Criminal Appeal No. 1299 of 2016 · The High Court · 2025

a fake voter ID in the name of Mr. Girish Chandra Joshi. On

28.12.2012, accused No.6 and accused No.l chatted about the receiving of money xl) Accused No.6 communicated with other IM Members'e- mails in encrypted and coded form so that the content of their communication remains secret. He was in regular contact with accused No.1 and also with accused Nos.2 to 5 and also with Mohsin Chaudhary over Internet chatting for the preparation and supplying offake IDs and delivery ofexplosives.

8. The sanction for prosecuting the accused for the offences under the UAP Acthas been accorded by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govemment of India, vide Order No.1l01l/1412013-l5.Vl (IV),Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security-I Division, North Block, New Delhi, dated27.05.2015.

9. On23.12.2014 the case against accused No.1 was split, and on 17.10.2014, the case against accused Nos.2 and 5 is pending in Special Sessions Case No.2 of2014, while the case against accused 26 KL,J & PSS,J Crl.A No.1299 of20l6 along with RT No. t of 2016 Nos.l, 3, and 4 was ordered to be clubbed with Special Sessions Case No.2 ol 11014 for conducting joint trial. On 26.02.2015 as per the Orders ol this Court in R.O.C.No.1030lEIl2010, the Special Sessions Case Nos.2 and 3 of 2014 were transferred to the trial Court. On 1(t,03.2015, the present case was received from learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Nampally. Hyderabad, vide letter Dis. No.497 of 2015, dated 10.03.2015, and renumbered./ registered as Special Sessions Case No.1 o12015. As per Dis.No.682 of 2015, date<l 14.08.2015 and regarding reference No.59/CP- Camp/Cyb,'20 lii,dated 04.08.2015, this Court accorded permission ro the trial Cour1. vidc R.O.C.No.1037lEll20l0, dated 21.08.2015, to conduct triai rf' Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2015 in the Central Prison, Cherlapally, Rangareddy District, thrice a week i.e., Monday to Wednesday from 24.08.2015 onwards.

10. After framing the charges against accused Nos.2 to 6 as mentioned in thr: impugned judgment of trial Court, the trial Court proceeded with trial.

11. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.l to 157 and exhibited I-xs.Pt to 507 and also MOs.l to 201. The accused did not examinc any witness on their behalf. However, they got 21 KL,,I & pSS,J Crl.A. No.1299 of20l6 alont with RT No.l of20l6 exhibited Exs.Dl to D40, which are relevant portions in Section - l6l of Cr.P.C. statements, IP addresses, details of mails etc.

12. After hearing both sides, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.2 to 6 and accordingly imposed death sentences and other sentences on them in the manner stated in the impugned judgment. Challenging the same, accused Nos.2 to 6 prefened this appeal. Whereas, the leamed trial Court addressed a letter, dated 19.12.2016, to this Court seeking confirmation of capital punishment of death under Section - 366 of the Cr.P.C., which was registered as Referred Trial (R.T.) No.l of 2016.

13. COMMON CONTENTIONS OF ACCUSED Nos.2 to 6 There was a delay of I % hours approximately for registering the crime on the complaints lodged by the de facto complainants and the said delay was not explained properly; ll. The timing version of the blast in the complaint and deposition does not match; lll. The FIR is not having full details of bomb blast and there is no mention of the names in the complaint; 28 KI .J & PSS,J Crl.A. No.t299 of20l6 along wrth RTNo.l of20l6 lv. The cornolaint is in English and the complainant is not aware of English language and therefore, it is contended that PWl is unawale ,lf the contents of the complaint; In the FIR, the details ol witnesses were not mentioned and, therefore, the FIR is not reliable; vl. Seizurc p.:ocedure was not followed; vl1. Beforc registration of crime, NIA Officiats are there at the scene o I c,ffence; Dying l)eclarations were not recorded; FSL Experts werc not examined; Prosecution failed to prove the charges leveled against the vIl x accused b,:yond reasonable doubt; xi. ldentiflcation Parade (lP) was not conducted as per the procedure laid down under the Criminal Rules of Practice; xll. Identification parade was conducted on 28.06.2014 after one and half ycars of the blast/incident; None of the rvitnesses identified the accused; xtv. There is nu eye-witness or the direct evidence; Entire casr: rests on circumstantial evidence, which does not form a conrplete chain; 29 KI.J & PSS,J Crl.A. No 1299 of2016 along with RT No.l of20l6 xvt. There is break ofchain ofevents; xvl1. Sanctions were not obtained properly and the same are in violation of the procedure laid down under Section - 196 of Cr.P.C.; xvlll. Sanctioning Authorities were not examined; xlx. Sanction proceedings issued vide Exs.P393, 394,395 are not in accordance with the procedure laid down under law; xx. No evidence from the scene of offence/spot was collected; xx1 Opinions of Experts were not properly obtained; xxll. Cognizance was not taken properly. No reasons were assigned in the cognizance orders; xxI11. Charge was altered without notice and without following due procedure laid down under law; xxlv. Procedure for fiaming charges was not followed; xxv. There is violation of Sections - 2ll, 212, 215, 216 (2), (3), (4) and (5) and 218 of Cr.P.C.; xxv1. The Magistrates, who recorded statements under Section - 164 of Cr.P.C., were not examined; xxv11. Notification issued under Section - 6 of NIA Act is not there; 30 KI-,J & PSS,J Crl A No.1299 of2016 along with RT No I of20l6 xxviii. Prosecution failed to establish any clue with regard to OrganizeLtion of accused Nos.2 and 5; xxlx. PW.54 is a planted witness; Accusecl No.4 never stayed in the house at r\bdullapurmet as per evrdence of lnvestigating Officer; xxxt. It is a'l'ransformer Blast; xxxtr. PW.59. It{erugu Ilaiah is not an eye-witness; xxxiii. Reconsurrction of the scene is not in accordance with the procedurt: laid dorvn; This Court cannot appoint mitigators to obtain reports with regard to rnitigating circumstances of the accused; Contrarlictions in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, which a re major; There is violation of the procedure laid down under Rules - 31 and 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice; xxxvll Deposition of PW, 143 i.e., Mr. T. Nageswar Rao, Reporter of TV9 Telul3u News Channel, cannot be believed; xxxvt I I Certificates under Section - 658 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (f-oL lihort'Evidence Act') were not obtained; Panch u,itnesses were not examined; 3l KLJ & PSS,' Crl.A. No.l299 of20l6 along with RT No.l of 2016 xl. The doctors, who treated the injured persons, were not examined; xli. Learned trial Court did not consider the purport of Section - 30 of the Evidence Act; xlii. Learned trial Court cannot record conviction twice or more for the very same offences and it amounts to "double jeopardy"; xliii. Memos were filed by the accused raising objection not to pronounce judgment in the absence oftheir counsel. The same were not considered; xliv. Thus, learned trial Court convicted the accused without hearing the accused on sentence. Therefore, the same ts in violation of Sentencing Policy and law laid down by the Apex Court; xlv. Recoveries were not properly proved; xlvi. Prosecution failed to prove the cycle theory; and xlvii. Injured witnesses were not examined. xlviii. Conspiracy was not proved; xlix. There was no claim by Indian Muj ahuddin against accused No.6; 32 KI,,J & PSS,I Crl.A. No.l299 of 20 t6 aiong with RT No.l of 2016 l. Prosecutron failed Lo prove allegations against accused No.6 about tho preparation of fake ID Cards in respect of accused Nos.2, 3 and 5; li. Prosecution failed to prove the allegation that fake ID furnished to accused No.l, who in turn provided the same to accused },los.2, 3, and 5 by producing cogent evidence; lii. NIA has :ommitted irregularities with regard to FIR No.54 of 201 I and RC No.6 of 2011; and liii. Without t:onsidering the same, the trial Court convicted the accused and imposed the maximum punishment of the death penalty

14. SPIiCIFIC CONTENTIONS OF ACCUSED No.6: His name was not there in the FIR, charge sheet, or first supplemerrtary charge sheet. His name was added in the second supplementary charge sheet; PW.18 is.rot an Expert, his testimony is not lrustworthy. His evidence has no legal sanctity; 33 KL,J & PSSJ Crl.A. No.l299 of20l6 along with RTNo I of2016 lll. Placing reliance on Section - 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, leamed counsel for accused No.6 contended that leamed trial Court did not consider the purport of the said provision; Leamed trial Court convicted accused No.6 for the offences under Sections - 109 and l20B of IPC and Section - 18 of UPA without considering the contentions of accused No.6 that the depositions of prosecution witnesses do not constitute the ingredients of the said offences and that prosecution failed to prove the said offences against accused No.6 by producing cogent evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. Learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 5 relied upon the following decisions: a) State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Nitin Gunwant Shahr b) Mr. S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu2 c) Param Hans Yadav v. State of Bihar3 d) Dhan Raj alias Dhan v. State of Haryanaa e) Phool Chand v. State of U.P.s f) Shreya Singhal v. Union oflndia6 g) Jagiit Singh v. State ofPunjabT