caselaws
Supreme Court of India
State Of J & K vs Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid & Anr on 1 July, 2015Author: U U Lalit
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Uday Umesh Lalit
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1743/2009
State of J&K …. Appellant
Versus
Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid and another. …. Respondents.
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. This Appeal under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
challenges the judgment and order dated 02.03.2009 passed by the third
Additional Sessions Judge i.e. the Designated Court under the Act in
File No. 26/Challan, acquitting the respondents of the offences under
sections 3 and 4 of the Act, section 120-B read with sections 302, 307
and 34 of Ranbir Penal Code and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives
Substances Act, 1908 arising out of FIR No. 12 of 1995.
2. On the occasion of celebration of Republic Day on 26.01.1995 at
about 10:20 a.m. in Maulana Azad Memorial Stadium, Jammu, General KV
Krishna Rao, Governor of Jammu and Kashmir was addressing a huge
gathering of about 40,000 people including high dignitaries, VIPs,
Senior Officers of the Govt., leaders of political parties and
respectable citizens when three powerful bomb explosions took place at
the site of public address system, near the dais and on the main road,
outside the stadium resulting in killing of eight persons, and in
causing grievous injuries to eighteen persons and disruption of the
celebrations. Soon after the incident FIR No. 12 of 1995 dated
26.01.1995 of PS Nowbad, Jammu (J&K) relating to said bomb blasts was
registered. At the request of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the
investigation was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation
(C.B.I.) vide notification dated 31.01.1995 and Regular Case No.
RC1(5)/95-SIUV was registered in CBI on 31.01.1995.
3. After investigation was taken over by CBI, one Mohd. Irfan was
arrested on 07.04.1995. On 09.04.1995 he made disclosure statements
leading to certain recoveries. On 24.04.1995 said Mohd. Irfan made a
confessional statement which was recorded by PW2 Sharad Kumar, S.P.
CBI, under section 15 of the Act, inter alia, to the following effect:
a) Accused Mohd. Irfan along with Maj Tariq of ISI,
Pakistan, Ahmed Hassan, Commander of HM, Muzaffarabad, Mebhoob-
ul-Haq, Commander of HM, Sialkot, Amir-ul-Haq, Naib Commander,
HM and Zia Kashmiri and others unknown had assembled in the
office of Jamait-e-Islami, Model Town, Sialkot, Pakistan on
26.12.1994 and hatched a conspiracy to kill Governor, J&K,
Senior officers of the Government and other persons with a view
to strike terror in Jammu city on the occasion of Republic Day
Celebrations. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused
Mohd. Irfan, Menboob-ul-Haq and Ahmed Hassan visited the office
of ISI situated near village Langaryali, Sialkot Cantt. Pakistan
on 26.12.1994 and held a meeting with Major Tariq, Major
Ibrahim, Captain Farhan, Subedar Anwar of ISI, Pakistan and
Wasim Ahmed @ Hamid S/o Jallaluddin Malik R/o Asthan Mohalla,
Kishtawar, J&K and hatched the plan. In order to achieve the
object of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, they decided to
carry two pre-set time bombs across the border to Jammu for
planting the same, one near the dais and the other near the
pavilion of MAM Stadium Jammu and deputed Mohd. Irfan and Ghulam
Nabi for this task.
b) On 23.12.1994 in the ISI Office, Sialkot at 11:00 a.m.
Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed were imparted knowledge about the
bombs and their functioning and operations, which were to be
planted in the MAM Stadium. They were also issued instructions
to protect the bombs from water and to plant them in the Stadium
after the night would set in, to take two detonators for each
bomb, to carry the Khurpa for digging the pits, and not to leave
any clue of the planting of the bombs at the site. They were
also told that the bombs were pre set so to explode at the time
of the Republic Day function on 26.01.1995. Capt. Farhan gave
Rs. 3,000/- each to Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed and Rs. 2,000/-
to Ghulam Nabi in Indian Currency and also a sack to Mohd. Irfan
wherein he put his boots, trouser, khurpa and pistol. Major
Ibrahim provided one time bomb of 5 Kg each to Mohd. Irfan and
Wasim Ahmed duly wrapped in black polythene and green coloured
sacks. All of them left ISI Office, Sialkot and reached Check
Post Jhumian at about 10:00 p.m. on 28.12.1994. Subedar Anwar
and Mahboob-ul-Haq returned to Sialkot, while Mohd. Irfan, Wasim
Ahmed and Ghulam Nabi crossed the border and entered into Indian
Territory concealed the bombs and khurpa near River Tawi,
outside Jammu city.
c) On 30.12.1994 Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed and Ghulam Nabi
went to a park where Ghulam Nabi stayed behind while Mohd. Irfan
and Wasim Ahmed went to MAM Stadium where Wasim Ahmed pointed
out to Mohd. Irfan a place near the dais and also place inside
the fenced area of north Pavilion where bombs were to be
planted. On 30.12.1994 at about 7:45 p.m., Mohd. Irfan and Wasim
Ahmed took out two explosive devices and khurpa and left for MAM
Stadium leaving Ghulam Nabi there. Both carried one explosive
device each and entered into the stadium along with ‘khurpa’.
Inside the stadium, they connected detonators and batteries to
the device and planted two explosive devices; one near the dais
and other near the fenced area of the Northern Pavilion after
digging the pits for each bomb. After planting the bombs, they
filled both the pits with earth and made shoe marks thereon to
avoid suspicion. Thereafter, both left for Tawi Bridge. Mohd.
Irfan concealed the ‘khurpa’ in the bushes near Tawi Bridge.
Thereafter, both Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed contacted Ghulam
Nabi and all three reached Pakistani Check Post Jhumian after
crossing the international border from where they were taken to
the ISI Office Sialkot. Maj. Tariq, Maj. Ibrahim, Maj. Aamir,
Capt. Farhan praised Wasim Ahmed and Mohd. Irfan for
accomplishing the task. As desired by Captain Farhan, Subedar
Anwar paid Rs. 5,000/- to Mohd. Irfan for the work done by him.
d) On 03.01.1995 said Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed were again
deputed by Mahboob-Ul-Haq to plant one time bomb of 10 Kg. and
two bombs of 5 Kg. each outside MAM Stadium, Jammu and pursuant
thereto they dug a pit on the main road leading to that stadium
and put the bomb weighing 10 Kg. on 09.01.1995. The other two
bombs of 5 Kg. each could not be put because of rains, which
bombs were then concealed near Tawi River.
e) On 26.01.1995 Mohd. Irfan, Mahboob-ul-Haq, Aamir-ul-Haq,
Amzad and 2/3 other Kashmiri boys were present in the office of
Jamait-e-Islami, Sialkot. They had waited for the news of bomb
explosions, killing of VIPs and general public in Jammu. At
about 12 noon they received news about the explosions in MAM
Stadium, in which lot of persons had been killed and several
other injured. After the incident, Maj. Tariq, Capt. Farhan,
Subedar Anwar called Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed and Mahboob-ul-Haq
to ISI Office, Sialkot and praised them for planting the bombs
and declared that their mission had been successful even though
the Governor of J&K had providentially escaped. On 30.01.1995
Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed and Mahboob-ul-Haq visited office of
Jamai-e-Islami, Muzaffarabad and met Salauddin, Chief of the
Hizbul Mujahideen who declared that their mission was to spread
terrorism in J&K which got fulfilled with the bomb explosions in
MAM Stadium. Salauddin awarded one shield and Rs. 10,000/- each
to Mohd. Irfan and Wasim Ahmed.
4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on
28.09.1995 in the Court of the Special Judge, Designated TADA Court,
Jammu (J&K) u/s 120-B RPC r/w section 302, 34, 307 RPC, 4 and 5 of the
Explosives Substances Act and section 3(2), 4 and 6 of the Act. The
charge sheet was filed against Mohammad Irfan @ Anwar, a Pakistani
National and other absconding accused. While the matter was pending
before the Trial Court, Ghulam Nabi Guide was arrested by J&K police
on 25.10.1995. Upon CBI making an appropriate application, custody of
Ghulam Nabi Guide was granted to CBI on 04.12.1995. While in custody,
said Ghulam Nabi Guide made a confessional statement which was
recorded by PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar Superintendent of Police, CBI on
18.12.1995 u/s. 15 of the Act wherein he confessed about his
involvement as also that of Mohd. Irfan, Wasim Ahmed Malik @ Hamid,
Major Tariq, Major Ibrahim, Major Amir, Captain Farhan, Subedar Anwar
(all of ISI, Pakistan), Ahmed Hassan, Commander of HM, Sialkot, Amir-
ul-Haq, Naib Commander, HM Sialkot and Zia Kashmiri R/o Kupwara, J&K
in the criminal conspiracy culminating in the explosions at the MAM
Stadium, Jammu 26.01.1955. Supplementary charge sheet was therefore
filed against him. During the pendency of the trial, in a jailbreak
said Mohd. Irfan escaped from high security jail. While the trial was
pending and had reached the concluding stage, another accused named
Wasim Ahmed Malik, who was marked as absconding accused, was arrested
on 15.01.2009. Since according to the prosecution there was sufficient
evidence in the form of confessional statements of Mohd. Irfan and
Ghulam Nabi Guide, said Wasim Ahmed Malik was supplied with copies of
all the relevant material and produced before the Trial Court. Thus
only two accused i.e. Ghulam Nabi Guide and Wasim Ahmed Malik, present
respondents, were tried while the others remained absconding.
5. The evidence led by prosecution during the trial was to prove
following aspects, namely:-
a) That there were three bomb explosions on 26.01.1995 at
10:20 a.m. at the places in question, i.e. near the dais and at
the site of public address system in MAM Stadium and on the main
road outside the Stadium.
b) That at the time of such bomb explosions, large gathering
had assembled while the Governor was addressing on the occasion
of Republic Day Celebrations.
c) That it resulted in death of eight persons and caused
grievous injuries to eighteen persons and disruption of the
Celebrations.
d) That the act in question was a terrorist act, within the
meaning of the Act.
e) That it was an act of conspiracy hatched by the accused
being tried before the court and by the absconding accused and
f) That the involvement of the accused before the court was
completely made out.
6. Various witnesses were examined and material was produced by the
prosecution to establish its case. Since the aspects (a) to (d)
mentioned in the preceding paragraph were never challenged, we refrain
from dealing with evidence pertaining to said aspects (a) to (d).
Proceeding on the basis that it was a terrorist act, where bomb
explosions were caused with the idea of terrorizing people in general
and those who had assembled there at the gathering in particular,
which resulted in loss of life of eight persons and injured eighteen
persons, we confine the discussion as regards aspects (e) to (f) i.e.
the role of the accused in the act in question. The trial Court had
also confined itself to the question whether involvement of the
respondents had been made out or not.
7. In order to bring home the involvement of the respondents the
prosecution relied upon the confessions of Mohd. Irfan and Ghulam Nabi
recorded under section 15 of the Act. Apart from such confessions and
the statements of these accused leading to recovery of certain facts,
no direct evidence could be placed on record. The evidence principally
relied upon by the prosecution can be summarized as under:
A) While in custody, accused Mohd. Irfan upon being
interrogated, made three disclosure statements, “EXPW-BD/2, EXPW-
S/3 and EXPW-S/2”. The testimony of PW86 Harbhajan Singh,
Investigating Officer shows that pursuant to these disclosure
statements two khurpas were recovered and identification of the
shop from where a khurpa was purchased was also got done. Those
khurpas were identified in court. The factum of such disclosure
and consequential recovery was also supported by panch witnesses
PW23 S.K. Sudan and PW24 Gautam Goyal. PW67 Rajesh Kumar,
Inspector, CBI also testified to similar effect.
B) On 22.04.1995 another disclosure statement “EXPW-BR” was
made by accused Mohd. Irfan leading to the recovery of a bomb
vide Seizure Memo Ext.PW/BR/1. The evidence of PW86 Harbhajan
Singh, PW67 Rajesh Kumar and panch witness PW26 B.R. Saraf were
relied upon in that behalf.
C) On 22.04.1995 Mohd. Irfan expressed his desire to confess
and was produced before PW2 Sharad Kumar, Superintendent of
Police. PW2 Sharad Kumar gave warning to the accused that the
confession could be used against him and also gave him time to
reflect. The accused was again presented before the witness on
23.04.1995 on which date the confessional statement Ext.PW-SK-3
of accused Mohd. Irfan was recorded by PW2 Sharad Kumar. The
gist of the confession and the facts as disclosed therein are
dealt with earlier. The confession of Mohd. Irfan clearly stated
about the roles of the confessing accused as well as the co-
accused.
D) After the arrest of Ghulam Nabi Guide, his custody was
granted to CBI on 04.12.1995. He having expressed his desire to
make a confessional statement, said Ghulam Nabi Guide was
produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar, Superintendent of Police,
CBI on 16.12.1995. The witness administered statutory warning
to the accused and also gave him time to rethink. The questions
were put to the accused which were replied by him and true
record thereof was made by the witness in Hindi. According to
the witness he had explained everything to the accused and after
recording of the statement, thumb impression of the accused was
taken on the statement. The accused was again produced before
the witness on 18.12.1995 and having expressed the desire to
make a confessional statement, his statement was recorded by the
witness. After recording of the statement, it was read over and
the accused was made to understand the statement whereafter
admitting the statement to be true the accused put his thumb
impression.
E) The confessing accused Ghulam Nabi Guide was produced in
the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 19.12.1995.
The confessional statement in original in a sealed cover was
also produced, for its onward submission to the Designated
Court, Jammu. The text of the letter was as under:
“Sir,
Kindly find enclosed herewith original statement (sealed)
of accused Ghulam Nabi Guide recorded under Section 15 TADA Act
in case RC. 1(S)/95/SIU.V for onward submission to the Hon’ble
Judge of Designated Court, Jammu. The accused has also been
brought.
Applicant
Sd/-
19.12.95
(S.K. Bhatnagar)
Supdt. Of Police, CBI,
SIC.II, New Delhi.”
F) On the same day, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu
passed the following order:
“Submitted in original to the Presiding Officer of
Designated Court under TADA. Sealed envelope is enclosed
herewith.” Sd/-
Chief Judicial Magistrate
JAMMU”
8. The trial court acquitted both the respondents of all the
charges leveled against them. The case of the prosecution as regards
explosion of bombs which resulted in the death of eight persons and
caused serious injuries to 18 persons was not disputed at all.
However, the trial court rejected the evidence regarding confessional
statement of Ghulam Nabi Guide on the ground that the confessional
statement was recorded in Hindi i.e. not in the language of the
accused. It observed that the safeguards provided in Rule 15 of the
Rules made under the Act were not adhered to and therefore, the
confessional statement of accused Ghulam Nabi Guide was required to be
discarded. The relevant observations of the trial court in this behalf
were as under:
“In the present case, the confessional statement has been
recorded in Hindi and not in the language of accused. PW
Habhajan Ram who is the Investigating Officer stated that he
cannot say whether accused Ghulam Nabi knows Hindi or not. In
any case, accused Ghulam Nabi being a Pakistan national, his
language cannot be Hindi. Even so, PW Sushil Kumar who is the
recording officer of the confessional statement of accused
Ghulam Nabi has stated that accused had given the statement in
Urdu and he had written the same in Hindi. No reason has been
given by the said witness as to why it was not practical to
record the confession of accused in Urdu. Even so, the record
does not show that Hindi is the language used by PW Sushil Kumar
for official purposes. Rather, the record would show that the
said witness Sushil Kumar uses English languages for official
purposes. This is apparent from the letter EXPW-SK/III written
by him to the CJM while forwarding the confession to the
Designated Court. And finally, the language of the Designated
Court is Urdu or English.”
9. The trial court further observed that as apart from such
confessional statement there was nothing else against said Ghulam Nabi
Guide, the accused was entitled to be acquitted. The other accused,
namely, Wasim Ahmed had not given any confessional statement and the
case against him completely depended upon the confessional statement
of co-accused Ghulam Nabi Guide. Consequently accused Wasim Ahmed was
also held entitled to be acquitted. The trial court thus acquitted
both the accused vide its judgment and order dated 02.03.2009, which
is challenged in the present appeal.
10. The record of the present appeal indicates that respondent Wasim
Ahmed Malik was duly served but chose not to engage any lawyer. It
was reported that respondent Ghulam Nabi Guide was residing in
Pakistan and was served through the concerned office of the Government
of India. However, no appearance was entered on behalf of Ghulam Nabi
Guide, though duly served. Consequently, Mr. Dushayant Parashar,
learned Advocate was requested to appear for respondent Ghulam Nabi
Guide under instructions from the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee. Since there was no appearance for respondent Wasim Ahmed
Malik by order dt. 12.03.2015, Mr. Dushayant Parashar was requested by
this Court to represent said Wasim Ahmed Malik as amicus curiae. We
must record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr.
Dushyant Parashar.
11. Appearing in support of the appeal Mr. P.K. Dey, learned
Advocate submitted:
(a) Confession of accused under Section 15 of the Act is a
substantive piece of evidence and can form the foundation for
conviction of an accused for the offences punishable under the Act.
(b) Such confession, subject to the conditions stipulated in Section
15 of the Act itself, can also be read against the co-accused and form
basis for his conviction.
(c) The confession recorded by PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar itself disclosed
that the entire statement was read over to the confessing accused and
only thereafter thumb impression of the confessing accused was taken
under the statement. Since the language used during such conversation
was Hindi which the confessing accused could understand, the recording
of the statement was done in Hindi and such recording was completely
in conformity with Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act.
(d) Lastly, soon after recording of the confession, the confessing
accused was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The
Confessional statement in a sealed cover was also produced for onward
transmission to the Designated Court. Thus, the guidelines also stood
completely complied with.
Mr. Dushayant Parashar, learned amicus curiae attempted to
support the judgment under appeal. The learned amicus curiae fairly
accepted that the document recording the confession itself disclosed
that the entire statement was read over and explained to the
confessing accused. He further fairly accepted that there was no
effective cross examination on this issue when PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar was
in the box.
12. Section 15(1) of the Act expressly makes confession of an
accused recorded by a Police Officer admissible in a trial of such
person, co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an offence punishable
under the Act. While upholding the constitutional validity of
Section 15(1) of the Act, this Court in Kartar Singh vs. State of
Punjab[1] specifically referred to the statutory obligation in Section
15(2) of the Act and conditions imposed in Rule 15 of the TADA Rules
in paras 258 and 259 respectively and then proceeded to lay down
certain guidelines in para 263.
The extent of admissibility of such confession under Section
15(1) of the Act as against a co-accused was considered by this Court
in State vs. Nalini & Others[2]. Wadhwa J. in para 424 observed as
under:
“424. In view of the above discussions, we hold the confessions
of the accused in the present case to be voluntarily and validly
made and under Section 15 of TADA confession of an accused is
admissible against a co-accused as a substantive evidence.
Substantive evidence, however, does not necessarily mean
substantial evidence. It is the quality of evidence that
matters. As to what value is to be attached to a confession will
fall within the domain of appreciation of evidence. As a matter
of prudence, the court may look for some corroboration if
confession is to be used against a co-accused though that will
again be within the sphere of appraisal of evidence.”
Quadri J. struck a similar note of caution in para 706 as under:
“706. It is also to be borne in mind that the evidence of
confession of a co-accused is not required to be given on oath,
nor is it given in the presence of the accused, and its veracity
cannot be tested by cross-examination. Though the evidence of an
accomplice is free from these shortcomings yet an accomplice is
a person who having taken part in the commission of offence, to
save himself, betrayed his former associates and placed himself
on a safer plank — “a position in which he can hardly fail to
have a strong bias in favour of the prosecution”, the position
of the accused who has given confessional statement implicating
a co-accused is that he has placed himself on the same plank and
thus he sinks or sails along with the co-accused on the basis of
his confession. For these reasons, insofar as use of confession
of an accused against a co-accused is concerned, rule of
prudence cautions the judicial discretion that it cannot be
relied upon unless corroborated generally by other evidence on
record.”
13. It is settled position in law that a confession recorded under
Section 15(1) of the Act in accordance with statutory requirements and
in keeping with the guidelines is admissible against the maker, his co-
accused, abettor or conspirator in a trial for an offence under the
Act, subject to the condition stipulated in the proviso to Section
15(1). Such confession is taken as substantive piece of evidence and
can form the foundation or basis for conviction of the maker, co-
accused, abettor or conspirator. However, the note of caution
struck by this Court is, insofar as use of confession of an accused
against a co-accused is concerned, rule of prudence would require
the Court not to rely thereon unless corroborated generally by other
evidence on record.
14. With these principles in mind, we now turn to the requirements
of Rule 15(1) of TADA Rules and the facts in the matter. Rule 15(1)
stipulates that the confession “shall invariably be recorded in the
language in which such confession is made and if that is not
practicable, in the language used by such police officer for official
purposes or in the language of the Designated Court ……”. The
expression “invariably” itself suggests that the requirement under the
Rule is discretionary and not mandatory. The record in the present
matter is very clear that the confessing accused Ghulam Nabi was
produced before PW1 S.K. Bhatnagar on 16.12.1995, was given statutory
warning and time to reflect. Everything was explained to him and only
thereafter his thumb impression was taken. On the next occasion when
the confessing accused was again produced before the witness, soon
after the recording of the confession it was again explained to him,
read over and only thereafter the thumb impression was taken. At no
stage during the recording on these two occasions, nor at the stage
when the witness was in the box, there is anything on record, or even
a suggestion that the confessing accused did not understand or was not
made to understand the contents of the confession. The contents of
the confession also disclose that many of the assertions are personal
to the confessing accused which could only be gathered after due
conversation with the Recording Officer.
15. The language used as a means of communication between the
confessing accused and the recording officer being Hindi or
Hindustani, such recording of confession in Hindi language is
completely in conformity with the requirement of the Rule. The
conclusion drawn by the trial court that Ghulam Nabi being Pakistani
national his language must be Urdu and therefore the recording of the
confession in a language other than Urdu, must be held to be not in
conformity, is wrong. Nothing has been placed on record that the
confessing accused did not understand the line of questioning or that
he was not made to understand the contents of the confession after the
recording was complete. In our view the assessment made by the trial
court in this behalf is completely incorrect and against the record.
16. We find no infirmity in the recording of confession by PW1 S.K.
Bhatnagar. The confession of accused Ghulam Nabi was recorded in
keeping with the guidelines issued by this Court and was in accordance
with the statutory requirement. Holding the confession to be
admissible, we have gone through the contents of the confession which
clearly admitted the guilt of the confessing accused and his
involvement right from the hatching of conspiracy to the execution
thereof. The confessing accused had spoken about various stages since
the conspiracy was hatched and how the confessing accused had helped
in transporting the explosive material from across the border and
then placed it in the pits, dug inside the stadium and on the main
road outside the stadium. The consequential explosion of the bombs
which was timed with the celebrations on account of Republic Day was
definitely designed to disrupt the celebrations and terrorize the
people in general and those who had gathered at the time of
celebration in particular. We, therefore, hold that from the
confession, the involvement of accused Ghulam Nabi in entering into
the conspiracy, execution and facilitation thereof is completely
made out. As held by this Court, the confession of an accused is a
substantive piece of evidence and his conviction can be founded on
such confession itself. We, therefore, hold Ghulam Nabi Guide to be
guilty of the offences with which he was charged.
17. However, as regards the other accused, namely, Wasim Ahmed
Malik, apart from the confession of Ghulam Nabi Guide that is to say
the confession of co-accused, nothing has been placed on record which
could lend corroboration as regards his role in the conspiracy and
execution thereof. We have minutely considered the material but
could not locate anything which could afford such corroboration.
Going by the rule of prudence as highlighted by this Court in the case
of State vs. Nalini (supra), we do not find any justification to
reverse the finding of acquittal as recorded in respect of said
Wasim Ahmed Malik. We, therefore, affirm the acquittal of Wasim
Ahmed Malik as recorded by the trial court in respect of the offences
with which he was charged.
18. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The acquittal of
Wasim Ahmed Malik is confirmed. However, the order of acquittal in
respect of Ghulam Nabi is set aside and said accused Ghulam Nabi Guide
is convicted of the offences with which he was charged. This being an
appeal against the decision of acquittal rendered by the trial court,
we deem it appropriate to issue notice to said Ghulam Nabi Guide on
the issue of sentence. The authorities are directed to produce said
Ghulam Nabi Guide before this Court so that appropriate opportunity to
address this Court on the sentence to be awarded to him, can be
afforded to him.
19. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. The
authorities are directed to ensure that Ghulam Nabi Guide is taken in
custody forthwith and brought before this Court for the hearing on
sentence.
20. We also direct the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to pay
to Mr. Dushyant Parashar Rs.20,000/- as remuneration for the
assistance rendered to this Court.
…………………………J.
(A.K. Sikri)
…………………………J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
July 01, 2015
———————–
[1] (1994)3 SCC 569
[2] (1999)5 SCC 253
Comments