New Delhi: Nearly 27 years after 13 people were killed and 38 injured in a bomb explosion at Delhi’s bustling bustling Lajpat Nagar market, the Supreme Court has handed down life sentence to four convicts for the remainder of their lives without remission, saying they executed an “international conspiracy” to “destabilise” India by carrying out the blast.
The top court, which dwelt in detail on the severity of the offence, however, did not agree with the prosecution’s plea that the convicts be awarded the death penalty for snuffing out innocent lives in the blast on May 21, 1996, news agency PTI reported.
ADVERTISEMENT
The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, in its 190-page judgement, spared the four convicts – Mohd Naushad, Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza, Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey and Javed Ahmed Khan the gallows on the ground of delay.
What did the court say?
* Though the offence “falls within the category of rarest of rare cases”, the delay of 27 years in all and 14 years in the trial court in deciding the case are the mitigating circumstances in favour of the convicts.
* In view of the severity of the offence resulting in the deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. Accused, if on bail, are directed to immediately surrender before the Court concerned and their bail bonds stand cancelled.
* Convicts Mirza Nissar Hussain alias Naza and Mohd Ali Bhatt alias Killey, who were earlier acquitted by the Delhi High Court, were asked to surrender to jail forthwith to serve the life term.
* The top court was very critical of the delay in the trial against the convicts and said it compromised the “national interest”.
* It said an expeditious trial of such cases is the need of the hour, especially when it concerns national security and the common man.
* The bench said it was forced to observe that this may be due to the involvement of “influential persons” which was evident from the fact that out of several accused only a few were put to trial.
* The matter ought to have been handled with urgency and sensitivity at all levels.
