He Was Left To Fend For Himself Without Legal Representation: Supreme Court Orders De Novo Trial For Death Row Convict In 1996 Samleti Bus Blast Case
The Court acquitted second convict Salim and upheld acquittal of six other accused, holding retracted confessions cannot found a conviction without independent corroboration.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to Dr. Abdul Hameed for the 1996 Samleti bus bombing that killed fourteen persons, holding that he was left to fend for himself and conduct his own trial in a case of exceptional seriousness and complexity, without ever being provided legal representation despite facing capital charges.
The Court ordered a de-novo trial before a specially designated Special Court at Jaipur, to be completed within a year, while separately acquitting a second convict, Pappu @ Salim, of all charges after finding his repeatedly re-recorded and later retracted confessional statements too unreliable to sustain a conviction, and upheld the acquittal of six other co-accused for want of any independent evidence connecting them to the blast.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “…The material on record thus affirms and fortify the defense argument that Accused No. 9-Dr. Abdul Hameed was left to fend for himself and conduct the trial on his own in a case of exceptional seriousness and complexity, a circumstance that raises substantial concerns regarding the fairness of the trial and the effective protection of his fundamental right to a fair and meaningful defence”.
“…The only course, therefore, which adequately balances the fundamental rights of Accused No. 9- Dr. Abdul Hameed with the legitimate societal interest in ensuring that serious criminal allegations are adjudicated in accordance with law, would be to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the trial Court for a de-novo trial. Such a course alone remedies the constitutional defect, 140 restores procedural fairness, and at the same time preserves the opportunity to the prosecution to establish its case through a trial conducted in conformity with the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing criminal proceedings”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Kamini Jaiswal appeared for the appellant and Raja Thakare, Additional Solicitor General appeared for the respondent.
The case arose from a powerful bomb explosion aboard a Rajasthan Roadways bus near Samleti village on May 22, 1996, while it was travelling from Agra to Bikaner, killing fourteen passengers and injuring thirty-seven others.
Investigation led police to allege a conspiracy involving the Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front and Harkat-ul-Ansar, resulting in the arrest of twelve accused over the following years. The trial court convicted Dr. Abdul Hameed under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death, relying primarily on identification by the bus conductor and other passengers, forensic evidence of RDX use, and the confessional statement of co-accused Pappu @ Salim.
The Rajasthan High Court confirmed the death sentence in 2019 while acquitting several other co-accused, including Javed Khan, Abdul Goni, Lateef Ahmad Baja, Mohammad Ali Bhatt, Mirza Nisar Hussain and Raees Baeg, finding the evidence against them either derivative or insufficient. Pappu @ Salim's own conviction, based substantially on his confessional statements, was separately affirmed by the High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for Dr. Abdul Hameed raised, for the first time at this stage, the fundamental objection that he had remained wholly unrepresented throughout the trial despite facing a capital charge.
The Court took the unusual step of connecting with Dr. Abdul Hameed through video conferencing, during which he confirmed unequivocally that no advocate, private or through legal aid, had ever represented him, a position the State did not dispute.
The Court found this circumstance corroborated by its own earlier order remanding the sentencing stage in 2015 for the same reason, and held that the absence of any meaningful legal assistance in a case involving voluminous evidence, complex identification issues and confessional statements struck at the very foundation of a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21. Relying on Mohd. Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)(2012) 9 SCC 408, the Court held that while denial of legal representation does not automatically result in acquittal, the gravity of the offence here, a terror attack killing fourteen people, made a de-novo trial, rather than outright acquittal or affirmance on a constitutionally tainted record, the only course consistent with both the accused's rights and society's interest in a genuine adjudication of guilt.
“We are not oblivious to the practical difficulties that such a course may entail. Nearly three decades have elapsed since the occurrence in question, and the possibility that some witnesses may have passed away; suffered fading memories; or may no longer be available to depose cannot be ruled out. These are, however, consequences that inevitably accompany the delay in the criminal process and cannot, by themselves, justify the affirmation of a conviction recorded in proceedings found to be constitutionally non-compliant, more so when the fundamental procedural defect was writ large on the face of the record and was raised by Accused No. 9-Dr. Abdul Hameed before the High Court. Otherwise also, the obligation to ensure that the accused is provided appropriate legal aid is upon the Court and the accused cannot be faulted for the Court’s failure to discharge its constitutional obligation of ensuring a fair trial. The constitutional guarantee of a fair trial 141 is absolutely non-negotiable and cannot be sacrificed at the altar of practical convenience. The administration of criminal justice is founded not merely upon the objective of securing convictions but equally upon the assurance that every conviction is preceded by a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. Consequently, notwithstanding the practical impediments that may confront the prosecution or the defence, the constitutional imperative of ensuring a fair trial must prevail”, the Bench noted.
On Pappu @ Salim's appeal, the Court found his confessional statements had been recorded and re-recorded multiple times amid persistent doubts about compliance with procedural safeguards, and that he had categorically repudiated them when produced as a witness, denying he had ever acted as an approver. Absent any independent recovery, forensic material, or eyewitness account linking him to the conspiracy, the Court held that a retracted confession of this nature could not, without substantial corroboration, sustain a conviction, and acquitted him of all charges.
On the State's appeal against the acquittal of the six other co-accused, the Court held that the evidence against them, chiefly generic references in a co-accused's confessional statement about their movements and associations, never specifically implicated any of them in the Samleti bombing itself, and that the reinforced presumption of innocence attaching to an acquittal could not be displaced on such material.
The Court accordingly partly allowed Dr. Abdul Hameed's appeal, remitting his case for a de-novo trial with directions to secure him competent legal representation through the State Legal Services Authority if needed, and to conclude proceedings within one year; allowed Pappu @ Salim's appeal and acquitted him outright; and dismissed the State's appeals against the acquittal of the remaining six accused.
Cause Title: Dr. Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 734)
Appearances:
Appellant: Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate.
Respondent: Raja Thakare, Additional Solicitor General.