‘Witness planted… bills fabricated’: In Jaipur blasts case, HC doubt on prosecution’s proof led to acquittals

Unconvinced by the prosecution’s case, a division bench of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Sameer Jain on Wednesday acquitted Ansari and three others — Mohammed Sarvar Azmi, Mohammed Saif and Mohammed Salman — flagging a “botched investigation” caused by “institutional failure”.

Calling the bicycle seller a “planted witness”, the HC set aside a 2019 trial court order that had sentenced Ansari and the three others to death, flagging several anomalies and even questioning the credibility of the identification parades held to identify the accused.

Terming the investigation “shoddy” and “not fair”, the court also directed the Rajasthan police chief to act against the erring investigating officers.

“The statement of the witness that he cannot remember the face of any other customer as mentioned in the bill book and that he recognizes only the person who had purchased cycle on 13.05.2008 goes to show that he is a planted witness, who was asked on purpose to identify Saifurrehman,” the HC Bench said in its judgment.

“It is also evident that the police personnel were present at the time of the test identification parade, which casts serious doubts on the sanctity of the test identification parade,” the judgment further said.

“The evidence pertaining to the test identification parade needs to be discarded as sale of cycle has not been established, test identification parade was conducted after inordinate delay, the same was conducted in the presence of police officials, the possibility that the accused was shown to the witness cannot be ruled out.”

The judgment further said: “The witnesses had cloudy memory as they deposed before the Court 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 was humanly impossible and thus, their evidence is disbelieved by the Court.”

Apart from acquitting the four accused, the HC also upheld the trial court’s acquittal of Shahbaz Hussain in 2019. The state government had appealed Shahbaz’s acquittal. The HC noted it could not rule out the possibility that while in police custody Shahbaz was shown to a witness who later ‘identified’ him at an identification parade.

The court also said that this particular witness, whose residence as shown in the notice is Sahibabad, around 400 km from Jaipur, was served summons on the same day on which they were issued (September 2, 2008) and he appeared in the jail for the parade on the next day. The court said that this clearly goes to show that the witness was in Jaipur itself where the notices were served on him.

The court further added that while the prosecution case mentioned that the cycles on which the bombs were planted were purchased on May 13, the day of the blast, the date on one of the bills showed the previous day’s date.

“The bill is dated 12.05.2008 whereas as per the prosecution case cycles were purchased on 13.05.2008. In the bill book, in bill nos. 3406, 3407, 3408, 3409 and 3412 in carbon copy, dates have been changed with ink. These bills are just preceding bill No.3411 and one bill is succeeding bill No.3411.The corrections were not made in the main bill and have been made in the carbon copy. Thus, there is fabrication of the documents,” said the court.

The court added that the disclosure of Saif, recorded in October 2008 after he was arrested following the Batla House (Delhi) encounter case, was made many months after the bomb blasts.

“The disclosure statement of Mohammad Saif in this case was made many months after the bomb blasts and no conspiracy was subsisting as on the date of disclosure. Otherwise also, in the disclosure statement, generic muslim names were used and they did not disclose the identity of the co-conspirators. Admittedly, the case rests on circumstantial evidence and till the arrest of Mohammad Saif, the prosecution had no link or clue with regard to the bomb blasts,” said the court.

Another area where the court questioned the prosecution was in the name of the company of one of the cycles allegedly used in the blast.

“Complainant– Manoj Kumar (PW-1), who is the main witness in this case has deposed that the blast took place on a red coloured ‘PENY’ cycle. There is no suggestion to this witness or any other witness that 2 blasts occurred near Hanuman Temple, Chandpole Bazar. This ‘PENY’ cycle, as per Manoj Kumar Gupta (PW-5), who is a salesman, was sold vide Exhibit-P9 to one Abhijeet on 13.05.2008. The prosecution instead of arresting Abhijeet, who had purchased the ‘PENY’ cycle on 13.05.2008 has shifted the entire case upon Mohammad Sarvar Azmi on the ground that a damaged ATLAS cycle was seized from Chandpole Hanuman Temple and that cycle was purchased by Rajhans Sharma, who according to the prosecution, is Mohammad Sarvar Azmi,” said the court.

“It is indeed very strange that the prosecution’s case is that two blasts took place near Chandpole Hanuman Temple whereas as per the testimony of eyewitnesses adduced by the prosecution before the Court, as narrated above, only one explosion took place near Chandpole Hanuman Temple and that too on a ‘PENY’ cycle,” the court added.

“Learned trial Judge has ignored this material piece of evidence of the above-named prosecution witnesses, that only one blast took place near Chandpole Hanuman Temple and that too, on a ‘PENY’ cycle, which as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sold to Mohammad Sarvar Azmi,” the court has said while acquitting the accused.