Arshad Shaikh studies the recent judgment by the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which overturned the trial court’s order that awarded death sentence to the four accused in the Jaipur blasts case. While the judgment is a shot in the arm for justice, even though it was delayed by 15 years, the exoneration casts a shadow of aspersion on our law and order machinery and justice dispensation system. The case also raises some disturbing questions. Who will compensate for the lost years of the accused? Will the investigation into the blasts begin afresh as the perpetrators are still at large? Will the government have the spine to punish the police officers guilty of framing the accused, as mentioned in the judgment? Will this verdict affect the prospects of the release of the accused in similar cases? The answers to these questions may well decide the course of our democracy and the safety of our civil liberties.
The judgment delivered by the Jaipur division bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 29 March 2023 in the Jaipur bomb blast case (2008) reminds one of the legal maxim – “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Sameer Jain set aside the earlier judgment of the trial court, which convicted Mohammed Sarvar Azmi, Mohammed Saif, Saifurrehman Ansari, and Mohammed Salman. The High Court also upheld the acquittal of Shahbaz Hussain by the same trial court. The four men may walk free after spending nearly 15 years in incarceration.
Undoubtedly, Justices Bhandari and Jain have delivered a landmark judgment. In the words of Advocate Syed Sadat Ali, President of APCR Rajasthan and part of the legal team representing the exonerees – “The verdict breathes new hopes into the judicial system through this acquittal order.” However, it is also “a perfect example of the institutional failure of administering justice.”
The pattern is all too similar – blasts, arrests, lengthy trials, and finally exoneration. The acquittal brought the spotlight on the callous approach in which the investigation and trial of blasts of such magnitude was conducted.
There are many questions waiting to be answered. What will the government do to compensate for the lost years of the accused? Will the investigation into the blasts begin afresh as those responsible remain at large? Will the government “direct the Director General of Rajasthan Police to initiate appropriate Enquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings against the erring officers of the Investigating Team?” How will this judgment affect the prospects of acquittal for so many other young men arrested for their alleged involvement in other blasts?
THE CASE BUILT BY THE PROSECUTION
Jaipur was rocked by a series of bomb blasts on 13 May 2008, killing 71 people and injuring another 185. Bombs were placed on brand-new bicycles at crowded places like markets, temples, and police stations. The bombs were packed with nails and pellets and synchronised to blast at specific times within a span of 15 minutes to cause maximum damage.
On 13 September 2008, exactly four months after the Jaipur blasts, there were serial bomb blasts at five places in New Delhi. Five days later, the police arrested Mohammed Saif from Batla House, where an encounter took place with other alleged terrorists Atef Ameen and Chota Sajid. Both Atef and Sajid were killed in the encounter. On 2 October 2008, Mohammed Saif made a disclosure statement recorded by the Delhi Police. As per the disclosure, Saif admitted his active involvement in the Jaipur blasts. On 11 May 2008, he along with nine others (including Atef and Sajid) allegedly conducted a “recce” of the spots where the bombs would be planted. They returned to Batla House to make the bombs the following day and on 13 May came back to Jaipur in different groups by bus to plant the bombs. They returned to New Delhi the same evening by Ajmer Shatabdi Train under fake Hindu names.
Saifurrehman Ansari also made a disclosure statement that corroborated Mohammed Saif’s. According to the prosecution, Saifurrehman purchased a bicycle used in the blasts. The shopkeeper identified him in an identification parade. Thus, almost the entire case in framing Saif, Saifurrehman, Sarwar, and Salman rested on two confessional statements and the identification of one alleged terrorist by the bicycle shopkeeper.
DAMAGING OBSERVATIONS
Some of the observations in the verdict are – “The witnesses deposed that they cannot identify purchasers, who had purchased cycles few days back, in those circumstances, seeing a purchaser for few minutes and then identifying him after many months and due to non-production of sketches, their evidence was disbelieved by the Court. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Saifurrehman came to Jaipur in the name of Ajay Singh, planted the cycle and left by Ajmer Shatbadi Train on the same day.
“Admittedly, the case rests on circumstantial evidence and till arrest of Mohammad Saif, the prosecution had no link or clue with regard to the bomb blasts. The cases of all the accused as per the prosecution version is so interlinked that each chain is required to be established. In the deliberations made above, we have come to the conclusion that none of the link in the chain is established so as to bring home conviction of the accused, rather not a single link has been established before the Court.
“There are clear-cut manipulations and fabrications in the material evidence. Since, manipulations have been made in the bills, the bill book cannot be considered as having been maintained in ordinary course of business. The witnesses were unable to depose when these corrections were made and why these corrections were made only in the bills.
“It is apparent that the investigation was not fair and it appears that nefarious means were employed by the Investigating Agencies, material witnesses required to unfold the events were withheld and apparent manipulations and fabrications have been done during the investigation.
“We therefore deem it proper, in interest of society, justice and morality, to direct the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to initiate appropriate enquiry/disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers of the investigating team.”
ELUSIVE JUSTICE
It is difficult to imagine what must be going through the minds of the kith and kin of those who died and suffered injuries in the Jaipur blasts on the fateful evening of 13 May 2008. As the accused stand exonerated after 15 years, it means those who conspired and carried out the deadly act of terror are still at large. Thus, justice remains elusive for the relatives of the victims of the blasts.
Addressing the media, the Vice President of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Prof Salim Engineer said, “We feel that the erring police officers and the investigating team are not only responsible for wrongly incarcerating the exonerees for 15 years but also for the real terrorists and conspirators being free and successful in evading arrest. This is not mere negligence, but we suspect that it is an attempt to shield the real terrorists and hence we demand that the investigation into the Jaipur blasts should be carried out once again. Also, those exonerated must receive suitable compensation from the government for the 15 years that they served in jail causing irreparable damage to their lives, their careers and their reputation.”
This demand for compensation is ratified by Article 14(6) and Article 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of India is yet to take the lead in ensuring monetary compensation for wrongful prosecutions. India needs to follow the advice of Benjamin Franklin if it wants to improve its record in dispensing justice. The founding father of the United States said, “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”