Highest Ever Death Penalties Confirmed By A High Court : Read Reasons In 2008 Ahmedabad Blast Verdict
While confirming the death penalty imposed on 38 convicts in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case—the highest number of death sentences confirmed by a High Court in a single judgment—the Gujarat High Court held that the convicts had shown “no remorse” for their actions and displayed “scant regard for the rule of law.”Bombs went off in Ahmedabad on July 26, 2008, at various...
While confirming the death penalty imposed on 38 convicts in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blasts case—the highest number of death sentences confirmed by a High Court in a single judgment—the Gujarat High Court held that the convicts had shown “no remorse” for their actions and displayed “scant regard for the rule of law.”
Bombs went off in Ahmedabad on July 26, 2008, at various spots including the state government-run civil hospital, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation-run LG Hospital, on buses, parked bicycles, in cars and other places, killing 56 persons and injuring over 240.
The trial court had on February 8, 2022 declared 49 of the total 78 accused as guilty under various offences of the Indian Penal Code, including for murder, sedition and waging war against the state, as well as under offences of the UAPA and Explosive Substances Act, and awarded death penalty to 38 while awarding life sentence to 11.
A division bench of Justice AY Kogje and Justice Samir Dave in its 2223 page judgment, uploaded on Monday, examined the mitigating circumstances pertaining to each of the 38 death-row convicts before affirming the sentence.
Observing that the convicts had not expressed remorse, the bench, while discussing the role of accused Ahmed Bava, said:
"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the role played by the accused in facilitating the terror attack which caused consequences that have continued long after the explosions occurred and created a scar in the minds of the families of the deceased, the victims and the society at large, and also considering the criminal antecedents of the accused and the jail proceedings initiated against him including his consistent participation in anti-national activity shows scant regards for the rule of law as well as no remorse therefore , the Court is satisfied that the sentence of death penalty deserves to be imposed upon the accused and accordingly, we hereby confirm the sentence of death penalty".
Making similar observations in respect of the remaining convicts, the Court confirmed the death penalty awarded by the trial court. Upholding the life sentences imposed on 11 others, the bench noted that “throughout the course of trial and during the hearing of their appeals, the accused persons have not exhibited any remorse.”
The Court also directed the State to pay compensation of ₹10 lakh to the family of each deceased victim, ₹5 lakh to victims who suffered grievous injuries or permanent disability, and ₹1 lakh to those who suffered simple injuries. The compensation process has been directed to be completed by March 31, 2027.
Conspiracy
On the aspect of existence of conspiracy the court held that the most prominent form of “Conspiracy” found by the world at large are the conspiracies driven by “fanaticism”, where the object is shared by the common understanding of their scriptures, culture or even upbringing and the prevailing circumstances commonly affecting a section of society united by their unique but common understanding.
The court said that the word “Jihad” was frequently used in the meetings of the accused persons, which has to be understood in the perspective of the persons using it and the place where it is being used.
"Therefore, use of word Jihad to take revenge in the meetings would have to be understood in context for causing Terror in a particular section (Hindus in present case) of the Society by causing en mass damage to life and property by targeted activity...This circumstance (Serial Blast) is sufficient to conclude that this crime is an outcome of a well guarded conspiracy with deep rooted motive...The locations being crowded market areas with dominated Hindu populations is to cripple the system and burden the public authority, which actually happened as an aftermath".
The Court further held that planting explosive-laden vehicles near the trauma centre of Civil Hospital, timed to coincide with the arrival of blast victims, demonstrated an intention to maximise casualties and terrorise the public.
Calling the successive explosions the “single most convincing evidence” of a terror attack, the bench reiterated that not every conspirator needed to know the entire plot or participate in bomb-making and planting. It found that the accused shared the common objective of spreading terror and “avenging damage to Muslims and establishing Islamic rule by committing 'jihad'.”
Radicalization of individuals
Referring to terrorist activities across the world and the manner of execution the court said:
"Terror activities across the World have seen variety of methods be it car bombs, flying planes into twin towers, even running down the heavy vehicles into a crowded street or radicalizing an individual to become a human bomb. One such method evolved is radicalizing by using narrative of injustice to Muslims as a religion and attack on them by the instrumentalities of Government and using such narrative to instigate young persons into a drastic action with adding a glamour of adventure and heroic treatment in anticipation."
Holding that the prosecution had successfully established the charge of criminal conspiracy under Sections 120A and 120B IPC, the Court said there was “no iota of doubt” that the offence was the product of a conspiracy that had developed over time.
Involvement of SIMI and IM
Rejecting the defence argument that there was no evidence linking the accused to banned organisations such as SIMI and the Indian Mujahideen, the Court observed that membership of such organisations could not be proved through “application forms or registers”.
Rather, it held that association with SIMI and its activities could be inferred from witness testimonies, confessional statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, SIMI literature, SDS reports and other documentary evidence.
"Therefore, the requirement is the perception of the individual himself and other witnesses considering him to be part of the activities being undertaken by a group of persons sharing common object...In the opinion of the Court, the present crime appears to be an outcome of coordinated efforts of the accused who were driven by the projected objectives of SIMI and I.M." Court said.
Chain of circumstances leading to the crime
The Court traced the conspiracy to a “terror camp” held at Vagamon in Kerala, where individuals from different parts of the country allegedly underwent physical, religious and weapons training, including training in bomb-making.
It relied on forensic evidence showing the use of electric circuits in the improvised explosive devices and noted that the accused had been assigned different tasks as part of the conspiracy, including procuring materials and gas cylinders used in the blasts.
Referring to witness statements and panchnamas prepared at the instance of the accused, the Court found that the prosecution had established the existence of meetings, the participation of the accused and the commonality of purpose behind those meetings.
The Court thus concluded that these circumstances demonstrated a “meeting of minds” and a shared criminal objective.
It however deferred execution of the death sentences for three months under Section 415 CrPC to enable the convicts to approach the Supreme Court.
Case title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s JAHID @ JAVED KUTUBUDDIN SHAIKH & ORS.
R/CRIMINAL CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 2 of 2022, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1710 of 2022, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1917 of 2022, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1710 of 2023, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2106 of 2023, R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 727 of 2024
Counsel for State: Mitesh Amin, Special Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr. Amit Patel, Special Public Prosecutor And Mr Kshitij Amin, Special Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondents: Mr Somnath Vatsa With Mr Arjun M Joshi, Advocates, Ms Nitya Ramakrishnan, Senior Advocate Assisted By Ms Stuti Rai And Mr Arjun M. Joshi, Advocates, Mr Hriday Buch (2372) With Mr Khalid G Shaikh, Advocates, Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhary With Ms Payoshi Roy, Mr Mohammed Hasan Nizami, Siddharth Sharma And Mr Khalid G Shaikh, Advocates; Mr S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate Assisted By Ms Payoshi Roy, Mr Mohammed Hasan Nizami And Mr Khalid G Shaikh, Advocates; Mr Tejas Barot, Senior Advocate Assisted By Mr Khalid G Shaikh, Advocates For; Mr Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate Assisted By Ms Sanskruti Yagnik And Mr Khalid G. Shaikh; Mr Abhay Thipsay, Senior Advocate Assisted By Mr Ashutosh Abhay Thipsay, Mr Abhinav Sekhri, Ms Sowjhanya Shankaran, Ms Deeksha Dwivedi, Ms Arshiya Ghose, Mr Gaganjyot Singh, Mr Ronith Joy, Mr Vishvesh Acharya, Mr Utkarsh Dave And Mr Piyush M. Vala, Advocates.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 188