Prosecution Miserably Failed To Prove Charges: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man Allegedly Involved In 1996 Bomb Blast That Took 18 Lives

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man who was allegedly involved in bomb blast that occurred in 1996 at Modinagar, Ghaziabad and took lives of 18 innocent persons.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused challenging the Judgment by which he was convicted under Sections 302, 34, 307, 427, 120-B, 121-A, and 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (ESA).

A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held, “The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges that the appellant conspired to plant a bomb along with co-accused to create a bomb explosion in the bus which resulted in large number of loss of lives and injuries to the passengers and damage to public property i.e. this bus. The findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the sentence awarded to the appellant are accordingly liable to be set aside.”

The Bench said that the confessional statement of the accused recorded by and before the police is not duly proved and could not be proved in view of legal bar created by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

Advocate Irshad Mohammad appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused, while AGA Shushil Kumar Pandey appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Facts of the Case

As per the prosecution case, one person filed a written report stating that on April 27, 1996, he was operating Roadways Bus of Roorkee Bus Depot from Delhi. The bus started from Delhi taking around 53 passengers on board to Roorkee. On the way bus stopped at Mohan Nagar Check Post and 14 passengers also boarded in the bus therefrom. When the bus crossed the police station of Modi Nagar, slightly prior to bus stand, an explosion occurred in the bus at 17:00 hours on the front side, which resulted in death of 10 passengers including driver of the bus on the spot. Many passengers including the informant got injured and the condition of some of them were very serious.

By the time the police arrived at the spot, a large crowd had already gathered and the people were taking the injured to the hospital. The front portion of the bus was badly damaged and the incident appeared to be a result of a terrorist act. Resultantly, an FIR was registered. The Trial Court acquitted the co accused namely Tasleem from all charges but convicted the Appellant-Mohammad Ilyas and co-accused namely Abdul Mateen. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the accused was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “None of the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution to establish complicity of the appellant in the offence have supported the prosecution version. The witnesses PW 6-Subrati, PW 9-Ahsan are key witnesses of prosecution who were produced to prove alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and co-accused regarding their complicity in the offence but they have outrightly disowned their statements recorded by Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC and have given exculpatory evidence against the appellant with regard to the present offence.”

The Court noted that the device by which alleged confessional statement of the Appellant was recorded in an audio cassette i.e. tape recorder was not produced before the Court as a material exhibit.

“Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which creates an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not applicable. The diary and railway tickets recovered from the personal search of the appellant will not come within the purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as the same has not been recovered or discovered in consequence of any information received from the appellant who was accused of the offence at that time”, it added.

The Court explained that the police officer shall, before recording any confession under sub-section (1), explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him and such police officer shall not record any such confession unless upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.

“The provision of Section 15 TADA which allows admissibility of a confession recorded by a Senior Police Officer is not applicable to present case. … The mere fact that 3 railway tickets recovered from the appellant and was proved by PW 11 in his evidence, which showed that he travelled from Muzaffarnagar to Jammu Tawi two times and from Muzaffarnagar to Ludhiana at one point of time prior to the incident, cannot form the basis that he was involved in the present offence”, it said.

Conclusion

The Court remarked that the Trial Court’s findings against the Appellant for the charges are not found to be sustainable and prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to want of legally admissible evidence against him.

“We are recording acquittal in this case with heavy heart as the case is of such propensity that it shock the conscience of the society as 18 innocent persons lost their life in the terrorist plot”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Mohd. Ilyas v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:198106-DB)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Irshad Mohammad, Anand Kumar Mishra, Arbaz Danish, Rajiv Kumar Mishra, and Zia Naz Zaidi.

Respondent: AGA Shushil Kumar Pandey

Click here to read/download the Judgment