1996 Ghaziabad Bus Blast | Confession To Police Inadmissible : Allahabad High Court Acquits Man 'With Heavy Heart'

A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra allowed the criminal appeal filed by Ilyas observing that no legally admissible evidence remained against the appellant once his confession to police was excluded.

The Bench recorded that it was passing the order of acquittal "with heavy heart" as the case was of such propensity that it shocked the conscience of the society as 18 innocent persons lost their life in the 'terrorist' plot.

Case in brief

According to the FIR a Roorkee depot bus left from Delhi on 27 April 1996 at 15:55 hours with around 53 passengers. 14 more passengers boarded at Mohan Nagar.

At around 5 PM, just after crossing the Modinagar Police Station (Ghaziabad), a powerful explosion occurred in the front portion of the bus which caused the death of 10 persons on the spot and injuries to about 48 passengers.

Post-mortem reports showed metal pieces lodged in the bodies and doctors opined that the deaths were due to shock and hemorrhage due to excessive bleeding caused by a bomb blast.

A forensic examination confirmed that RDX mixed with carbon had been placed in the front part of the bus in the left side, beneath the seat of the driver and that the blast was triggered through a remote switch.

The prosecution case alleged that the attack was executed by Abdul Mateen @ Iqbal, a Pakistani national and alleged District Commander of Harkat-ul-Ansar, in conspiracy with Mohammad Ilyas (appellant) and Tasleem.

It was also alleged that Ilyas (appellant), originally from Muzaffarnagar but residing in Ludhiana, was indoctrinated by elements in Jammu and Kashmir and had conspired to plant the bomb.

In 2013, the trial court acquitted co-accused Tasleem but convicted Ilyas (appellant) and Abdul Mateen under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 427/34, 120-B, 121-A, 124-A IPC, and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Both were sentenced to life imprisonment along with various terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines.

No State appeal was filed against Tasleem's acquittal. There was also no information on whether Abdul Mateen filed an appeal. Thus, the High Court heard only Ilyas' appeal.

High Court's analysis and order

The central issue before the High Court was the admissibility of a confessional statement allegedly made by Ilyas.

For context, following his arrest in Ludhiana in June 1997, the police claimed that Ilyas had confessed to planting the bomb in the presence of his father and brother. This statement was recorded by the IO, a Sector Officer of the CB-CID on an audio cassette.

But before examining its legality, the Bench noted that 34 prosecution witnesses were examined, including the injured passengers, eyewitnesses, inquest witnesses, medical witnesses and multiple investigating officers.

It further noted that though the passengers and eyewitnesses proved the incident, but none could identify who planted the explosive, as the bomb was placed before the bus left the ISBT Delhi, which made the identification impossible.

The division bench also observed that witnesses who were projected as having heard extra-judicial confessions, turned hostile and they denied any such confession or gave contradictory versions. 

Now, regarding the question of admissibility of Ilyas' confession to police, the bench said that that the audio-recorded confessional statement allegedly made by Ilyas before a Senior Police Officer (PW-11) was inadmissible.

To hold thus, the bench rejected the argument of the prosecution that under Section 15 of the TADA Act, a confession made to a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police is admissible.

The HC pointed out a crucial chronological fact: the blast occurred in April 1996, after TADA had ceased to be operational and thus, it held, the special exception provided under Section 15 of TADA, which allowed police confessions to be used as evidence, was not applicable to this case.

The Bench observed:

"Therefore, in the present case, the confession recorded by the Senior Police Officer… will not be permitted to be proved under law due to embargo created by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872".

For context, Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

Importantly, the Court added that the device (tape recorder) on which the statement was allegedly recorded was not produced before the court as a material exhibit.

Once the confessional statement was excluded, the Court noted, no incriminating material appeared against the appellant which could prove his complicity in the offence.

The Court further noted that railway tickets showing his travel to Jammu Tawi and a diary containing the name of one Salim Kari were insufficient to connect Ilyas with the crime.

Thus, summarizing its conclusions, the Bench 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 proprety i.e. this bus. The findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the sentence awarded to the appellant are accrdingly liable to be set aside".

Consequently, the Court set aside the 2013 judgment and ordered that Ilyas be released immediately, unless wanted in another case and he must furnish a personal bond and two sureties under Section 437-A CrPC after release.

Despite the acquittal, the Bench expressed anguish over the nature of the case:

"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".

The appeal was allowed and Ilyas, who had remained in custody throughout the appeal's pendency, was acquitted of all charges.