabbing of Zahid and Salim in  

January, 2002 and confirmed the said fact.

j) In October 2001 Nasir bought two cottahs of land from  

Hazaribagh for Rs.50,000/-.  Asif gave him the money.

PW-73 has deposed that she was the seller of the said 2  

cottahs land and Nasir was the buyer during the said time  

period. She has also recognized the Appellant in the Court.

k) E-mail from Aftab was sent informing about the detention of  

Asif in the first week of November 2001.  That very email  

retrieval vouchsafe the said fact.

l) As per Aftab’s e-mail, Nasir went to Jaisalmer, Darmar to fetch  

15 kg. of Atta/RDX. Atta-RDX was not purchased. Nasir  

returned back to Calcutta in first week of December.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               148 of 195

PW-105 was the Handwriting expert of documents. He  

examined the Entries in the registration book of Hotel Golden  

City, Jaisalmer which had Nasir’s entry Exhibit-LLXXXIII/2.  

The air ticket registration of Nasir’s return trip to Calcutta was  

also proved.   

m) Aftab sent e-mail informing about the killing of Asif in an  

encounter by Gujarat police and his body being flown to  

Calcutta.  Miaz also gave this message through e-mail:  

b4babu@hotmail.com and behzad50@hotmail.com  

Exhibit-46/1, the letter sent by Aftab to Asif’s wife confirmed the  

said fact apart from the retrieval of the email messages.

n) Conspiracy was hatched at Nasir’s Khan Road, Khirgaon  

tenanted flat along with Zahid, Sadakat, Salim and Imam  

Hussain to take a revenge of Asif’s death.  They planned to  

blow off government buildings and to kill corps to show the  

strength of ‘Jehadis‘. They all waited for Bhaisaheb, Aftab’s  

order.  Zahid and Sadakat came to No.1, Tiljala Lane, Calcutta  

on 14-15 January, 2002.  They brought a large leather bag  

with them. A mail was sent by Aftab to blow off Bhavani  

Bhawan where Asif was kept for interrogation.  This decision  

was opposed by Nasir as innocent people would be killed and  

the office of the Minority Commission was also there.  This  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               149 of 195

view was forwarded by Zahid to Aftab. An alternate plan was  

suggested by Aftab to attack any American base and to kill  

policemen.

o) All the above facts were also proved by the retrieved email  

messages transacted between Nasir, Zahid on the one side  

and Aftab on the other side. On 19.01.2002 at about 4-4.30  

p.m. Nasir along with Zahid, Sadakat and Abdullah made a  

survey of the American Embassy and the American Centre.  

They found the American Centre more convenient as the  

police security people appeared slack in their duties.

PW-47 saw them leaving the building at around same time.  

p) Another survey was made by them on 20 th and 21 st January,  

2002 of the American Centre to note the features. Both  

PWs-47 and 48 saw them leaving the building at around same  

time.  

q) On 21 st January evening after retiring from survey Zahid  

chalked out the programme.  Zahid was to drive the  

motorcycle, Sadakat was to shoot and Nasir was to drive the  

Maruti 800. PW-48 saw Nasir and Abdullah in the Maruti 800  

Car and Zahid and Sadakat to be on the Motorcycle.

r) On 22.01.2002 everybody woke up at 5 a.m. and got ready.  

Zahid wore a chocolate colour jacket and armed himself with  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               150 of 195

pistol.  Sadakat wore a green colour jacket and took an AK-47  

rifle in a cricket bat cover.  Zahid drove the vehicle and  

Sadakat as a pillion rider with the AK-47 rifle.

PW-48 saw them and is also the seizure list witness who saw  

the cricket bat cover.  

On 22.01.2002 Nasir along with Abdullah parked Maruti 800 BRK  

4907 at Rippon Street Circular Road Crossing in the early  

morning. Around 6.45 a.m. Zahid and Sadakat came to the  

place where Nasir parked the car answering that ‘job done’.  

Sadakat got into the car and the bike went to No.1 Tiljala  

Lane.  Zahid followed.  On the way Sadakat narrated the  

details about the attack. PW-62 also confirmed the same  

gathering at around same time. PW-62 also noticed the  

presence of Nasir along with Maruti 800 parked at Rippon  

Street and a little later the joining of Zahid and Sadakat in the  

black colour motor bike. PW-62 identified Nasir in TIP and the  

photo of Zahid Exhibit XXVI.

s) Then Sadakat left Calcutta. AK-47 was handed over to Zahid.  

On 23.01.2002, Zahid also left Calcutta and took AK-47 and  

the pistol along with him. Nasir booked Sadakat’s ticket in  

Chambal Express. Thereafter, Nasir went to his in-laws’ place.  

One Reservation/Cancellation of Chambal Express 1159 Uttar  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               151 of 195

Pradesh of same date in Sadakat’s name was found from  

Howrah Reservation Supervisor in Exhibit-14.

t)On 26.01.2002 Nasir went to Khan Road, Khirgaon, Hazaribagh  

where Zahid, Salim and Sadakat were there.  They celebrated  

their success. Nasir returned to Calcutta.

Their stay can be confirmed as after two days later the  

encounter at Haziribagh took place where Salim and Zahid  

died as spoken to by PW-113.

u) On 29.01.2002, Nasir informed Aftab Ansari through an e-mail  

about the encounter killing of Zahid and Salim.  E-mail  

address:  b4babu@hotmail.com.  On 29.01.2002 police  

arrested Nasir at his in-laws’ place.  Nasir took the police to  

No.1, Tiljala Lane, a search and seizure took place.  

From No.1 Tiljala Lane Nasir took the police to his flat at No. 46,  

Tiljala Lane.  Police seized some documents including a  

pocket notebook, a sketch map of American Centre and a  

National Flag of Pakistan which Zahid left. A revolver given to  

Nasir by Zahid was also seized.   

PW-48 was a seizure witness to the entire procedure.

127. Here before answering the question, we wish to deal with the  

decision relied upon by the learned counsel for Appellant. Reliance  

was placed upon the decision reported in Kehar Singh (supra).  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               152 of 195

Particular reference was made to paragraph 269 of the Judgment,  

which reads as under:  

“269. In the document, there is no reference to killing of the  Prime Minister. In fact, except for a “felt like killing” in early  June as an immediate reaction to the “Bluestar Operation”,  even the manifestation of this feeling does not exist anywhere  in subsequent part of the document. The document refers to  bare meetings, visits of persons, or visiting somebody’s  house. It is, however, not possible to find out to whom the  document was intended to be used.”

128. Referring to the above passage Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan contended  

that even assuming Appellant Aftab was the author of Exhibit-46/1, it  

does not reflect anything which can be stated to have supported the  

case of Prosecution of waging of war against the State or any other  

serious offence to be committed and therefore, the said exhibit  

cannot form the basis for finding Appellant Aftab guilty of the  

offences alleged against him. In paragraph 269, after referring to the  

document, which was authored by the accused in that case, this  

Court found that the only set of expressions which attracted the  

Court’s attention was ‘felt like killing’ and nothing else could be found  

in the said document in order to find the accused guilty of charge of  

murder. As far as Exhibit-46/1, which has been found to have been  

written by Appellant Aftab, as per expert witness, we find that apart  

from expressing his anguish over the untimely demise of his close  

friend Asif in an encounter which according to him was a fake one,  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               153 of 195

he while consoling the wife of Asif expressed his reaction to such an  

extent stating that appropriate measures would be taken for a  

revenge. Therefore, Exhibit-46/1 is not a simple letter expressing  

condolence to the wife of Asif. It goes one step further and states  

that necessary steps would be taken for a revenge. In other words,  

the tone and tenor of the letter spoke for itself reflecting the adverse  

mindset of Appellant Aftab and his craving for taking revenge on the  

police. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the said paragraph is of  

no assistance to the Appellant.

129. Reliance was also placed upon the decision reported in the Rajiv  

Gandhi murder case in Nalini (supra). The proposition relied upon  

is found in paragraph 607 which reads as under;   

“607. We have carefully gone through the evidence against  Vijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14) and  the submissions of the Prosecution as to how they are  members of the conspiracy with the object to kill Rajiv Gandhi.  The evidence at the most merely shows that they associated  with Sivarasan. The evidence that they had knowledge of the  conspiracy is lacking. Their knowledge about the murder of  Rajiv Gandhi by Sivarasan, Suba and Dhanu was acquired by  them only after Rajiv Gandhi was killed. As we have  repeatedly said in any case mere knowledge of the existence  of conspiracy is not enough. One has to agree to the object of  conspiracy to be guilty of the offence under Section 120-A  IPC. Vijayan (A-12) would not know the nature of the  messages which were transmitted or received from the  wireless set installed in his house as all these were in coded  language. Two code-sheets were given by Murugan (A-3) to  Padma (A-21) to be kept in safe custody. Vijayan (A-12),  Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14) have been charged  for offence under Section 3(3) of TADA and have been jointly  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               154 of 195

charged for offence under Section 3(4) TADA but these  charges must fail and they are acquitted of these charges.  Then Vijayan (A-12), Selvaluxmi (A-13) and Bhaskaran (A-14)  are charged for an offence under Section 212 IPC for having  harboured Sivarasan, Suba and Nero in order to screen them  from legal punishment knowing that they had committed  murder of Rajiv Gandhi and others. They all have been  convicted and sentenced. Vijayan (A-12) and Selvaluxmi  (A-13) are also charged for offence under Section 6(1-A) of  Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 for having unauthorised  possession of unlicensed wireless transmitter used for  transmitting messages by Sivarasan and Nero using code- sheets for such transmissions to other conspirators residing in  Sri Lanka, namely, absconding accused Prabhakaran and  Pottu Omman and they have been convicted and sentenced  for this offence. Though in our view Vijayan (A-12) and  Bhaskaran (A-14) have been rightly convicted and sentenced  under these charges but these charges cannot stand against  Selvaluxmi (A-13). All members of the household cannot be  charged like this without more. A-13, being the wife of A-12,  was living with her husband A-12 and merely on that account  knowledge and intention cannot be attributed to her,  particularly when no overt act is alleged against her. She is  acquitted of all these charges and her conviction and sentence  set aside. Shanmugavadivelu (A-15)”

130. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that in order for an  

accused to be a member of the conspiracy, it must be shown that  

there was enough evidence, that they also had knowledge of the  

conspiracy and if that was lacking, mere knowledge of existence of  

the conspiracy was not enough.  In other words, the accused who is  

alleged to have involved in the conspiracy should also know the  

object of the conspiracy, not merely that there was a conspiracy.  

Even if we apply the said principles to the case on hand, we have  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               155 of 195

dealt with in extent so as to how apart from earlier meetings of the  

Appellants along with Asif and others prior to the demise of Asif, as  

from 14-15.01.2002 onwards, the participation of Appellants in the  

conspiracy was intense and every minute details of the act to be  

performed on 22.01.2002 was deliberated upon threadbare before  

its execution. Therefore, the deceased Zahid, deceased Salim,  

Sadakat, Imam Hussain Appellants Nasir, Aftab and others,  

participated in the conspiracy, were fully aware of what they were  

conspiring and the object of such conspiracy and the ultimate  

execution.  Therefore, the said passage fully supports the case of  

the Prosecution rather than the Appellants.

131. Reliance was then placed on Bhagwan Singh (supra) in particular  

paragraphs 13 and 14. It related to the extent to which the  

handwriting expert’s opinion can be relied upon. In fact in paragraph  

13 of the said Judgment the contention was that the Prosecution  

fabricated evidence and with that preface the submission was made.  

However, while consideration the submission in the middle of the  

said paragraph this Court has expressed the view as under:

“In our view, however, reliance on Magan is rather misplaced  in the contractual facts since no conviction is based on the  opinion of the handwriting expert but admittedly it can be  relied upon when supported by other items of internal and  external evidence. The handwriting expert’s opinion simply  corroborates the circumstantial evidence and as such we are  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               156 of 195

unable to record our occurrence with the submissions of Mr.  Singh on this score.”  

132. Having noted the above passage in the said Judgment, we have to  

point out that that was a case which solely depended upon  

circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the passage which we have  

extracted makes the position clear that handwriting expert’s opinion  

can be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and  

external evidence. As has been exhaustively discussed by us in the  

earlier paragraphs, we have found that the handwriting expert’s  

opinion on Exhibit-46/1 and other documents was only one piece of  

evidence in a voluminous documentary and other evidence, which  

has been let in by the Prosecution to support the charges levelled  

against the Appellant. Therefore, the said decision also does not  

support the case of the Appellant.

133. Reliance was placed upon the decision reported in Subash and  

Shiv Shankar (supra), in particular paragraphs 8 and 9 to contend  

that there was delay in holding Test Identification Parade so far as  

PW-62 was concerned and that there was no description made while  

identifying the photograph of deceased Zahid. It is true, in the said  

decision, while rejecting the TIP in respect of one of the accused this  

Court expressed serious doubts about the identification of the  

accused by the Witnesses in the TIP which was held three weeks  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               157 of 195

after the arrest of the accused and that there was no explanation. It  

must be stated that each case depends upon the peculiar facts of  

that case. In the case on hand, we have noted that having regard to  

the magnitude of the offence committed, namely, the attack on the  

police force at the American Centre, where indiscriminate shooting  

was carried out by the assailants in which five policemen lost their  

life and several others got seriously injured. The further fact remains  

that before executing the attack on 22.01.2002, a rehearsal was held  

by Appellant Nasir along with the assailants on the previous days.  

Therefore, the witness who identified the Appellant, namely, PW-62  

had the advantage of looking at the Appellant with some amount of  

anxiety as Appellant Nasir created a ruckus while parking the car on  

two occasions prior to the date of occurrence, namely, 22.01.2002.  

In such circumstances, it is difficult to apply the said decision to the  

facts of this case. That apart, PW-39 who identified Appellant Nasir  

and Aftab had known both of them earlier and, therefore, the  

identification of the Appellants cannot be controverter at all. We,  

therefore, do not find any scope to apply the said decision to the  

facts of this case.

134. Thus the various witnesses/facts which were all crucial to the case of  

the Prosecution as found in the confession of Appellant Nasir noted  

in sub-paragraphs (a) to (u) were all corroborated fully by other  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               158 of 195

evidence, with oral and documentary as well as material objects  

and, therefore, this question is also answered in the affirmative.

135. Question No. 8:   Whether the offence charged against the  

Appellants for which the Appellants were proceeded against were  

conclusively proved ?

In the light of our discussion made for the questions 1 to 7, we have  

no hesitation in holding that the Appellants are guilty of the charges  

levelled against them as found proved except the charge under Section  

27(3) of the Arms Act which we have held that cannot be maintained in the  

light of the decision of this Court reported in Dalbir Singh (supra),  

therefore, we hold that the Appellants are guilty of all the other charges as  

found proved against them by the Courts below.

136. Question No. 9:   If the offence was made out against the  

Appellants as held by the Courts below whether the sentence of  

death can be held to be the appropriate punishment, if not, what is  

the punishment to be imposed ?

For answering the said question, it is necessary to note the  

charges framed against the Appellants. As many as 12 charges were  

levelled against the Appellants.  As far as the last of the charge is  

concerned, as held by us, the same was not maintainable in the light of the  

decision of this Court in Dalbir Singh (supra) whereunder the very  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               159 of 195

Section 27(3) of the Arms Act was struck down as unconstitutional. As far  

as the rest of the charges are concerned, when we consider the charges  

under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 120B IPC, it relates to waging of  

war against the government of India or attempt to wage such war or  

abetting the waging of such war and conspiring for committing the said  

offences and for that purpose collecting arms, etc. with the intention of  

waging war against the State.   

137. As held by us, the said charge has been conclusively proved.  In this  

context it will be worthwhile to note the concept of waging of war  

against the State as has been explained in detail over a period of  

time in the pre Independence era as well as the post-Independence  

era.  An elaborate consideration of this concept has already been  

made by this Court in the decision reported in Navjot Sandhu @  

Afsan Guru (supra). After making a detailed reference to the  

interpretation of the expression ‘waging war’ where reference has  

been made to various English and Indian Judgments both of pre-

Independence era and post-Independence era, this Court has  

crystallized the concept as under in paragraphs 282 to 284:  

“282. On the analysis of the various passages found in the  cases and commentaries referred to above, what are the  highlights we come across? The most important is the  intention or purpose behind the defiance or rising against the  Government. As said by Foster, “The true criterion is quo  animo did the parties assemble?” In other words the intention  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               160 of 195

and purpose of the warlike operations directed against the  governmental machinery is an important criterion. If the object  and purpose is to strike at the sovereign authority of the Ruler  or the Government to achieve a public and general purpose in  contradistinction to a private and a particular purpose, that is  an important indicia of waging war. Of course, the purpose  must be intended to be achieved by use of force and arms and  by defiance of government troops or armed personnel  deployed to maintain public tranquillity. Though the modus  operandi of preparing for the offensive act against the  Government may be quite akin to the preparation in a regular  war, it is often said that the number of force, the manner in  which they are arrayed, armed or equipped is immaterial.  Even a limited number of persons who carry powerful  explosives and missiles without regard to their own safety can  cause more devastating damage than a large group of  persons armed with ordinary weapons or firearms. Then, the  other settled proposition is that there need not be the pomp  and pageantry usually associated with war such as the  offenders forming themselves in battle line and arraying in a  warlike manner. Even a stealthy operation to overwhelm the  armed or other personnel deployed by the Government and to  attain a commanding position by which terms could be  dictated to the Government might very well be an act of  waging war.

283. While these are the acceptable criteria of waging war,  we must dissociate ourselves from the old English and Indian  authorities to the extent that they lay down a too general test  of attainment of an object of general public nature or a political  object. We have already expressed reservations in adopting  this test in its literal sense and construing it in a manner out of  tune with the present day. The Court must be cautious in  adopting an approach which has the effect of bringing within  the fold of Section 121 all acts of lawless and violent acts  resulting in destruction of public properties, etc., and all acts of  violent resistance to the armed personnel to achieve certain  political objectives. The moment it is found that the object  sought to be attained is of a general public nature or has a  political hue, the offensive violent acts targeted against the  armed forces and public officials should not be branded as  acts of waging war. The expression “waging war” should not  be stretched too far to hold that all the acts of disrupting public  order and peace irrespective of their magnitude and  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               161 of 195

repercussions could be reckoned as acts of waging war  against the Government. A balanced and realistic approach is  called for in construing the expression “waging war”  irrespective of how it was viewed in the long long past. An  organised movement attended with violence and attacks  against the public officials and armed forces while agitating for  the repeal of an unpopular law or for preventing burdensome  taxes were viewed as acts of treason in the form of levying  war. We doubt whether such construction is in tune with the  modern day perspectives and standards. Another aspect on  which a clarification is called for is in regard to the observation  made in the old decisions that “neither the number engaged,  nor the force employed, nor the species of weapons with  which they may be armed” is really material to prove the  offence of levying/waging war. This was said by Lord  President Hope in R. v.  Hardie in 1820 and the same  statement finds its echo in many other English cases and in  the case of Maganlal Radhakishan v. Emperor (AIR at p. 185).  But, in our view, these are not irrelevant factors. They will  certainly help the Court in forming an idea whether the  intention and design to wage war against the established  Government exists or the offence falls short of it. For instance,  the firepower or the devastating potential of the arms and  explosives that may be carried by a group of persons — may  be large or small, as in the present case, and the scale of  violence that follows may at times become useful indicators of  the nature and dimension of the action resorted to. These,  coupled with the other factors, may give rise to an inference of  waging war.

284. The single most important factor which impels us to think  that this is a case of waging or attempting to wage war against  the Government of India is the target of attack chosen by the  slain terrorists and conspirators and the immediate objective  sought to be achieved thereby. The battlefront selected was  the Parliament House complex. The target chosen was  Parliament — a symbol of the sovereignty of the Indian  republic. Comprised of peoples’ representatives, this supreme  law-making body steers the destinies of a vast multitude of  Indian people. It is a constitutional repository of sovereign  power that collectively belongs to the people of India. The  executive Government through the Council of Ministers is  accountable to Parliament. Parliamentary democracy is a  basic and inalienable feature of the Constitution. Entering  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               162 of 195

Parliament House with sophisticated arms and powerful  explosives with a view to lay a siege to that building at a time  when members of Parliament, members of the Council of  Ministers, high officials and dignitaries of the Government of  India gathered to transact parliamentary business, with the  obvious idea of imperilling their safety and destabilising the  functioning of the Government and in that process, venturing  to engage the security forces guarding Parliament in armed  combat, amounts by all reasonable perceptions of law and  common sense, to waging war against the Government. The  whole of this well-planned operation is to strike directly at the  sovereign authority and integrity of our Republic of which the  Government of India is an integral component. The attempted  attack on Parliament is an undoubted invasion of the  sovereign attribute of the State including the Government of  India which is its alter ego. An attack of this nature cannot be  viewed on the same footing as a terrorist attack on some  public office building or an incident resulting in the breach of  public tranquillity. The deceased terrorists were roused and  impelled to action by a strong anti-Indian feeling as the  writings on the fake Home Ministry sticker found on the car  (Ext. PW-1/8) reveals. The huge and powerful explosives,  sophisticated arms and ammunition carried by the slain  terrorists who were to indulge in “fidayeen” operations with a  definite purpose in view, is a clear indicator of the grave  danger in store for the inmates of the House. The planned  operations if executed, would have spelt disaster for the whole  nation. A warlike situation lingering for days or weeks would  have prevailed.  Such offensive acts of  unimaginable  description and devastation would have posed a challenge to  the Government and the democratic institutions for the  protection of which the Government of the day stands. To  underestimate it as a mere desperate act of a small group of  persons who were sure to meet death, is to ignore the obvious  realities and to stultify the wider connotation of the “expression  of war” chosen by the drafters of IPC. The target, the obvious  objective which has political and public dimensions and the  modus operandi adopted by the hard core “fidayeens” are all  demonstrative of the intention of launching a war against the  Government of India. We need not assess the chances of  success of such an operation to judge the nature of criminality.  We are not impressed by the argument that the five slain  terrorists ought not to be “exalted” to the status of warriors  participating in a war. Nor do we endorse the argument of the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               163 of 195

learned Senior Counsel Mr Sushil Kumar that in order to give  rise to the offence of waging war, the avowed purpose and  design of the offence should be to substitute another authority  for the Government of India. According to the learned counsel,  the deprivation of sovereignty should be the pervading aim of  the accused in order to bring the offence under Section 121  and that is lacking in the present case. We find no force in this  contention. The undoubted objective and determination of the  deceased terrorists was to impinge on the sovereign authority  of the nation and its Government. Even if the conspired  purpose and objective falls short of installing some other  authority or entity in the place of an established Government,  it does not in our view detract from the offence of waging war.  There is no warrant for such truncated interpretation.”

138.  A close reading of the above referred to paragraphs is sufficient for  

anyone to understand the concept and to apply the same in a given  

case in order to find out as to how the sentence can be imposed in  

such cases.  Having read the above well laid down principles, we  

can cull out the following general principles to be applied:

a) The most important is the intention and purpose behind the  

defiance or raging against the government.  

b) Though the modus operandi of preparing for the offensive act  

against the government may be quite akin to the preparation in a  

regular war, it is often said that the number of force, the manner  

in which they are arrayed, the arm and or equipments are  

immaterial.

c) Even a limited number of persons who carry powerful explosives  

and missiles without regard to their own safety can cause more  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               164 of 195

devastating damage than a large group of persons armed with  

ordinary weapons or firearms.

d) There need not be the pomp or pageantry usually associated with  

war such as the offenders forming themselves in battle line and  

arraying in a war-like manner.  

e) The Court must be cautious in adopting an approach which has  

the effect of bringing within the fold of Section 121 all acts of  

lawless near and violent acts resulting in destruction of public  

property, etc.

f) The moment it is found that the object sought to be attained is of  

a great public nature or has a political hue the offensive violent  

act targeted against the armed force and public officials should  

not be branded as acts of ‘waging war’.

g) The expression ‘waging war‘ should not be stretched too far to  

hold that all acts of disrupting public order and peace irrespective  

of their magnitude and repercussions could be reckoned as acts  

of ‘waging war’ against the government.

h) A balanced and realistic approach is called in construing the  

expression ‘waging war’ irrespective of how it was viewed in the  

long long past.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               165 of 195

i) An organized movement attended with violence and attacks  

against the public officials and armed forces while agitating for  

the repeal of an unpopular law or for preventing burdensome  

taxes were viewed as acts of treason in the form of ‘waging war’.

j) Neither the number engaged nor the force employed nor the  

species of weapon with which they may be armed is really  

material to prove the offence of waging war.

k) The single most important factor should be to think that in a case  

that is being considered of waging or attempting to wage war  

against the Government of India, what is the target of attack  

chosen by the conspirators and the immediate objective sought  

to be achieved thereby.

l) The planned operations if executed what is the extent of disaster  

spelt out to the whole nation.  Whether a war like situation  

lingering for days or weeks would have prevailed and such  

offensive acts of unimaginable description and devastation would  

have posed a challenge to the government and the democratic  

institutions for the protection of which the government of the day  

stands.

m)Was it mere desperate act of a small group of persons who were  

sure to meet with death is to ignore the obvious realities and to  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               166 of 195

stultify the wider connotation of the expression of war chosen by  

the drafters of IPC.

n) The undoubted objective and the determination of the offenders  

was it to impinge on the sovereign authority of the nation and its  

government.   

139. After the said decision, we have a recent decision of this Court in  

Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (supra).  Here  

again this Court had to deal with the offences under Sections 121,  

121A read with 122, 120B. While analyzing the concept ‘waging war‘  

against the Government of India, this Court has explained the  

concept in the said decision.  This Court has expressed as to how  

the expression Government of India should be understood in the  

context of a charge under Sections 121, 121A and 122. The relevant  

paragraphs are 537, 538, 540 and 543. We can carefully refer to  

paragraph 543, which reads as under:

“543. Coming back to the facts of the case in hand, we find  that the primary and the first offence that the Appellant and his  co-conspirators committed was the offence of waging war  against the Government of India. It does not matter that the  target assigned to the Appellant and Abu Ismail was CST  Station (according to Mr Ramachandran, no more than a  public building) where they killed a large number of people or  that they killed many others on Badruddin Tayabji Marg and in  Cama Hospital. What matters is that the attack was aimed at  India and Indians. It was by foreign nationals. People were  killed for no other reason than they were Indians; in case of  foreigners, they were killed because their killing on Indian soil  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               167 of 195

would embarrass India. The conspiracy, in furtherance of  which the attack was made, was, inter alia, to hit at India; to hit  at its financial centre; to try to give rise to communal tensions  and create internal strife and insurgency; to demand that India  should withdraw from Kashmir; and to dictate its relations with  other countries. It was in furtherance of those objectives that  the attack was made, causing the loss of a large number of  people and injury to an even greater number of people.  Nothing could have been more ’in like manner and by like  means as a foreign enemy would do’.”

140. Having noted the principles on waging of war as held by this Court in  

the above two decisions, when we apply those principles to the case  

on hand we find the following factors are relevant to be noted.

a) Of the 17 accused who were proceeded against Appellant Aftab,  

deceased Zahid and deceased Salim are all Pakistani nationals  

which is not in dispute.

b) We have found that Asif who had developed close contact with  

Appellant Aftab having joined Jehadi movement was in close  

contact with the leader of Hizbul MuZahideen Mr. Salahuddin and  

one Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad in Kashmir in the years 1991 to 1993.

c) Asif along with Appellant Aftab were undergoing punishment in  

Tees Hazari Court for such related offences under POTA/ TADA.

d) After his release from Tihar Jail when Asif came back to Calcutta  

in 1999 there was no repentance, instead his agenda in  

association with Appellant Aftab was to intensify his Jehadi  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               168 of 195

activities and for that purpose associated his childhood friend  

Appellant Nasir as has been brought in evidence in detail.

e) In pursuance of the said objective we have found out that  

Appellant Nasir, Aftab, Asif along with Zahid, Salim Sadakat,  

Hasan Imam, Abdullah and others formed a group and were in  

close contact with each other from the middle of 2001 and the  

various circumstances satisfactorily demonstrated before the  

Court by the Prosecution till the final act of commission of attack  

on the American Centre disclose that there was definite mindset  

in them to wreck vengeance against the state.

f) The activities of the deceased Asif immediately after the  

formation of their movement after 1999 along with Appellant  

Nasir and under the leadership of Appellant Aftab, wanted to  

make quick money by indulging in kidnapping activities and from  

the ill-gotten money procured arms and ammunitions and  

organized a movement along with Pakistani nationals to wreck  

vengeance by developing an impression as though the Muslims  

in this country were not properly taken care by the State.   

g) In that process, when Asif got killed on 08.12.2001, the intention  

of the members of the gang got further intensified and the prime  

accused Appellant Aftab who was the guiding factor for the other  

members of the gang felt that killing of Asif by the police is an  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               169 of 195

affront to their movement and that a serious revenge was called  

for against the police and the state.  In this respect, the letter of  

Appellant Aftab assumes great significance. That apart the  

evidence of PW-39, younger brother of Asif as stated in his  

evidence that he had heard his brother discussing with Dr.  

Mushtaq Ahmad and Abdullah that Government of India was not  

considerate towards Muslims and therefore, the government  

should be taught a lesson.

h) A cumulative effect of the above factors apparently resulted in the  

Appellants along with the absconding accused and the deceased  

Zahid, Salim and Sadakat, who is now facing trial who were all  

determined to commit hazardous attack which would make the  

State feel the vulnerability of their actions.  

i) In the course of the conspiracy the gang members made  

deliberations in consultation with Appellant Aftab through  

electronic communication namely e-mail as to which place is to  

be attacked and if attacked whether such attack would have  

serious repercussions on the State and the extent of disturbance  

it would create among the public at large.

j) The ultimate act committed namely, planned attack on the police  

force who were assigned the duty of providing security of the  

American Centre on 22.01.2002 at 6.30 a.m. was felt by the  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               170 of 195

assailants as the greatest achievement on their part which was  

celebrated by them on 24.01.2002 in the flat of Appellant Nasir.   

k) It is also relevant to note that the Indian Government as a  

member of the United Nations is duty bound to provide necessary  

security to the foreign consulate officers located in this country by  

virtue of international treaties.  Therefore, the decision of the  

Appellants along with the other gang members in having chosen  

the police security force posted outside the American Centre to  

launch their attack and having succeeded in their attempt, is yet  

another factor in this regard.

141. The above factors noted by us which have been found established in  

the case on hand in our considered opinion would go to show that  

the Appellants along with the absconding accused and Sadakat,  

who is now facing trial, really waged a war or attempted to wage a  

war against the Government of India, for which they all conspired  

together and thereby, committed the offence falling under Sections  

121, 121A and 122 read with 120B IPC. Our conclusions are based  

on our findings as recorded below:

• From the evidence on record, we find that the intention of the  

accused collectively and individually was a defiant of raging  

attitude against the State.

• Though the number of accused were not many in number like  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               171 of 195

that of a manpower required in a battle field, the mindset of each  

of the accused was loaded with such animosity against the State  

and its machinery (viz) the police force, the act of the assailants  

at the spot virtually displayed the vicious mindset of all those who  

were behind it.  

• Though the chosen assailants by the conspirators were only two  

in number, the vengeance with which they indulged in the attack  

at the spot (viz) the American Centre towards the police force and  

the extent of damage they caused demonstrated the diabolic  

mindset of all the conspirators in committing the crime.

• Though the actual assailants were only two in number at the spot  

of occurrence, the execution of the assault, which resulted in the  

killing of five policemen and injury caused to around 13 number  

of personnel, as described by the eye-witnesses, disclosed the  

merciless conduct of the whole lot of accused. The scene of  

occurrence as stated by the Witnesses, make us feel as though it  

was like a battle field and a war like situation was created, though  

no pomp and pageantry usually associated with war was not  

present.  

• This is not an offence due to an outcome of a lawlessness of a  

group of individuals who indulged in such a crime unaware of the  

damage and destruction it would cause. On the other hand, it  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               172 of 195

was an act committed with all  preparation and with a  

determination to cause damage of unimaginable extent to men  

and material.

•  The act indulged in by the accused cannot also be attributed to  

any public cause or public good in order to state that even though  

the target of attack was towards police force posted at American  

Centre, there was no hippocratic mindset behind such attack.

• However, much one would attempt to mitigate the acts indulged  

in by the accused and the assailant it is difficult to comprehend  

that the accused did not intend to commit an offence of such high  

magnitude, but were only intended to resort to a simple revenge.  

On the other hand, the intent and purpose of the attack was to  

create an indelible mark in the mind of the State that their group  

can go to any extent when it comes to the question of  

implementing their wrong perceptive Jehadi movement.  

• The target of attack chosen after considerable deliberation by the  

conspirators, namely, the American Centre and the police force  

posted there was sufficient to demonstrate that once the attack is  

executed, the State Machinery should realise the vulnerability of  

the group committing such offence who cannot be ignored for all  

time to come.  

• We find that the object of the conspirators was to create a panic  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               173 of 195

in the mind of the public at large and a horrendous threat to be  

felt by the State about the accused/assailants and all those who  

are behind such conspiracy. The consequence of such an attack  

also conveys an impression on the State to be on the alert  

always to face such and even more intense attacks in future  

which would pose a constant challenge to the State and the  

democratic Constitution.

• In the ultimate analysis, the act of the accused/assailants was not  

a mere desperate act of a small group, but was an act of higher  

magnitude with a clear object and determination to impinge on  

the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY of the Nation and its Government.  

142. Our detailed discussion of the charges found proved and based on  

the medical evidence it was sufficiently established that in the attack  

made by the Appellants along with the absconding accused and  

Sadakat at American Centre on 22.01.2002 had killed as many as  

five police personnel and injured 13 number of police personnel and  

other persons. Such offence committed and found proved against  

them certainly constitute offences falling under Sections 302, 307  

333 read with 120B IPC. Similarly, the other offences which were  

found proved against the Appellants, namely, the offence of forgery  

falling under Sections 467, 471 read with 468 read with Section  

120B of IPC were also proved.   CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               174 of 195

143. We are also convinced that the findings of the trial Court as upheld  

by the High Court in respect of the offences charged against the  

Appellant under Section 427 read with Section 120B IPC was also  

proved.  The offences found proved against the Appellant for having  

acquired and possessed firearm ammunition AK series rifles pistol  

7.62 bore ammunition in contravention of Sections 3 and 7  

punishable under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act read with 120B IPC  

as well as punishable under Section 27(2) of the Arms act read with  

120B IPC were also proved.   

144. Having reached the conclusion, when we come to the imposition of  

sentence the trial Court imposed the punishment of death sentence  

for offences under Sections 121A, 121, 122 of IPC and Sections  

302, 307, 333, 467, 471 and 468 IPC read with Section 120B of IPC  

and other punishments for offences under Sections 25(1A), 27(2),  

and 27(3) of the Arms Act read with Section 120B of IPC. On the  

question of sentencing, it will be useful to refer to certain decisions  

of this Court.  In the decision reported in State of Uttar Pradesh  

vs. Sanjay Kumar – (2012) 8 SCC 537, the sentencing policy has  

been explained in paragraph 21 which reads as under:

“21. Sentencing policy is a way to guide judicial discretion in  accomplishing particular sentencing. Generally, two criteria,  that is, the seriousness of the crime and the criminal history of  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               175 of 195

the accused, are used to prescribe punishment. By introducing  more uniformity and consistency into the sentencing process,  the objective of the policy, is to make it easier to predict  sentencing outcomes. Sentencing policies are needed to  address concerns in relation to unfettered judicial discretion  and lack of uniform and equal treatment of similarly situated  convicts. The principle of proportionality, as followed in various  Judgments of this Court, prescribes that, the punishments  should reflect the gravity of the offence and also the criminal  background of the convict. Thus, the graver the offence and  the longer the criminal record, the more severe is the  punishment  to be awarded.  By laying emphasis on  individualised justice, and shaping the result of the crime to  the circumstances of the offender and the needs of the victim  and community, restorative justice eschews uniformity of  sentencing. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence  would do more harm to the public system to undermine the  public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not  long endure under serious threats.”

145. In another recent decision of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira  

vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2012 SC 3802, the principles  

have been stated thus in paragraphs 70 and 71:  

“70. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime.  One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of  appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence  commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the  manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket  formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The  Courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of  the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What  sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts  and circumstances of each case and the Court must keep in  mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of  the offence and all other attendant circumstances.

71. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime-doer  is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               176 of 195

law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most  relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime- doer. The Court has to take into consideration all aspects  including social interest and consciousness of the society for  award of appropriate sentence.”

146. In this context, we can also refer to yet another decision of this Court  

in Mohd. Arif vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - 2011 13 SCC 621  

paragraphs 211 and 212 are relevant which are as under:

“211. No other point was argued before us at the instance of  the defence. That leaves us with the question of punishment.  The Trial Court awarded the death sentence to the Appellant  Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq for the offence under Section 121 IPC  for waging war against the Government of India. Similarly, he  was awarded death sentence for the offence under Section  120-B read with Section 302 IPC for committing murder of  Naik Ashok Kumar, Uma Shankar and Abdullah Thakur inside  Red Fort on 22-12-2000. For the purpose of the sentences,  the other convictions being of minor nature are not relevant.  On a reference having been made to it, the High Court  ultimately confirmed the death sentence. The High Court also  concurred with the finding of the Trial Court that this was a  rarest of the rare case. The High Court has observed that the  counsel appearing for him did not highlight any mitigating  circumstance justifying the conversion of death sentence to  life imprisonment perhaps because the learned counsel was  conscious of the futility of the submission.

212. The High Court specifically found that the accused had  hatched a conspiracy to attack the Indian Army stationed  inside the national monument for protecting it from any  invasion by the terrorists and had executed also that  conspiracy with the help of his other associate militants and in  that process they had killed three army jawans and more  could also have lost their lives but for the immediate retaliation  by the members of the quick reaction team of the army. In that  view, the High Court concurred with the finding of this being a  rarest of the rare case. The question is whether we should  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               177 of 195

give the same verdict in respect of the death sentence.”

147. While considering the question of sentence we feel that the various  

factors taken into account by this Court in the case of Mohammed  

Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab (supra), in paragraphs 555 and  

556 would be more relevant.  The same are as under:

“555. We are unable to accept the submission that the  Appellant was a mere tool in the hands of the Lashkar-e- Toiba. He joined the Lashkar-e-Toiba around December 2007  and continued as its member till the end, despite a number of  opportunities to leave it.  This shows his clear and  unmistakable intention to be a part of the organisation and  participate in its designs. Even after his arrest he regarded  himself as a “watan parast”, a patriotic Pakistani at war with  this country. Where is the question of his being brainwashed  or acting under remote control? We completely disagree that  the Appellant was acting like an automaton. During the past  months while we lived through this case we have been able to  make a fair assessment of the Appellant’s personality. It is  true that he is not educated but he is a very good and quick  learner, has a tough mind and strong determination. He is also  quite clever and shrewd.  Unfortunately,  he is wholly  remorseless and any feeling of pity is unknown to him. He kills  without the slightest twinge of conscience. Leaving aside all  the massacre, we may here refer only to the casualness with  which the Appellant and his associate Abu Ismail shot down  Gupta Bhelwala and the shanty-dwellers Thakur Waghela and  Bhagan Shinde at Badruddin Tayabji Marg; the attempt to  break into the wards of Cama Hospital to kill the women and  children who were crying and wailing inside; and the  nonchalance with which he and Abu Ismail gunned down the  Police Officer Durgude on coming out of Cama Hospital.

556. The saddest and the most disturbing part of the case is  that the Appellant never showed any remorse for the terrible  things he did. As seen earlier, in the initial weeks after his  arrest he continued to regard himself as a “watan parast”, a  patriotic Pakistani who considered himself to be at war with  this country, who had no use for an Indian lawyer but needed  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               178 of 195

a Pakistani lawyer to defend him in the Court. He made the  confessional statement before the Magistrate on 17-2-2009,  not out of any sense of guilt or sorrow or grief but to present  himself as a hero. He told the Magistrate that he had  absolutely no regret for whatever he had done and he wanted  to make the confession to set an example for others to  become fidayeen like him and follow him in his deeds. Even in  the course of the Trial he was never repentant and did not  show any sign of contrition. The Judge trying him had  occasion to watch him closely and has repeatedly observed  about the lack of any remorse on the part of the Appellant.  The High Court, too, has noticed that the Appellant never  showed any remorse for the large-scale murder committed by  him. This, to our mind, forecloses the possibility of any reform  or rehabilitation of the Appellant. The alternative option of life  sentence is thus unquestionably excluded in the case of the  Appellant and death remains the only punishment that can be  given to him.”

148. A decision of this Court of recent times on the question of sentence  

is reported in  Ramnaresh and Others vs.  State of  

Chhattisgarh – (2012) 4 SCC 257. The principles laid down therein  

have been summarized as under in paragraphs 77 and 78:

“77. While determining the questions relatable to sentencing  policy, the Court has to follow certain principles and those  principles are the loadstar besides the above considerations in  imposition or otherwise of the death sentence. Principles

(1) The Court has to apply the test to determine, if it was  the “rarest of rare” case for imposition of a death  sentence. (2) In the opinion of the Court, imposition of any other  punishment i.e. life imprisonment would be completely  inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice. (3) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is  an exception. (4) The option to impose sentence of imprisonment for  life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               179 of 195

nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant  considerations. (5) The method (planned or otherwise) and the manner  (extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in which the  crime was committed and the circumstances leading to  commission of such heinous crime.

78…..It is difficult to state it as an absolute rule. Every case  has to be decided on its own merits. The judicial  pronouncements, can only state the precepts that may govern  the exercise of judicial discretion to a limited extent. Justice  may be done on the facts of each case. These are the factors  which the Court may consider in its endeavour to do complete  justice between the parties.”

149. One other recent decision on imposition of death penalty is reported  

in State of State of Maharashtra vs. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul –  

(2011) 7 SCC 437. Paragraph 33 is relevant which reads as under:

“33. The Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in  Bachan Singh has been summarised in para 38 in Machhi  Singh v. State of Punjab and the following guidelines have  been stated while considering the possibility of awarding  sentence of death: (Machhi Singh case, SCC p. 489)

“(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted  except in gravest cases of extreme culpability. (ii)  Before opting for  the death penalty the  circumstances of the ‘offender’ also requires to be taken  into consideration along with the circumstances of the  ‘crime’. (iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is  an exception. … death sentence must be imposed only  when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether  inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant  circumstances of the crime, and provided, and only  provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment  for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having  regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and  all the relevant circumstances. (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               180 of 195

circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the  mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full  weightage and a just balance has to be struck between  the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before  the option is exercised.”

150. On the question of sentence, we can make useful reference to  

recent decision of this Court Sanjay Kumar (supra) wherein after  

referring to the earlier  decisions reported in  Swamy  

Shraddananda (2) vs. State of Karnataka - (2008) 13 SCC  

767,  Rameshbhai  Chandubhai  Rathod (2) vs. State of  

Gujarat - (2011) 2 SCC 764  and Brajendrasingh vs. State of  

Madhya Pradesh - (2012) 4 SCC 289, observed as under  

paragraph 24:

"24. In view of the above, we reach the inescapable  conclusion that the submissions advanced by the learned  counsel  for the State are unfounded.  The aforesaid  Judgments make it crystal clear that this Court has merely  found out the via media, where considering the facts and  circumstances of a particular case, by way of which it has  come to the conclusion that it was not the “rarest of rare  cases”, warranting death penalty, but a sentence of 14 years  or 20 years, as referred to in the guidelines laid down by the  States would be totally inadequate. The life imprisonment  cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20  years, rather it always meant as the whole natural life. This  Court has always clarified that the punishment so awarded  would be subject to any order passed in exercise of the  clemency powers of the President of India or the Governor of  the State, as the case may be. Pardons, reprieves and  remissions are granted in exercise of prerogative power.  There is no scope of judicial review of such orders except on  very limited grounds, for example, non-application of mind  while passing the order; non-consideration of relevant  material; or if the order suffers from arbitrariness. The power  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               181 of 195

to grant pardons and to commute sentences is coupled with a  duty to exercise the same fairly and reasonably.  Administration of justice cannot be perverted by executive or  political pressure. Of course, adoption of uniform standards  may not be possible while exercising the power of pardon.  Thus, such orders do not interfere with the sovereign power of  the State. More so, not being in contravention of any statutory  or constitutional provision, the orders, even if treated to have  been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution do not  deserve to be labelled as unwarranted. The aforesaid orders  have been passed considering the gravity of the offences in  those cases that the accused would not be entitled to be  considered for premature release under the guidelines issued  for that purpose i.e. under the Jail Manual, etc. or even under  Section 433-A CrPC.”

151. Sentencing is a delicate task requiring an interdisciplinary approach  

and calls for special skills and talents. A proper sentence is the  

amalgam of many factors, such as, the nature of offence,  

circumstances – extenuating or aggravating – of the offence, prior  

criminal record of the offender, age and background of the offender  

with reference to education, home life, sobriety, social adjustment,  

emotional and mental condition, the prospects for his rehabilitation  

etc. The above passage can be found in Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s Law  

of Crimes, 26th Edition at page 185 on the topic ‘Of Punishments’.

152. We also keep in mind that under Section 121 for the offence of  

waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against  

the Government of India, the punishment provided is with death or  

imprisonment for life and also liable to imposition of fine. We have  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               182 of 195

also noted that under Section 354(3) of Cr.P.C., when the conviction  

is for an offence punishable with death or in the alternative with  

imprisonment for life or imprisonment for term of years, the  

Judgment should state the reasons for the sentence awarded and in  

the case of sentence of death the special reasons for awarding such  

sentence.  

153. Having noted the above decisions on the question of sentence we  

formulate the following fundamental principles to be borne in mind  

while dealing with the sentence to be imposed in respect of crimes  

committed of such grotesque nature.

1) The sentence to be awarded should achieve twin  objectives  a) Deterrence b) Correction 2) The Court  should consider social  interest  and  consciousness of the society for awarding appropriate  punishment. 3) Seriousness of the crime and the criminal history of the  accused is yet another factor. 4) Graver the offence longer the criminal record should  result severity in the punishment. 5) Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would  do more harm to the public 6) Imposition of inadequate sentence would undermine the  public confidence in the efficacy of law and society cannot  endure such threats.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               183 of 195

154. In cases of this nature where charges under Sections 121, 122,  

121A read with 120B IPC as well as 302 IPC are involved, other  

principles should also be kept in mind, namely:

A) Most important factor should be the intention and purpose  

behind the waging of war against the State should be  

ascertained

B) The modus operandi adopted which involved mobilization of  

men materials such as arms and ammunitions indulging in  

serious conspiracy over a period of time are another relevant  

factor

C) It will not depend upon the number of persons – even limited  

persons can indulge in more harmful crime than large crowd of  

persons could do.

D) There need not be pomp and pageantry like a battle field.

E) Not all violent behaviour would fall within the prescription of  

waging war as stipulated under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read  

with 120B.

F) The object sought to be achieved should be directed against  

the sovereignty of the State and not merely commission of  

crime even if it is of higher velocity.

G) The concept of ‘waging war’ should not be stretched too far.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               184 of 195

H) A balanced and realistic approach should be maintained while  

construing the offence committed and find out whether it  

would amount to waging of war against the State

I) Mere organized movement with violence without any intention  

of acting against the interest of the nation has to be examined.

J) Neither the number engaged nor the power employed nor the  

arms used can be the criteria.

K) It should be seen as to what is the purpose behind the  

choosing of a target of attack

L) When a planned operation is executed, what was the extent of  

disaster resulted, is to be seen

M) It is to be seen whether it is a mere desperate act of a small  

group of persons who indulged in the crime.  

N) It must be seen whether the undoubted objective and  

determination of the offender was it to impinge on the  

sovereignty of the nation

O) In this context the expansive definition of government of India  

should be understood

155. Having thus found that the Appellants have committed the offences  

for which they are charged, except the charge under Section 27(3)  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               185 of 195

of the Arms Act, we have also concluded that the all the offences  

committed by the Appellants are of a very high magnitude and it has  

created an indelible scar especially when the offence of such nature  

has been committed with the support of foreign nationals of the  

neighbouring country. Therefore, there is every justification in the  

State machinery in having proceeded against the Appellants and  

other accused for the offences under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read  

with 120B IPC as well as the charges under Sections 302, 307, 333  

read with 120B IPC. The magnitude of the offences, the manner in  

which it was carried out, the disastrous effect it caused which  

resulted in loss of life of five police personnel apart from seriously  

injuring around 13 number of police personnel and other civilians,  

the animus with which the offence came to be committed were all  

factors which persuaded the Courts below to hold that the extreme  

punishment of DEATH should be awarded for the Appellants.  We,  

however, gave a serious thought and consideration to the nature of  

punishment to be imposed on the Appellants.  While doing so, we  

find that from the year 1999 after the release of Asif from Tihar Jail  

where he developed close contact with Appellant Aftab and  

whereafter when he came to Calcutta, the evil desire was formulated  

for which purpose the assistance of Appellant Nasir was also taken  

by luring him with sustained income for him.  Though we could  

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               186 of 195

notice that at the time when Appellant Nasir joined hands with Asif,  

his involvement in such serious activities affecting the society was  

not existing, after associating himself with Asif, he was definitely  

aware of the nature of activities indulged in by Asif along with Aftab  

and others.  Even on his own self, it was revealed that he was aware  

that in 1991 Asif went to Kashmir and joined Jehadi movement.  In  

spite of such knowledge about the involvement of Asif in such  

unlawful activities, affecting the nation as a whole, when he gained  

further knowledge about his involvement and association with  

persons like Appellant Aftab and other Jehadis, it did not occur to  

him to detach himself from the association of Asif.  On the other  

hand, when in the initial stages of his re-union with Asif, Appellant  

Nasir was introduced to Appellant Aftab, Zahid, Salim, Sadakat,  

Hasan Imam and others over a period of time, it has come out that  

knowing full well of the illegal activities of the associated accused,  

Appellant Nasir continued to join hands along with them in executing  

very many tasks assigned to him by Asif and Aftab till the demise of  

Asif and thereafter by Appellant Aftab who was in constant touch  

with Appellant Nasir and other accused by passing on messages  

through email.  In fact, Aftab was called by the gang members as  

‘Bhaisahab’ signifying that he was leading the whole group of the  

conspirators.   

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               187 of 195

156. Having noted the extent of participation of Appellant Nasir and Aftab  

in detail in the earlier part of our Judgment, we are convinced that  

while the role of Appellant Aftab is of very high magnitude, the role  

of Appellant Nasir is slightly lesser in degree as compared to that of  

Appellant Aftab, though the magnitude of the crime committed by  

both of them along with the other accused cannot be differentiated  

amongst them.  In the light of our assessment relating to the nature  

of involvement of Appellant Nasir who was mainly acting based on  

the directions of Appellant Aftab and other accused, on many  

occasions he also played a key role, such as in the matter of  

arranging for fake passports, getting premises for the gang members  

to hold their meetings for conspiracy, accommodating the arms and  

ammunitions brought by other members in pursuit of their common  

object, arranging for the transportation of other accused to the city  

Calcutta, i.e. the place of occurrence and also by drawing the  

required sketch for the movement of co-accused to carry out the  

operation to be executed at the targeted place (viz) American  

Centre. We must state that based on the evidence on record,  

we have found that Appellant Aftab, though was operating  

behind the screen, he was the brain behind the whole scene of  

occurrence. He was the mastermind and schemed it in such a  

way to make it appear as though he had no role to play but in  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               188 of 195

reality he formulated the evil design and by using Asif,  

Appellant Nasir, Zahid, Salim, Sadakat and the rest of the  

conspirators tow in line with him and executed the inferno  

(Scene of Horror) successfully to the detriment of the State.  

Therefore, while the involvement of Appellants Aftab and Nasir in  

respect of the offences for which they were charged and found  

proved are devilish, diabolic, horrendous, vicious, wicked and its  

magnitude cannot be lessoned on any account in our considered  

opinion, the role of Appellant Nasir was always a shade lesser than  

what can be attributed to Appellant Aftab.   

157. Having regard to our above conclusion while at the same time in our  

view the nature of crime namely, the attack on the police force  

posted at the American Centre on 22.01.2002 at 6.30 a.m. in which  

five police personnel were killed and around 13 number of police  

personnel and other civilians were grievously injured apart from  

causing damage to the public property which definitely constituted  

the offences falling under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 302, 307, 333  

read with 120B as well as other provisions of IPC and of Arms Act,  

it must be stated that this case cannot be equated with the case in  

Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra) or the one dealt with by  

this Court relating to Mohammed Ajmal  Mohammad Amir  

Kasab (supra). Similarly, in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. State  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               189 of 195

(NCT of Delhi) – (2011) 13 SCC 621, the facts relating to attack on  

Red Fort were different from the present case and hence cannot be  

used for the purpose of deciding the sentence to be imposed on the  

accused. Therefore, even while holding that the charges found  

proved against the Appellant are of grave in nature, when it comes  

to the question of sentence we wish to hold that the imposition of  

death penalty is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the  

case though it calls for other deterrent punishment.  

158. In this context, we wish to follow our earlier decision wherein we  

have referred to the decision reported in Gopal Vinayak Godse  

vs. The State of Maharashtra and others – AIR 1961 SC 600  

and applying Section 45 IPC which defines life to mean the life of a  

human being unless the contrary appears from the context, the  

Appellant Aftab deserves to be imprisoned for life for the entirety of  

his life while in the case of Appellant Nasir he can be imposed with a  

life imprisonment for a minimum period of 30 years. For reaching our  

above conclusions, we can refer to the line of cases on this aspect  

which we have noted in detail in the decisions reported in Sandeep  

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2012) 6 SCC 107, paragraph 72,  

and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab - (2013) 3 SCC 294,  

paragraph 40, which reads as under:

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               190 of 195

Paragraph 72 of Sandeep (supra)

“72. It is, therefore, well settled that awarding of life sentence  is the rule, death is an exception. The application of “the rarest  of the rare case” principle is dependent upon and differs from  case to case. However, the principles laid down earlier and  restated in the various decisions of this Court referred to  above can be broadly stated that a deliberately planned crime,  executed meticulously in a diabolic manner, exhibiting  inhuman conduct  in a ghastly manner,  touching the  conscience of everyone and thereby disturbing the moral fibre  of society would call for imposition of capital punishment in  order to ensure that it acts as a deterrent.” Paragraph 40 of Mohinder Singh (supra)

40. Be that as it may. When we come to the question of  applying the various principles culled out from the decisions  right from the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh  right up to the case of Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab as held by my  learned Brother P. Sathasivam, J. for the various reasons  referred to therein, we find that the case still does not fall  within the category of the “rarest of the rare case” though it  calls for a stringent punishment. Therefore, while modifying  the sentence from one of death penalty to that of life  imprisonment till the end of his life we apply the earliest  decision of this Court in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of  Maharashtra wherein this Court held in para 5 as under:  (Gopal Vinayak case, AIR p. 603)

“5. … It does not say that transportation for life shall be  deemed to be transportation for twenty years for all  purposes; nor does the amended section which  substitutes the words ‘imprisonment  for life’  for  ‘transportation for life’ enable the drawing of any such  all-embracing fiction. A sentence of transportation for  life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated  as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the  remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life.”

The said principle was followed subsequently in Mohd. Munna  v. Union of India, SCC p. 426, para 15.”

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               191 of 195

159. In the light of our above conclusions, while we do not find any merits  

in these appeals and while dismissing the appeals and confirming  

the guilt of all the charges found proved against both the Appellants  

by the trial Court, as confirmed by the High Court, except the charge  

under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act which alone is set aside. For  

the offences which have been found proved and confirmed in these  

appeals against the Appellants, while for the Appellant Nasir in  

Criminal Appeal No.1240-41 of 2010 the punishment of death for the  

offence under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 120B IPC is  

modified as one of life and we hold that he should undergo Rigorous  

Imprisonment for a minimum period of 30 years without any  

remission. In so far as Appellant Aftab in Criminal  Appeal  

No.1242-43 of 2010 is concerned for the offences found proved  

under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 120B IPC, the punishment  

of death shall stand modified and he shall undergo imprisonment of  

life till the end of his life. All the other sentences imposed on the  

Appellants are maintained which as held by the Courts below shall  

run concurrently.

160. Before parting with the case, we must place on record and  

appreciate the work of the Investigation Team headed by PW-123-

Anil Kar. On the very date of the incident when he was entrusted  

with the task of investigation, he swung into action and from then  CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               192 of 195

onwards, we found that he relentlessly carried on the investigation  

with the wholehearted assistance of each one of his team members  

and they deserve appropriate encouragement in their services.  

161. These appeals are, therefore, partly allowed to the extent that the  

imposition of death penalty for offence under Section 27(3) of the  

Arms Act is set aside and imposition of death penalty for offences  

under Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 120B IPC is modified into  

one of life and in the case of the Appellant Aftab such life  

imprisonment should be suffered by him till the end of his life and in  

the case of Appellant Nasir life imprisonment should be for a  

minimum period of 30 years without any remission. Appeals stand  

disposed of on the above terms.

..……….……….…………………………..J.                         [A.K. Patnaik]

   ...……….…….………………………………J.

               [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi;  May 21, 2014.

CRL. A.NOS.1240-1241 OF 2010                         & CRL. A.NOS.1242-1243 OF 2010                                               193 of 195